The Book Richard Dawkins Does NOT Want You To Read.

[Baron von Biffo]

Scientific proof is very often not absolute proof, so when an atheist like Dawkins speaks of using science as a reasonable standard, it's important to remember that this standard includes a great deal of faith. Scientific proofs and theories are constantly shredded; the long-standing scientific theories on the nature of the Universe include a hell of a lot of assumptions, e.g. dark matter.

Still, if people want to put their faith in such tenuous facts, they are free to do so. The hypocrisy arises when they ridicule others for having faith in God.

It's because science rests on evidence not faith that theories are 'shredded' when they are found wanting. Faith involves belief regardless of the evidence.

[EireMuzzie]

Judging by the responses so far, I'd say people are in denial at this point. It is rather amusing...please keep it up

[Simon.D]

Scientific proof is very often not absolute proof, so when an atheist like Dawkins speaks of using science as a reasonable standard, it's important to remember that this standard includes a great deal of faith. Scientific proofs and theories are constantly shredded; the long-standing scientific theories on the nature of the Universe include a hell of a lot of assumptions, e.g. dark matter.

Still, if people want to put their faith in such tenuous facts, they are free to do so. The hypocrisy arises when they ridicule others for having faith in God.

Faith doesn't come into it... People can choose to believe in the findings of science, but such beliefs are completely anti-scientific, and need to be left out of scientific debate.. You seem to be suggesting that these beliefs are part and parcel of the scientific method, which is wholly inaccurate... Certainty doesn't exist within the confines of this discipline...

Science is never absolutely proven (Personally I hate the word proof being used in scientific context).. Every single theory is built on a base of multiple unknowns, which can never ever be known, meaning Science can only ever offer "unproven" theories... But it's the best we can do from a rational perspective, as absolute knowledge of anything is an unreachable goal...

I have a lot of sympathy for your perspective on science, and place the blame squarely with the way it is presented to society.. Schools, Media, Colleges etc often represent scientific findings as fact, which is completely misleading, and damages the perception of what science can do.. The philosophy underlying knowledge and science has been completely ommitted from formal education, and I think needs to be included in the teaching of basic scientific principles at second and third level...

If you asked our population the question "Does science deal in theories or facts?" most people in this country (and even the world) would answer the latter.. Which is very damaging for the discipline going forward..

[ibis]

Faith doesn't come into it... People can choose to believe in the findings of science, but such beliefs are completely anti-scientific, and need to be left out of scientific debate.. You seem to be suggesting that these beliefs are part and parcel of the scientific method, which is wholly inaccurate... Certainty doesn't exist within the confines of this discipline...

Science is never absolutely proven (Personally I hate the word proof being used in scientific context).. Every single theory is built on a base of multiple unknowns, which can never ever be known, meaning Science can only ever offer "unproven" theories... But it's the best we can do from a rational perspective, as absolute knowledge of anything is an unreachable goal...

I have a lot of sympathy for your perspective on science, and place the blame squarely with the way it is presented to society.. Schools, Media, Colleges etc often represent scientific findings as fact, which is completely misleading, and damages the perception of what science can do.. The philosophy underlying knowledge and science has been completely ommitted from formal education, and I think needs to be included in the teaching of basic scientific principles at second and third level...

If you asked our population the question "Does science deal in theories or facts?" most people in this country (and even the world) would answer the latter.. Which is very damaging for the discipline going forward..

Good points - in particular, the teaching of science at second level seems to be almost entirely a rote learning of simplistic versions of mainstream theories as facts. Philosophy of science isn't really taught even at the third level, and the result is that you can exit our universities with a good science degree and no understanding of science in itself whatsoever.

The media seem to alternately present scientific theories as eternal verities or the brainfarts of eccentric social misfits, without any apparent point of reference bar the journalist's feelings and whether it challenges the simplistic science they were fed at school.

That media representation of science is now fed upon by the blogosphere, who work the simplistic cartoon versions of the journalists into a pastiche of half-digested facts and personal prejudices that they present as critical commentary on the science itself - and which then feeds back into journalism.

