Comments on: Dawkins: We did not descend from Chimpanzees http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/ The official Derren Brown Blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:29:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Thom_K http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-15255 Thom_K Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:59:45 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-15255 Please forgive a Post Script to my earlier comment, but there's a quote from Sam Clemens that fits well here: It's not what we descend from that concerns me so much as what we descend to. Please forgive a Post Script to my earlier comment, but there’s a quote from Sam Clemens that fits well here: It’s not what we descend from that concerns me so much as what we descend to.

]]> By: Thom_K http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-15254 Thom_K Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:51:01 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-15254 I find it rather depressing that Dick Dawkins feels the need to point out something so elementary, because anyone who thinks that the Theory of Evolution says that Man descended from monkeys clearly hasn't much understanding of the T o E. And that's the point, no?...that anti-scientific cretins propose strawmen that well-intentioned boffins like Dawkins can't resist having a go at, and all they accomplish is to legitimize a position that deserved nothing but contempt. I find it rather depressing that Dick Dawkins feels the need to point out something so elementary, because anyone who thinks that the Theory of Evolution says that Man descended from monkeys clearly hasn’t much understanding of the T o E. And that’s the point, no?…that anti-scientific cretins propose strawmen that well-intentioned boffins like Dawkins can’t resist having a go at, and all they accomplish is to legitimize a position that deserved nothing but contempt.

]]> By: CaptFrantic http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-15008 CaptFrantic Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:50:08 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-15008 YAY ... group hug ... someone get on the phone to Dawkins! Get in here Dicky! (Final word on blog. Addendum added. Intellectual pride slowly recovering. I think I'll live.) YAY … group hug … someone get on the phone to Dawkins! Get in here Dicky!

(Final word on blog. Addendum added. Intellectual pride slowly recovering. I think I’ll live.)

]]> By: flapjack http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-15001 flapjack Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:38:27 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-15001 BTW, in case you thought I was kidding about the medieval beavers, here's the webpage... http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast152.htm BTW, in case you thought I was kidding about the medieval beavers, here’s the webpage…
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast152.htm

]]> By: flapjack http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14998 flapjack Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:26:56 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14998 Awwww- don't go getting soft on me now CaptFrantic! Come on everyone... group hug :D Awwww- don’t go getting soft on me now CaptFrantic! Come on everyone… group hug :D

]]> By: ScreamingGreenConure http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14991 ScreamingGreenConure Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:09:31 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14991 No worries at all - I'm a massive free speech advocate, I'm afraid it's one of my hot buttons. Makes me come over all funny, you know? No worries at all – I’m a massive free speech advocate, I’m afraid it’s one of my hot buttons. Makes me come over all funny, you know?

]]> By: CaptFrantic http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14987 CaptFrantic Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:59 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14987 @ReligiousMarie - hahaha ... all he needs is a big snuggle hug ... because even Dicky needs love. =D @flapjack - It really pains me to say this ... *intellectual meltdown* ... on that particular strawman point, to the letter of what I wroted you are technically absolutely correct. Shit! Wait a minute ... *punches self in mouth* OW! Hey! FFS ... I wasn't ready! Seriously though yeah, on that score I will have to recant (a bit). However I must add this (and I did mention it in the blog to be fair) you still come away from the book with the distinct impression that Dicky's a full on committed atheist ... and that science has all the goods to back him up. I will temper and correct that in a future post. Honest, I will! I stand by everything else though ... I think. =P Concerning Oliver Postgate Clangers etc (made me laugh for real) everything you've mentioned there still ultimately boils down to belief systems and that's the important distinction to keep in mind. I know it seems like I'm being pedantic but I really think that the distinction between scientific certainty and systems of belief is crucially important. I know it only seems like a stupid philosophical point and I'm not sure how I can express it clearly enough so that it matters a damn. I'm a bit wasted atm to be honest as last night's insomnia has totally caught up with me and I just want to lie down and get some zeds. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's OK to say that we can be fairly certain in *belief* that any named "god" (Thor, The God of Christ, Zeus etc) can be reasonably dismissed as highly f**king unlikely BUT ... and this is my big point for my future posts ... you cannot use that to say that there is NO higher being, and THAT is what atheism (NO Gods) represents. (Shit but this takes so many words to express). I'm not sure if I'm being in any way cogent now as the invisible man is behind me pushing down on my eyelids so I'll have to leave it there for now. I'll be willing to debate more on this later but I really, really gotta go get some shut-eye. Meh. BTW I apologise if I appear to have totally hijacked the comments and if it seems as though I've just been pimping my blog. In my defence, all I can say is that I did try to back out gracefully but you people wouldn't sodding let me. :P Oh before I go, ScreamingGreenConure, can we both forget all that stuff from before. I was a bit harsh and I'm sure you had reason for homing in on that freedom of speech thing but I just found it highly frustrating. If we can put all that shit down and move on maybe we can debate more about the real issues .. if you want. Damn I'm getting juicy now ... that's a sure sign that I should go get some zeds. =S zzzzzzzzz @ReligiousMarie – hahaha … all he needs is a big snuggle hug … because even Dicky needs love. =D

