Richard Dawkins and the Spectacle of Evolution

Is evolution spectacular? Are we missing some or even significant  amount of the necessary information before we can make such bold claims? Are people that have doubts just too stupid and unable to understand what Evolution is?

And now for some more advertising for those who are truly interested in asking searching questions. I have found this post and as it very much brings same sentiments I have about the theory I though I will include small paragraph with link to the rest of the post and I would highly recommend that you should look at the other material linked to this blog.

By Dr  Cornelius Hunter

“Richard Dawkins’ new book about evolution is aptly titled The Greatest Show On Earth, for evolution is an incredible show. In fact it is a spectacle. Evolutionists routinely make false claims, commit logical fallacies, and contradict themselves, all with the air of absolute confidence. But this is not all. This spectacle has been on stage for centuries now, and the players have remained oblivious to their blunders. We may as well be watching a group of belligerent teenagers for some sign of intelligence. Here are some of the latest absurdities from this greatest show on earth”.

To get the full post go here;

Kind regard

Defend the word


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Richard Dawkins and the Spectacle of Evolution

  1. 1minionsopinion says:

    Are you going to read it for yourself, or just post articles slamming its worth? I’ve started it. I’m only chapter 2 now but so far all he’s discussed is labradoodles and other specialized dog breeding and how that relates to natural selection. Every dog has come from a wolf at some point, but people and breeders have picked certain traits in certain dogs until all the breeds exist as separate genetic islands. Nature does the same thing, but it takes longer and it’s all with no thought as to an outcome at all. Unlike dog breeders who may seek to encourage certain looks and skills for a pedigree dog.

    It’s looking good. I might have to buy it so I can scribble in the margins without getting fined by my library. Heh.

  2. tildeb says:

    If Hunter can validate his religious theory of creation, he will add to science. If he continues this petty sniping by misrepresenting the honest work and public statements of others, he deserves to be the pariah he is. I will follow his blog Darwin’s God and continue to read the comments from those who take the time to reveal just how much Hunter misrepresents what others say. It is quite enlightening.

  3. tildeb says:

    May I suggest you watch a wonderful hour long presentation by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss who explains easy to understand terms how we get something from nothing at:

  4. harry says:

    ‘Is evolution spectacular? Are we missing some or even significant amount of the necessary information before we can make such bold claims? Are people that have doubts just too stupid and unable to understand what Evolution is?’

    No, no one is to stupid to understand it. Its almost always one of three cases…

    1: they dont understand it because they dont care about it, which accounts for about 80% of people

    2: There are people who are brainwashed from birth into a religious doctrine that forbids the input of anything that is even considered to go against their worldview

    3: People who have a genuine thirst for knowledge, type in evolution on the internet and get a huge variety of pro-evolution and pro-creationist material to read from. However, because these people lack the basic fundamentals of science education, they treat all the sources as the same, they can not see the basic errors in work, and parrot others when accusing others of error.

    Like most amatuer researchers, they want to get into the thick of it as soon as possible, and jump straight into the deep end.

    That 2nd and 3rd one summed up by a particularly idiot creationist I once met who said to me

    ‘I have been dealing with absolute morons like you all my life, I have been carrying the torch of truth to all you blinded fools who consider evolution a fact, you just need to read these books to know the truth….’

    Unfortunately for him, I did go and read those books, 2 of them were childrens picture books written by the discovery institute and the third he couldnt possibly have read because it supported evolution. He was blinded as in 2, and so scientifically out of depth in what he was doing because he thought it was perfectly fine to quote picture books in a scientific debate.

  5. I love your politically skilled approach, but note that never the less what you propose is bunch of incompetent second rate so called scientist. But your assertion may just as well be about the banana man, or turning it the other way around I could shout same old staff that Evolutionists are the group of radically brainwashed zealots.

    On the issue of amateur work, could you please spell out your credentials, before you tell me that I’m not professional (Which is correct, I am only an amateur enthusiast on this subject) but if you are a school teacher that most certainly does not place you in any higher position then the rest of us. Otherwise what are you doing wasting your voluble time here?

    Your outburst at the “Idiot Creationist” is also telling, whilst you may have good reason to think that in one particular case someone was overreacting or simply just plain wrong I don’t have all the information to be qualified judge about this so I will refuse to be drawn into such arguments.

  6. harry says:

    I didn’t outburst at the idiotic creationist. Infact, I never saw him again, I merely looked at the books after we parted ways. I didn’t shout, I just smiled and nodded.

    My credentials? Probably the same as yours, except I understand the scientific process. I have a degree in engineering, which has given me those scientific skills. I dont know what yours is in, if you have one, but I assume its not a science based subject.

    I will hold my hands up now and say I may very well be no more or less qualified than you are.

    When I told you to go take up some science courses, you took offence, I had no shame in admitting that I am now doing the same thing. I told you I was taking an A level in Biology. Why? Because I want to understand evolution even better than I do.

