* Dawkins a response.
I received a long email in response to my promotion of atheism as promulgated by Richard Dawkins, Dick to his friends. As the email was very long winded I have had to precis it, as follows :
What is the difference between a Marxist explanation of an historical event; an astrological explanation of the events in a known life e.g. Marylin Monroe; a Darwinian explanation of the evolution of a common organ e.g. the eye?
In the Marxist explanation the explanation fits well to the facts, but has failed in predictive ability for subsequent historical events. In the astrological analysis of Miss Monroe's natal chart the main life events are clearly identified but then fails where predictive analysis is attempted. In the same way Darwinian explanations of the possible evolution of the eye are convincing but in what way do they differ from the previous two examples and how are they predictive?
(F*cked if I know. I must say if you want the best horoscope I can recommend the Observer (Sunday) newspaper horoscope it is the stunningly accurate and published by a paper whose veracity cannot be denied)
Anyway, my correspondent then goes on to provide a long Darwinian description for the evolution of the 'sliced white loaf' which I must admit is extremely amusing starting from the first grasses to final sliced bread loaf.
They then go on to make some very amusing comments about Oxford University science departments. These probably mean alot more to academics than they do to me, but, if their is any truth to them then I'd choose Cambridge or some of the better old redbrick universities (the ones before the outbreak of John Major universities) if you want to do a science degree.
They then describe Doc' Dick Dawk' (in brief) as a fundamentalist Darwinian complete with his own satanic verses these being the amendments in the later versions of the 'Origin of the Species' where Darwin expressed a possibility that there may be other factors at work in the evolutionary process, whispered in his ear by dark forces.
The view is expressed that Doc' Dick' Dawk' has a fairly common male personality type where the possessor cannot tolerate the notion that people do not agree with them and are locked into a cycle of continuous justifications of their views. (Yeah right rings a bell)
I must admit I'm not entirely convinced by the email those God-botherers are out there and I can't believe a scientist has any agenda other that to spread the light of truth in the darkness of ignorance. Good Old Doc' Dick Dawk' I say.