@flapjack – It really pains me to say this … *intellectual meltdown* … on that particular strawman point, to the letter of what I wroted you are technically absolutely correct. Shit! Wait a minute … *punches self in mouth* OW! Hey! FFS … I wasn’t ready! Seriously though yeah, on that score I will have to recant (a bit). However I must add this (and I did mention it in the blog to be fair) you still come away from the book with the distinct impression that Dicky’s a full on committed atheist … and that science has all the goods to back him up. I will temper and correct that in a future post. Honest, I will! I stand by everything else though … I think. =P

Concerning Oliver Postgate Clangers etc (made me laugh for real) everything you’ve mentioned there still ultimately boils down to belief systems and that’s the important distinction to keep in mind. I know it seems like I’m being pedantic but I really think that the distinction between scientific certainty and systems of belief is crucially important. I know it only seems like a stupid philosophical point and I’m not sure how I can express it clearly enough so that it matters a damn. I’m a bit wasted atm to be honest as last night’s insomnia has totally caught up with me and I just want to lie down and get some zeds. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s OK to say that we can be fairly certain in *belief* that any named “god” (Thor, The God of Christ, Zeus etc) can be reasonably dismissed as highly f**king unlikely BUT … and this is my big point for my future posts … you cannot use that to say that there is NO higher being, and THAT is what atheism (NO Gods) represents. (Shit but this takes so many words to express).

I’m not sure if I’m being in any way cogent now as the invisible man is behind me pushing down on my eyelids so I’ll have to leave it there for now. I’ll be willing to debate more on this later but I really, really gotta go get some shut-eye. Meh.

BTW I apologise if I appear to have totally hijacked the comments and if it seems as though I’ve just been pimping my blog. In my defence, all I can say is that I did try to back out gracefully but you people wouldn’t sodding let me. :P

Oh before I go, ScreamingGreenConure, can we both forget all that stuff from before. I was a bit harsh and I’m sure you had reason for homing in on that freedom of speech thing but I just found it highly frustrating. If we can put all that shit down and move on maybe we can debate more about the real issues .. if you want.

Damn I’m getting juicy now … that’s a sure sign that I should go get some zeds. =S zzzzzzzzz

]]> By: ReligiousMarie http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14983 ReligiousMarie Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:12:14 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14983 @CaptFrantic...to be short and clear and without wasting text-space:... ´´i knew you´d love Dawkins deep down´´ ;-) @CaptFrantic…to be short and clear and without wasting text-space:…

´´i knew you´d love Dawkins deep down´´ ;-)

