« A Flourishing Public Square | Main | Storming the Gates »

March 27, 2007

Comments

I'm interested in listening to this. I saw an article in some magazine ("Time" maybe?) where Dawkins squared off against some theistic evolutionist about the same issue, and it was painful to read. I just think the theistic evolution position is horribly flawed, and therefore can be compromised easily (which Dawkins demonstrated).

I agree, Paul, I'm interested to hear this as well - I had heard rumors that this thing was in the works, but wasn't sure it was going to happen, and I'm glad Melinda posted on this.

Also, that *was* a TIME interview/debate you're thinking of between Dawkins and Francis Collins, an theistic evolutionist and the head of the Human Genome Project (actually, I'm in the middle of writing a series on that article on my blog). Funny, though, I thought Dawkins' position the more compromised of the two.

Well, I should note that I only had a few minutes to scan the article as I was in the waiting room at the dentist's, so mine is not a very thorough or well-informed review. :) I just thought there were better ways to respond to Dawkins than what Collins offered.

Can you do a little "shameless plug" for your blog here? That is, could you post a link or just give us an address? I'd like to read your series.

Listening to the debate, McGrath seemed to have either missed or overlooked Dawkins' numerous self stultifying statements . I was surprised he failed to ask how Dawkins' science deems anything to be "true" other than his "belief" in Science as truth, which he failed to prove.

On the whole, both men, though eloquent, presented little by way of evidence, as far as I am concerned.

I was disappointed. I think that the format of the discussion was not helpful in pursueing the important issues. The whole thing, including the questions, came to an hour so there was little time to have a real dialog.

Those who give any hint that there's no God (or whatever you call The SOURCE of life) are wallowing in self deceit, deeper than those who claim knowledge of God.

Religion is an extraordinary idea of how to relate with the SOURCE of life, but the lie of it is that the SOURCE of life is neither known nor understood.

Though The SOURCE of life transmits thoughts in jumbles for you to discern as you best you can, nothing, except death, is categorical.

Therefore let the deferent views of men about God or the SOURCE of life entertain rather than disconcert you. No one can be right talking about his or her creator. Stop deceiving yourself and those who listen to you.


Paul,
Sure, I'd love to :)

Just click on my name below, and you'll get to my blog. The first in the series (which I'm behind on, thanks to a hectic March schedule at work) is entitled "Dawkins in the Crucible, Part 1". Thanks for the interest!

"No one can be right talking about his or her creator."

Is that right?

"Religion is an extraordinary idea of how to relate with the SOURCE of life, but the lie of it is that the SOURCE of life is neither known nor understood."

Jackson
How do you know that the "SOURCE" of life is neither known or understood unless you think you know or understand something about he/she/it/them?

I can't write one word of English.

Does this "SOURCE" business come from that psychobabbling old wacko in bad sweaters on late-night PBS fundraising programs?

"Though The SOURCE of life transmits thoughts in jumbles for you to discern as you best you can."

It's amazing to me that the source of all life is able to create complex organisms, but isn't able to make a simple data transmission without it getting bungled up on the receiving end. My local phone company must be more capable than the creator of the universe.

Jackson,

You won't find much support here, but just consider the possibility that some things can be known about the SOURCE.

You at least seem to know that there is a SOURCE and one that communicates.

The comments to this entry are closed.