    You are in a ‘debate’ with heavyweight scientists who are out of mine and yours depth. You don’t tackle their scientific arguments, because you cant, you attack other things, like the media frenzy around that fossil.

    I actually have very little beef with amatuer research. Notice what I said Above and PAY ATTENTION COS THIS IS IMPORTANT

    ”However, because these people lack the basic fundamentals of science education,” BASIC FUNDAMENTALS of SCIENCE education.

    You can do all the research that you want. More power to you. You have an interest in how you got here which is more than the 80% of people in catagory 1 can say.

    I just beg you to find a website which has nothing to do with evolution or creationism and look up what Theory means, what hypothesis actually means, what Law means, what an experiment must entail. What constitutes proof of….xxxx. What a fair test is.

    Even I have to remind my self of the precise definitions sometimes to these words, and what they entail.

    Then look at what you are reading about and question it. You do it to evolution plenty, but question the creationist and ID stuff you read. What allows them to say that? Should I take it at face value? You will find that any paper on evolution meets the criteria for good science, ID does not. And it doesn’t take anyone with CREDENTIALS to be able to tell that, just somebody with a good understanding of science

    I was not criticisng amateur research, I was pointing out, by its nature, people tend to jump in. Which is why I have taken the specific act of of taking an A Level in Biology. ie start at the begining.

    It’s like our first ever interaction. On the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is the core element of an engineering degree. The whole creationist assertion that the 2nd law prevents evolution is rubbish. Yet creationists refer to it as the ‘debate’.

    It is not a debate, at all. Anyone with a qualification in the relevant area knows that. It is just wrong, there is no other way of saying it. The assertion evolution goes against the 2nd law of dynamics is just a bogus statement, full stop. It can not be debated, the case is closed (unlike the system lolol).

    Give yourself these fundamentals, then wade in to the ‘debate’.

    Then you will be able to see the bogus arguments immediately, coming from either side.

  7. Well thanks for that, whilst some of it was informative and not new to me. I can honestly say that many of the issues raised in his speech are heavily influenced by his atheistic world view. In other words he uses information and then gives his interpretation that this information means something to him but there are alternative explanations even though he likes to paint one-sided picture. However if you listen carefully you will hear his admission that all is not buttoned down and that there are still many questions. I like his example about falsifiable evidence that will be incorrect in the future. At one point he brings the issue of data being correct and then quickly moves to the next point, but what if his calculations are wrong and even today with all the information that is at his disposal could he have been mistaken in his experiments and analysis and did he consider all the variables. In particular I like his poke at the string theory and then using it to explain difficult issue of data that suggest alternative explanation kind of using it when it is in his interest. This is just not consistent with the open minded enquirer he likes to present himself to be. Lastly he still does not answer satisfactorily many of the questions he claims to have been answered by his presentation, it is like me saying I don’t know the answer to the beginning of the universe and don’t have all the answers to the parallel universes we can observe them but I can theorise about it and you should trust me I am a doctor. Well question is do I have to choose between what is being proposed and if there are competing theories which you will find to be the case. I find it laughable that for someone who claims that he finds joy in the fact that he knows so little yet he makes such a big metaphysical claims. Is he any better then religious people, I don’t think so. We come back to the same issue of indoctrination and influence of others which he admitted at the very beginning of his presentation and using his theory to fit his world view. Fact is there are others who have been persuaded by the cosmological arguments that if there had to be beginning, then design is necessary. Simply saying there are infinite number of possibilities, and we happen to have lived in the universe that is hospitable and productive to the beginning and progress of life is as much of a fairy tale to me as 6 day creation is to you.

  8. I meant you call him idiotic in your original comment! Like you suggested to me, check what is driving you and then evaluate if either of us is in the position of objective neutrality and not based on the emotional reaction when nudged into investigating but voluntarily self examine your attitude if your desire is for true discovery, that is driven by factual rather than wishful thinking.

    I continue to ignore your suggestions about my need to improve my understanding of Evolution simply because you ignore my statement that I am doing my work to better understand the subject. Please don’t assume you know and understand theory of science better then me, then only reveals your attitude and does nothing to win people over to your view. You would have done better by simply asking probing questions. In our previous conversations I did my research for you close to 100 pages scientific study, if I remember correctly this is not the attitude of someone who does not take interest in science and people. I did it to make sure I was correct and after reading that material on 2 law of thermodynamics we concluded that your concept of open and closed system that provides necessary material needed only answers partial question and ignores the very beginning issue and creation of the necessary material.

  9. tildeb says:

    I find it fascinating how you can listen to a world renowned expert in theoretical physics and find a tiny thread of what-ifs to weave your way through his presentation as if such a what-if argument had any validity to then substantiate a very specific predetermined ‘alternative’ view. Simply put, you are writing nonsense.

    For example, you write he uses information and then gives his interpretation that this information means something to him but there are alternative explanations even though he likes to paint one-sided picture.