[macdarawhitfield]

Higgs bosun'? He was swept overboard me hearties,aye twas the collapse of the wave function back in 35.Aharrrrr!

[ibis]

Higgs bosun'? He was swept overboard me hearties,aye twas the collapse of the wave function back in 35.Aharrrrr!

Nay, nay - he were knocked overboard in the Large Collision. Him and his confidants.

[dotski_w_]

I refer you to my previous post.

You fail to understand.

Ye gods .... I'm really unclear as to wheter you are trolling or just a fool.

Your points *are* answered, you are digging deeper and deeper, and 99% of the people reading this thread are laughing their ar$e off at you. You consistently argue that science and Dawkins make claims that they manifestly do not. You've presumably read all this on some creationist website, and have come here and stated this nonsense as facts.

Well, you're just making a fool of yourself. Come back when you're gorwn up (and/or have actually read a book by Dawkins, rather than spouted what you think he says.

PS Do you "have faith" that the PC you are using will post your comment onto the internet? I base my belief that it does on evidence, not on "faith", which is what is needed for religion.

If you can't see the difference, you're mentally subnormal.

[Malboury]

In theory.

But 'science' is not the noble quest for truth you assume.

When Copernicus postulated that the earth orbited the sun, his fellow academics refused to even examine his thesis. And they never did.

If you imagine that we are any more enlightened now you are a fool.

The same dogma and denial exists exactly the same now but maybe a bit more subtle.

6 billion Euros has been spent on the LHC, primarily to test for the existence of the Higg's boson.
There are those who are very confidant the Higg's boson cannot exist.
It would be a brave 'scientist' who said the 6 billion was a waste.
You'd probably never hear of him again.

There are no end of similar examples.

Science and the philosophy of science, while marvellous in ways are, in the bigger picture, relatively primitive.

Simple phenomena such as the agency for the transfer of momentum is not fundamentally understood. If we hit one ball against another we expect the 2nd ball to move. But we simply do not know why at the fundamental level. The devotees of 'modern science' are so seduced by a few answers they forget that nothing is really explained at all.

Is scientific progress really progress at all?

Science would like us to believe it is. In much the same way that religion would like us to believe that we are damned if we don't follow religion.

Up to now, notwithstanding the wonders of technology, 'science' has been a failure.

An objective person would conclude that any science/endeavour that takes refuge in the hope that they are 'making progress' has failed to prove itself.

Objectivity in science is a myth. There's nothing objective where the mind has to interpret data.
The assumption of objectivity (experimental objectivity) is dubious.

While I agree that modern science (in fact, almost every endeavor undertaken by humans) has some corruptions to it's initial goal, to say that science has failed as a process is a bit naive, isn't it? If nothing else, there's hardly a single aspect of modern life that science has touched in some fashion, or in fact facilitated completely. I wouldn't let a few failures get you down yurewallies. Scientific inquiry will continue to advance human evolution in ways we can hardly appreciate now. In fact, I think that science will quickly become the main means of human evolution; natural selection will soon have to take a back seat to the much quicker progress of GM and similar techniques.

As for the LHC, I reckon it would be a stupid scientist, rather than a brave one, who would call it a waste. Even a failed scientific experiment teaches us something. If nothing else, then the knowledge and research required to build the thing has already pushed materials science forward a bit. And we can always find a use the tech to build a massive high velocity linear accelerator big enough to be spread across two countries. Have to get to and from that asteroid belt somehow ;-)

[Toland]

Lovely moniker, yurewallies.

Eloquent.

[jdaly]

In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Stephen Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? Follow Dr. Meyer as he investigates how new scientific discoveries are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe.

YouTube- DNA Replication

YouTube- Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

So what you are saying is that this book will prove that there had to be an intellegent designer to start life goiing in the first place. O.K, but following that logic there would have had to be another intelligent designer to start off that intelligent designer and another intell... ah, I'll go and watch the Simpsons.