E:
Dawkins didn't say that evolution doesn't require evidence. this is merely a distorted, out-of-context snippet from a larger speech: see https://web.archive.org/web/20180529143 ... uotables_1
The context of the quote provides the actual argument he was making:
"The vertebrate eye must have evolved progressively for the following reason: ancient ancestors, the first ancestor to have any sort of eye at all, must have had a very, very, simple eye containing only a few features good for seeing. We don’t need evidence for this. It has to be true. Because the alternative, an initially complex eye, starting off complicated, starting off with many features good for seeing, all there at once, pitches us right back to Hoyle country, and the sheer unscalable cliff of Mount Improbable."
The assertion he makes here is in response to the creationist claim that organisms start out with perfectly timed complex eyes (by design). In Dawkins analogy of climbing a mountain of improbability, this would be like leaping the edifice in one go as opposed to the more likely and logically consistent method of gradual improvement by natural selection.
C:
Still, he don't need evidence for the simple eye of the first ancestor... that's faith
E:
Please, read my comment again, and see if you understand it this time.
C:
I didn't misunderstood. You want to say it's quote mining. Understand this, atheists contradict themselves
E:
It IS quote mining.
1. You changed "the first ancestor to have any sort of eye at all" into "the simple eye of the first ancestor." That is not the same thing.
2. Dawkins did not resort to faith; it's a logical deduction from the nature of evolution (granting that evolution is backed by a great deal of evidence, which he's entitled to assume in a talk on what evolution is like, as opposed to why it's true).
Now, do you see where you were mistaken?
C:
and you used the word "assume"
then show me the evidence for the eye of the first ancestor
E:
///and you used the word "assume"//
True. What is your point about that?
///then show me the evidence for the eye of the first ancestor///
Hm. Even after I explained your mistake, you still prefer the phrase "the first ancestor" as opposed to "the first ancestor to have any sort of eye at all."
But apart from that: why does your question matter in this discussion? I have already shown that Dawkins was talking to an educated audience, discussing on what evolution is like, as opposed to why it's true.
The quote you cite made it appear otherwise, making it deceptive. This deception is the topic of the discussion. Please stick to that.
C:
Assume - suppose to be the case, without proof. THAT is deception
E:
///Assume - suppose to be the case, without proof. THAT is deception///
To repeat myself: I have already shown that Dawkins was talking to an educated audience, discussing on what evolution is like, as opposed to why it's true.
To show you another text, that uses the same reasoning:
"The Bible does not seek to prove God’s existence, but rather takes it for granted. Scripture expresses a strong doctrine of natural revelation: the existence and attributes of God are evident from the creation itself, even though sinful human beings suppress and distort their natural knowledge of God. The dominant question in the Old and New Testaments is not whether God is, but rather who God is."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essa ... ce-of-god/
As such, the Bible supposes the existence of God, without proof. So you must conclude, by your logic, that the Bible is a piece of deception.
Please confirm.
En daarna heb ik geen reactie meer ontvangen.
Voor degenen die geïnteresseerd zijn: mijn bronnen:
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-Richard ... ht-back-to
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/g05zC7D7_nk
