Feb
09 2010
richarddawkins.net – This is the uncut interview with Randolph Nesse from the ‘The Genius of Charles Darwin’ presented by Richard Dawkins. Randolph Nesse is the author of ‘Why We Get Sick The New Science of Darwinian Medicine” ( www.amazon.com ) richarddawkins.net will soon be releasing a collection of all the uncut interviews from The Genius of Charles Darwin, so be sure to check out our store ( richarddawkins.net ) for that title and other exclusive dvds, t-shirts, and more. The Genius of Charles Darwin won “Best TV Documentary Series of 2008″ at the British Broadcast Awards.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:08 am
5 30 i would add that it makes beauty
February 9th, 2010 at 6:03 am
Is that why the most arrogant fools become atheist? It feeds their ego? I haven’t heard of an atheist who wasn’t a condcending pompous.
“Were they created of nothing, or were they them selves the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.”
February 9th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Big words aren’t your friends, I take it.
I would seriously question which of us is “denying” here. There isn’t evidence for design. There is evidence which supports a well established theory. I am completely open to evidence for design – please, reference it! Where is it? Point to an example which isn’t explained by the elegance of current evolutionary theory! Point to the illogic of my statement. Show me where anything supernatural “designed” life. All you do is refute!
February 9th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Don’t use that bio jargon to make it sound logical.
“Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” Plantinga
February 9th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Has science, in all its studies, ever showed that life can come to exist spontaniously, from purely non living material?
Regardless, everything we need is here, and it’s exactly where it needs to be. If the moon was 10% further from the earth, it would have devastating effects on the eath.
The Sun, the Moon, and the earth all work in hormony to give the perfect balance.
You say, “life creates itself.” That’s “science gap hypoth,” lol
February 9th, 2010 at 8:17 am
1. Yes. Though this largely depends on your definition of “living substance.” In truth, we are just VERY complex sets of chemical reactions. The fundamentl research has been done though. Google the Miller & Urey experiments, and subsequent verification de by Jeffrey Bada.
2. Similar to the archea – they likely evolved from self-replicating proteins (think prions) or segments of RNA which likely assembled into rRNA and ribosomal ancestors.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Good! Investigate those questions. That’s the beauty of science. If (when) there are holes in a theory, those bright enough to spot them are encouraged to find the evidence to refute the theory. That way a more robust explanation can take it’s place and we can continue gaining information about the world we live in. Your two previous statements are invalid, by the way – but thanks for playing!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Um… Down’s syndrome?
Plasmid transfer, genetic conjugation in bacteria? Viral reverse transcription? The lysogenic cycle of viral infection? Any of these ringing bells? You need an education in science before you can even begin to try to refute it.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:28 am
You are kidding, right? “Some” being every peer-reviewed journal of natural science, and “evidence” being volumes of empirical observational data solidifying every aspect of the theory from molecular to cellurar/organismal evolution. I would love to see you submit a theory for your god which would stand up to the scrutiny which evolutionary theories have.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:00 am
The proof? He’s communicated with us with hundreds of messengers, all with the same message, the same religion., with slight modifications appropriate for that time and place.
As for prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allaah be upon him), he was an illiterate, unlearned man, with a book that describes everything in detail.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:15 am
In order for anything to exist, there has to be a first. That first has to be eternal, because a spontanious existence doesn’t make sense. That eternal being must be free of all needs and completely independent. Based on the greatness and precision of the universe, the causer must be wise and capable.
We all agree, evil exists. Corruption exists. Injustice exists. If there’s a God, surely he wouldn’t allow this to be the end.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:52 am
@lightuponlight87 You have exemplified special pleading in your argument. “The same rules don’t apply.” Why not? Who define’s god’s rules? You? God? How about god’s god? Where is your evidence for the afterlife?
February 9th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Thank you. I hope you the same.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I disagree.
I’ll close with a parting word of peace and fair winds fellow traveller.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Well your moral reasoning isn’t the standard. Even if you were correct, for arguments sake, that still wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
Even if he willed to be unjust, and harm us, who could stop him? His kindness, justice, and fairness is a priviledge.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I still think its imorral to cause needless suffering. If god wants the child take it. No reason for 3 year olds to suffer.
Still immoral in my book.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Immoral for us. The same rules don’t apply to God. He gives life as he wishes, and he takes it as He wishes.
Besides, who said that’s the end for the 3 year old? There’s a hereafter. That’s the point. The disbelievers in prophet Muhammad’s (peace and blessing of Allaah be upon him) unanimously believed in God’s existence. But they didn’t believe in the hereafter. The constant argument given in the Quran is the fact that it would then make life unjust.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Giving a 3 year old cancer and watching as they die is immoral.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
First off, that’s not common. If you have any children, you would know that the chances of her being a healthy child are extremely high.
Secondly, as I said before, that’s life. Where’s the test, where’s the motivation, without pain and suffering?
But all pain, and all pleasures soon come to an end. Life is short. In the day of judgement, everything will be indifferent, except for our deeds.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
At the end, we will be judged by God. He’s fully aware of what test he put his creation through. Paradise and Hell are at stake.
When Hell and Paradise are brought to view, every man and woman will remember their deeds.
You miss calculate the value of this life. We don’t know true pleasure, or pain.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
There are only 2 responses he can come up with for that, and those in themselves defies that his design-idea works.
That is, the more unfortunate people that wont get the same chances as us to redeem themselves will be excused and provided a free ticket to heaven regardless of their previous actions.
Either that or they will simply be sent to hell for not passing the test that some of them might not even be aware of.
Both seems too flawed to be put into motion. Not a god of love would do that.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
If this design as you call it works just fine then how come people aren’t geting the same test or the same chances of living through the test? I mean, you probably live a quite comfortable and average wealthed life. What about people in poorer conditions on the planet? What about people in warzones? People geting killed by natural disasters, stillborn babies, people who will never know about any religion and so on? Are they destined to hell?
Doesn’t seem like this design works for everybody..?
February 9th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I dont mind death. Its the useless suffering that makes no sense.
Of what value is there in the suffering a 3 year old girl dying of cancer in pain in 6 months?
February 9th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
It’s a great design. This design works. Death is part of life. Who says the design was intended to be flawless? A flawless design would be paradise. This life is not paradise, nor was it intended to be. It’s a test. To place us all where we belong according to our actions.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yes the earth is the only planet we know to support life. Yes at some point it did not exist.
What does this prove?
For every statement you can make about the earth being amazing to support life I would also point out that 3/4 of the earth we cannot live on, most wild animals will kills us, diseases and viruses are superior to humans. Even on this planet most of that is desert or mountains and cannot be lived upon. We spend 33% of our lives comatose. Women die giving birth. This design sucks.