Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion created a storm of controversy over the question of God's existence. Now, in The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins presents a stunning counterattack against advocates of "Intelligent Design" that explains the evidence for evolution while keeping an eye trained on the absurdities of the creationist argument.
More than an argument of his own, it's a thrilling tour into our distant past and into the interstices of life on earth. Taking us through the case for evolution step-by-step, Dawkins looks at DNA, selective breeding, anatomical similarities, molecular family trees, geography, time, fossils, vestiges and imperfections, human evolution, and the formula for a strong scientific theory.
Dawkins' trademark wit and ferocity is joined by an infectious passion for the beauty and strangeness of the natural world, proving along the way that the mechanisms of the natural world are more miraculous -- a "greater show" -- than any creation story generated by any religion on earth.
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned evolutionary biologist and author. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and, until recently, held the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His first book, The Selfish Gene, was an instant international bestseller, and has become an established classic work of modern evolutionary biology.
He is also the author of The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil's Chaplain, The Ancestor's TaleThe God Delusion, and most recently, The Greatsest Show on Earth.
Professor Dawkins's awards have included the Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1989), the Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science (1990), The International Cosmos Prize (1997) and the Kistler Prize (2001).
He has Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains he no longer debates creationists because his presence only validates their status. He compares the situation to a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate an advocate of the "stork theory."
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.
Dawkins believes it's possible that accidentally-created aliens with a higher level of intelligence designed our creation.
It's sad to see people actually pay a guy to promote absurd anti-theism. Just skip to the 2:32 mark:
What kind of moron are you? Are you actually claiming not to have heard the proofs and evidences evolutionary finding have revealed...or have you been so inculcated with fear that the cognitive dissonances simply blind-spot your faculties? Almost any museum has the necessary evidence for you to see, sometimes even touch. Does the fact that 90% of christian religions accept human evolution as fact not bear any weight?
Dont think this is said in 'atheist anger', (we know how you like to imply this) for the opposite is true, by virtue of the fact that it is the willing ignorance and stupidity from you and your ilk which sparks the interest of those that think. Two minutes listening to your tripe adds more to the ever-growing number willing to ditch the evil book and its imaginary beast. You are thus our greatest asset. However, thats no reason to treat your beliefs, evil books and blood-thirsty monster with anything but contempt. GOD B.LESS
you cant have a reasonable argument with religious people.
if they were reasonable, they would not be religious.
I love Dawkins, cant see why anyone would be angry at him.
he is kind, respectful, elegant. and his basic argument is that
no matter how much you believe in fairies, tinkerbelle is still fiction.
IF your a wingnut and IF you need to hate someone, read Hitchens or Dennett.
or better yet turn your holy other cheek. hypocrites...
Aaberg, (Indeed anyone and everyone) here is a question for you. Do you think it is possible for peoples over time and place to express God in the same way? Think about it because that is how history unfolds. To be in 2010 and look around and back on multiple expressions of God and say that they all contradict each other is to 'frame' history through a grotesque inversion of history, and shows a pretty uncritical thinking approach to this area.
Answering that question of course doesn't prove God but Richard used this schoolboyesque point as his primary argument against God while he was out promoting 'The God Delusion'. Richard's career (and this includes his lifestyle) is rooted on not only crude gene-centrism but the idea of replication when culture (and religions are a cultural phenomena) are profoundly relative. Richard's genetic evolution is founded on duplication while culture and meaning are founded on difference. Richard has a pretty deep and unconvincing history in trying to account for culture. His memetics theory of culture doesn't even have an on-line journal despite being his Universal Darwinian theory of culture trying to square the (neo) Darwinian circle into the social world of humankind.
Anyone with a grasp of history and/or theology can see that religious belief in the main over the last 2,000 years has been understood allegorically (although there are exceptions, relativity has its fringes like all human movements) and it was the maturing of science that framed religion in more literal terms as the new knowledge that science sophisticated challenged traditional belief. Dawkins goes on and on about the incompatibility of religion and science and yet for the major religions the process of evolution is assimilated into religious teaching as uncontentious knowledge. In that sense Dawkins is arguing with himself there. It's important to note that after 'Origin' in 1859 there were noted theologians who saw the theory of evolution as deepening the power of God. God can be seen as great in creating species himself, but could be seen as even greater by making species that make themselves. If you can't critically think through the notion that evolution COULD be part of God's divine plan then you can't critically think deep enough. That doesn't mean that you have to accept that idea, it's not easy but to simply brush such notions aside as inconsequential says a lot (or rather it doesn't) about any critically thinking faculties you may/not have.
A pot calling the kettle black.
Dawkins is another cultist that belongs to a group of so-called skeptics that are really philosophical materialists but forget the philosophical part. Typical tactics involve ridicule, dodges or suppression of evidence that contradict materialism or orthodox science -- which itself is under a similar spell.
Although Dawkins maybe telling us the facts about evolution, he has his own blinders and would use Kantian-type evasions to say "true" statements that are meant to misdirect his audience. All of his kind do, so "buyer be aware".
One thing you see constantly with these groups and Dawkins in guilt by association with them, is suppression of evidence that human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind and spirit cannot significantly affect a well designed experiment in "physical" reality. They just plain lie about these findings in many cases.
Another shameful dodge that they try is calling anything unorthodox as unscientific. They of course do not define science as a methodology but as an expression of materialistic philosophy. So in the latter sense, one could actually take being called unscientific as a compliment. Of course these "de-bunkers" mean it as a put down.