    Of course he does! That’s because he has already studied the issue and allows us to accept his expertise with his ‘interpretation.’ He’s already done the heavy lifting for us. Unless you are a theoretical physicist and want to parse all the data that informs the explanation with him, you expect to hear his ‘interpretation.’ Note that he takes the time to paint the explanation so that we can understand what he’s talking about, understand what the physics means by observable and testable data that you can actually check if you so desire, and he does so so that we can then understand the next bit which has been built on the previous.

    Put simply, if you had a medical concern, where would go? To the plumber? To the post office? Of course not. You would go to a doctor. Why? Because you understand that a doctor has done the heavy lifting for you and has been trained to approach your medical concern not with dead chickens and candles but with expertise about medicine based on efficacy. It is the efficacy that makes a doctor’s expertise meaningful because it is verifiable. Krauss, like any medical doctor, has expertise of a very refined kind – sort of like a medical specialist – when it comes to physics. Why you wave his expertise away says something very important about how you come at understanding what it is he has to say. That you take his expertise and have the audacity to assume this is somehow a weakness rather than a strength shows how much bias you bring into the simple process of listening. I write what I just did because you would never take such an attitude of bias with you into the doctor’s office, basically telling the doctor that because the knowledge base about medicine through efficacy, meaning scientific, is an atheistic approach you cannot respect that paints his medical (read ‘scientific’) interpretation of your signs and symptoms as too one-sided for your tastes. But you’re not that consistent, are you? What if the doctor’s prescription contains an error? Let’s distrust medicine just to be safe. And what if the doctor admits that medicine cannot answer all our medical questions, it cannot cure everything all the time, that best practices have changed as our understanding deepens? Better allow evil spirits to be as probable a cause for illness as anything medicine can come up with? Come on. Your argument is so weak that it hardly bears exposure without shame.

    Put another way, if not for specialized expertise, why would you ever go to a doctor for a medical concern? You recognize you do so because of medical, that is to say, scientific, expertise; that’s why you go. You don’t go to the local pub and ask the first person you see to do a bit of surgery on you, do you? But you would if you actually followed the same reasoning you purport to follow here.

    Krauss has even more expertise in physics than a medical doctor does in medicine. Far more. Yet you pretend that you are in a position to determine the strengths and weaknesses of Krauss’ explanations. You do so not because you are a theoretical physicist who has also examined as much data, done the calculations, created experiments and carried them out, worked with the brightest minds in the field and understand from what today’s theories have been derived. You have not reviewed peer papers and published your own, nor run a funded team on the cutting edge of some of the most exciting science being done today. No; you bring with you a bias to be satisfied that your world view based on your theology can remain intact, and carry out achieving this goal with nary a neuron firing. For this paltry effort, you are satisfied to put Krauss and all of theoretical physics into a nice tiny box labeled ‘too much atheist’ so that you can dismiss the bits you don’t like and keep whatever bits suit you. And you do all this to maintain a belief system. What good are facts when you have a perfectly sound set of beliefs?

  10. I find it fascinating that you pretend you understand what I was talking about if you come up with such simple reply. First of all I have listened to enough presentation by the physicist to have good grounding in what it meant to give theoretical hypothesis. Secondly I have enough understanding to give informed reply on different types of universes we may be dealing with when analysing our universe. And lastly at no point did he claim that his hypothesis is any better then someone else’s. If I give you several options and then say my option should be considered right even though I have no such evidence that is supported by testable data. Then what would you do? Lastly let me make it abundantly clear, as per his own admission there are people who are working in the same field of science and are very religious, why do you think this is? or do you have some scientific data you would like to share with us on that subject?

    You appeal to scientific credentials yet you fail to understand that there are often highly charged disagreements with people in the same line of science. That is such jump, a massive leap of faith on your part. You will accept it because he told us so, well I reserve my right to test what he is saying, likewise I reserve my right to question theoretical physics, in the same way I will challenge atheists who use string theory in order to justify millions of universes and our is just one that happen to have life. Note his appeal to our ignorance when he says that universe will always bring something out of nothing, or did you miss that part?

    The neglecting of your responsibility to understand and question any statements is incredible, considering that you call yourself sceptical atheist who uses reason. I call your world view jump into darkness based on the comments of someone who may or may not be right. That scares me; fact is when you talk about dark matter, dark energy and the quarks you talk about limited understanding much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves. So our understanding on these subjects is still not compete and add to that issues things like speed of light and other “constants” that he was refereeing to which are still not completely answered (as we still need to confirm the validity of their presupposition) we become far less assured and far more speculative as some of this data is brand new and not completely tested. So question is; are you driven with objective observation or wishful thinking? He is suppose to do that, it is after all his job, he is theorising, and will have plenty of other options available to him, but is he right to make selective claims by not shedding light on other options when talking about philosophical and metaphysical implication I would say he is going from the field he is qualified to the area he knows very little about.

  11. tildeb says:

    Do yourself a favour, DTW, and go to this site. Here are a bunch of two minute videos that attempt to explain evolution. I particularly like the Viewer’s Choice video, the one that has = EVOLUTION on the starting screen. It’s clear, concise, and easy to follow.

    The site is at:

Comments are closed.