Evolution cannot explain existence of creationists, concedes Dawkins

[laconicsax]

http://newsbiscuit.com/2009/04/13/evolution-cannot-explain-existence-of-creationists-concedes-dawkins/

n a severe blow to the credibility of evolutionary science, biologist Richard Dawkins admitted today that Darwin’s theory of evolution could offer no rational explanation for the continued existence of creationists. The process of natural selection sees genes which provide an advantage in the battle for survival being preserved across generations, but scientists can find no useful purpose for the gene which leads people to believe that the earth was created in only six days about 10,000 years ago.

‘It’s a flaw in our argument, for sure,’ said Dawkins today. ‘By any reading of evolutionary theory, creationists ought to have died out ages ago. They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with observable reality. If I wasn’t such an ardent believer in secular materialism, I’d wager this is really troubling Darwin in the afterlife.’

More at link

:rofl:

NewsBiscuit is satire. How long before creationists or the Discovery Institute start citing this article to make their case?

[mike_c]

1. bwahahahaha....

:rofl:

[frebrd]

2. K&R!

Thanks!

:rofl:

[On the Road]

3. You Mean BRIAN Dawkins?

He pounces on creationsists:

[laconicsax]

5. +1

[amyrose2712]

10. THE BEAST! I'm gonna miss him.

GO BIRDS!

[chollybocker]

4. I give this story two opposable thumbs up.

[drm604]

6. K&R

:rofl:

[flamin lib]

7. As I understand it

Creationists believe that God created the earth in 6 days about 4000 years ago and then planted all the evidence of dinosaurs and carbon dating to allow man to believe by faith alone.

Evolutionists believe that the earth and all that is on it evolved over several billion years.

I think they are both right.

The Earth evolved but God created the creationists, complete with all our memories of them and evidence of their history, last April first.

[4_TN_TITANS]

8. Wasn't Richard Dawkins the host of Family Feud? n/t

[amyrose2712]

9. That was Richard Dawson. K! nt

[joshcryer]

11. Slightly flawed, though, since creationism is spouted by 'breeders' who by definition...

...will propogate their genes, and likely, the culture to go along with it.

[Nevernose]

12. I hate to get all serious on what is a very funny article

But in The God Delusion, Dawkins actually touches on that subject. He suggests that there is, perhaps, some "hardwiring" for belief in the supernatural, much in the same way that there is a perfectly logical (albeit suicidal) reason that moths are drawn to flame.

The book I'd like to read? The one that lays out, very clearly and in layman's terms, all of the different "design" arguments: the negative adaptations, such as the aforementioned moths and fish hearts for mammals, and the really fun ones, like eyeballs and empathy. I've seen bits here and there on websites and documentaries, but never anything comprehensive. I'll bet that book would make a small fortune.

[gtar100]

13. Doesn't evolution "favor" traits that lead to survival? That would explain

Creationists to my mind. Humans survive better in groups and common belief systems tend to keep groups alive. It doesn't much matter the truth of what is believed, as long as it satisfies the angst of the people, they can get on with their lives.

[joshcryer]

14. There's actually a study that shows "believers" are better at repetitive tasks.

They did a study with a Stroop test and consistantly "believers" beat out the atheists or "non-believers." Now from my point of view, given that the Stroop test is basically a set of repetitious tasks, I believe it only shows so far that religious people are more suited to our current, anti-evolutionary environment, where we work 8 hours a day doing repetitive tasks not fullfilling our full potential as humans.

http://www.physorg.com/news155404273.html

Put these same people in a natural environment, where these sorts of drone like behaviors are inconsequential or irrelevant, and I bet the results would be much different.

[Nihil]

15. Three interesting replies there ...

... yours, gtar100's & joshcryer's ... all provoking further thought ...
thanks!

:toast: