Slashdot Mirror
Ask Richard Dawkins About Evolution, Religion, and Science Education
Richard Dawkins is an author and an evolutionary biologist. For 13 years, he held the Simonyi Professorship at the University of Oxford. His 1976 book The Selfish Gene helped popularize the gene-centric view of evolution and coined the word "meme." Several other of his books, including Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, and The Greatest Show on Earth have helped to explain aspects of evolution in a way non-scientists can more easily understand. Dawkins is a frequent opponent of creationism and intelligent design, and he generated widespread controversy and debate in 2006 with The God Delusion, a book that subjected common religious beliefs to unyielding scientific scrutiny. He wrote, "One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." Most recently, Dawkins wrote The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, a graphic book that aims to introduce kids to science. He's also recently begun a video series titled "Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life" about how our world would look without religion. Mr. Dawkins has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Post your suggestions in the comments below, but please limit yourself to one question per post. We'll post his responses sometime next week.
Pseudo-physics is not exactly a good basis for any argument, at least not among educated people. Although you would be probably successful in a convention of ignorant creationists, you will find little sympathy here.
There is absolutely no relation between thermodynamics laws and the need of an external entity. There is no guarantee that the universe is eternal and not even that it had a beginning, but even if any of these concepts could be proved it wouldn't still imply in the existence of any external factor.
Your limited understanding of physics makes you jump into conclusions that just aren't there. The Anthropic Principle, for example has absolutely no implication regarding the existence of a God.
Oh, and citing Spitzer as a valuable reference is a joke. Spitzer has written nothing of value in his whole career. He is just a mediocre philosopher who naively tries to interpret complex physical theories of which he has absolutely no understanding with the predictable result of reaching absurd conclusions, much like you did here. It is no surprise you like him so much.