]]> By: flapjack http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14978 flapjack Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:29:52 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14978 CaptFrantic - Thanks for the feedback. OK, i grant you that we are all agnostics to some degree... i just take issue with this bit from your blog... "If you have no hard evidence to back up a claim then it's deceitful, closed minded and ultimately downright dangerous to claim that science can provide an unequivocal "answer". " I don't think that is what Dawkins is proposing... thus the strawman element. As already pointed out, he leans towards highly improbable, but stops short of "impossible". OK perhaps i'm splitting hairs, but as Dawkins himself says, you can still estimate the odds of something existing based on what evidence there is, and science does this all the time. It's not a simple 50/50 split, anymore than dragons, unicorns or trolls are, for the reason that aside from the stories there is zero concrete evidence for any of them. The clangers may live on the moon in another galaxy far far away, as may Darth Vader, but if you had to ask whether I thought their existance was a 50/50 proposition, I'd have to say that the chances of George Lucas or Oliver Postgate having created a documentary based on a new scientific or anthropological discovery seems pretty remote. Vastly improbable but not impossible. I think that's a fairer assessment of what Dawkins is saying. And if you want to see those beavers biting themselves in all their medieval glory, look it up in the Bodlean Bestiary ;) CaptFrantic – Thanks for the feedback. OK, i grant you that we are all agnostics to some degree… i just take issue with this bit from your blog…
“If you have no hard evidence to back up a claim then it’s deceitful, closed minded and ultimately downright dangerous to claim that science can provide an unequivocal “answer”. ”
I don’t think that is what Dawkins is proposing… thus the strawman element. As already pointed out, he leans towards highly improbable, but stops short of “impossible”.
OK perhaps i’m splitting hairs, but as Dawkins himself says, you can still estimate the odds of something existing based on what evidence there is, and science does this all the time. It’s not a simple 50/50 split, anymore than dragons, unicorns or trolls are, for the reason that aside from the stories there is zero concrete evidence for any of them. The clangers may live on the moon in another galaxy far far away, as may Darth Vader, but if you had to ask whether I thought their existance was a 50/50 proposition, I’d have to say that the chances of George Lucas or Oliver Postgate having created a documentary based on a new scientific or anthropological discovery seems pretty remote. Vastly improbable but not impossible. I think that’s a fairer assessment of what Dawkins is saying.
And if you want to see those beavers biting themselves in all their medieval glory, look it up in the Bodlean Bestiary ;)

]]> By: CaptFrantic http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/07/dawkins-descend-chimpanzees/#comment-14977 CaptFrantic Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:39:14 +0000 http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/?p=3561#comment-14977 flapjack - You've obviously taken the time to look at my blog so thanks for that. I'll have to answer you from that context so for anyone else that's following this who hasn't wanted to check it out, some of this will seem a bit disconnected. "He categorises himself at 6 and a half ..." I stated that fact in my blog so how have I straw-manned him? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - I agree. I think it applies to atheists and theists alike. I'm aware that the teapot argument was coined by Russell. Other than an issue of incorrect accreditation it makes no difference. Dicky still used and heavily endorsed the argument in his book (thanks for pointing that out though I'll make an addendum to the entry). "The point of the teapot analogy which you appear to have totally missed ..." - I haven't missed the point of the analogy he endorses at all. I covered all of that clearly in the blog entry. I can only suggest that you read it again. "... beavers which bite off their own nads ..." - *wince* ... dude ... no-one needs to hear that! =P flapjack – You’ve obviously taken the time to look at my blog so thanks for that. I’ll have to answer you from that context so for anyone else that’s following this who hasn’t wanted to check it out, some of this will seem a bit disconnected.

“He categorises himself at 6 and a half …” I stated that fact in my blog so how have I straw-manned him?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – I agree. I think it applies to atheists and theists alike.

I’m aware that the teapot argument was coined by Russell. Other than an issue of incorrect accreditation it makes no difference. Dicky still used and heavily endorsed the argument in his book (thanks for pointing that out though I’ll make an addendum to the entry).

“The point of the teapot analogy which you appear to have totally missed …” – I haven’t missed the point of the analogy he endorses at all. I covered all of that clearly in the blog entry. I can only suggest that you read it again.

“… beavers which bite off their own nads …” – *wince* … dude … no-one needs to hear that! =P

]]>