Richard Dawkins speaking on 'The God Delusion'

[Jez]

I have a copy here, xmas present from my sis!

Largely due to this thread but also the last deeply religous person I met; who told me not to bother hand delivering a bit of post that had been dropped through the letter box by mistake, not to quote the bible at her -'do unto others' - because she knew every word and that she would pray for my soul.

Go figure...

Next time I'll be prepared.  

[Endy]

Evolution is only about adapting to your enviroment. This enviroment includes the area, other bots, the geneome, and the mutations.

Alot of what we code is a negative mutation to evolution, therefore it adapts to that by breaking it. The benneficial dna has their condtions doubled or removed.

If it's benneficial but is activated often, it makes more sense just to do it continually; and remove the conditons. This prevents deleterious mutations from breaking the conditions.

If it's benneficial but part of it's bennefit is connected with it's conditions, these are doubled to ensure survival into future generations.

ID:

My vote is still out concerning this whole debate. Quite legetimatly you could completly justify evolution and the scientific creation of the universe, within its framework. You could also justify an all powerfull creator. Probably the debate will just die down, as interest flags.

On a personal note my opinion is that entropy has self created condtions in which the net entropy grows faster than what would be possible in a lifeless universe.

[Jez]

I suppose in the end I'm pretty much a Humanist. Religions have value because they provide a sevice for the people in them.

I have been reading a lot of the current internet arguments surrounding the whole thing with the idea of getting a better overview of the whole messy situation. I'm certainly not as dismissive of the idea of a God as I was, not that I am any closer to believing in one either.
The flip side of Religions, their attitude to non believers (in the relevant God), is the biggest problem I can see.
So many of the arguments are circular, you can't prove God exists; I can't prove God doesn't exist sort of thing.  

When it comes to ID'ers my mind is much more certain: The world is 6000yrs old, there was no evolution, the theory of evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics...  
(There was one lad who, when he reported his science teacher for teaching stuff like this, (dinosaurs were on the ark, you are going to hell if you don't believe me etc) got death threats from his fellow pupils.)

It's not SCIENCE!!! It uses fallacious arguments. It makes me so angry and sad to think that any pupil would be taught this under the guise of science.  
There is no net gain of energy, we only store energy, all the energy this world gains comes from the sun. Life doesn't make energy it only moves it around.

I'm sorry, ID really can make my blood boil. I believe in Einstein and Aristotle, Darwin and Newton. I'm going to go and sit in a dark corner now...

[Numsgil]

Religion isn't science, which I think is the most common misunderstanding from both sides.  I don't like IDers, conservative evangelical mold-thinkers, and I don't like the "conservative" Darwinists.  All like to claim they have the world figured out and it's all so simple.  If I've learned anything in life, it's that the only things that are simple are things we don't explore further.

I prefer the company of Darwinists of the breed of Stephen Jay Gould.  So much of modern evolutionary research seems to be spent being anti-ID.  Like you can't do or say anything that might give IDers ammunition.  I think that's wrong, and poor science to boot.

I'd say more, but I think Gould says it better.  What's really heartened me is to see so many of the things I've been thinking stated independantly by a (relatively) respected biologist.

[Jez]

Having followed the Dawkins site now for a while I finally got round to watching some of:Beyond belief (science, religion, reason and survival) San Diego CA Albeit 15hrs in total but a good discussion about religion by some leading figures in their relative (scientific) fields.

By TSN (the scientific network) it covers 3 days and is helpfully divided into 10 segments covering the conference.

Yorker (comment #9098) rated the speakers as:

Carolyn Porco 9 (great enthusiasm)
Sam Harris 9 (great self-control)
Richard Dawkins 8 (polished performer)
Lawrence Krauss 8 (logical & insightful)
Patricia Churchland 8 (great enthusiasm)
Mahzarin Banaji 8 (original & entertaining)
Steven Weinberg 7 (logical & honest)
Michael Shermer 7 (insightful & entertaining)
Harry Kroto 7 (enthusiastic & charming)
Neil Tyson 6 (entertaining)
Elizabeth Loftus 6 (charming & honest)
Joan Roughgarden 5 (honest)
Susan Neiman 5 (analytical)

The thread from Dawkins.net also provides a short clip of the discussion for those that don't want to wade through it all.

Quote: Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force to be reckoned with. Fundamentalist movements - some violent in the extreme - are growing. Science and religion are at odds in the classrooms and courtrooms. And a return to religious values is widely touted as an antidote to the alleged decline in public morality. After two centuries, could this be twilight for the Enlightenment project and the beginning of a new age of unreason?