X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
richard dawkins,evolution,douglas adams,bad music,cute old men Richard Dawkins discusses evolutionary time with children
Comments  playlists with this video HOST: History of Science and Technology by notarobot
• Science by ObsidianStorm
• Dawkins / Atheism by eric3579
• Atheism and religion by gwiz665
• The Meaning of Life by poolcleaner
• Rising from the ashes by Ornthoron
who voted for this video poolcleaner
- Ryjkyj
- peggedbea
- brain
- notarobot
- EDD
- gwiz665
- Ornthoron
- siftbot
x91 - jacobrecker
- JiggaJonson
- radx
- eric3579
who has this post bookmarked lertad
Richard Dawkins Discusses Evolutionary Time With Children Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. lovelynotes
(168 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments           | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Dunno why Adams thought that the novelists were the people to turn to in the 19th century, though. Philosophers like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche had much more interesting things to say about the big questions.
People burn Harry Potter books today in the name of god. And if you think that what they are doing is wrong, I would pay some respect to nietzsche. Not that he deserves all of that credit, but he certainly was a pioneer in existentialism.
It is very important, especially to children, to make it perfectly clear that there are generational changes and not just one creature morphing into what it is now.
That's the first time I've seen Dawkins' wife. She is a handsome woman.
You talking about Mrs. Garrison or her???
That's the first time I've seen Dawkins' wife. She is a handsome woman.
Lalla ward is a well-known actor, she was in Doctor Who for quite some time when she was younger.
In fact, before Dawkins she was married to Tom Baker, the fourth Doctor.
It's tough to avoid, but saying "we started as bacteria" is false and fuels the religious anti-evolution engine. We were never bacteria, but our ancestors were.
It is very important, especially to children, to make it perfectly clear that there are generational changes and not just one creature morphing into what it is now.
On the other hand, "we" (depends on what "we" he's talking about: you and I is false, we as a species is very true) emphasizes the essential oneness of everything alive today. Common ancestry. Humans and bacteria are the same in that we both started as bacteria. We're all part of the same evolutionary story, and that's an important lesson too.
But you're right: I think if this show were made today, even Dawkins would soften up the parts where you can hear Christian teeth grinding.
-- Great Pickup Lines by Richard Dawkins.
also, nietzsche=extremely overrated. hegel=extremely underrated
Haha! While I can agree that Nietzsche is indeed overrated since his post-WWII revival, Hegel has been overrated since 1807. Not to mention the fact that every time Hegel spoke about science he was dead wrong. At least Nietzsche kept his mouth shut.
For example Gauss said that "Noah got drunk only one time, to become then, according to the Scriptures, a judicious man, while the insanities of Hegel in the Doctoral Dissertation, where he criticizes Newton and questions the utility of a search for new planets are still wisdom if one compares them with his later remarks."
And to answer HadouKen24, Nietzsche was very much influenced by Dotoevsky, naming him his only reference in psychology. Schopenhauer almost deified Goethe, especially his literary works. And Kierkegaard was pretty much unknown until the first German translations of his work in the 1910s.
Obviously science doesn't offer "all we need".
Children and simple people require simple answers
Obviously science doesn't offer "all we need".
What is all we need?
Why do you kool-aid drinkers keep posting this drivel? I swear, this is the only site on the internet that pays attention to this lunatic...
I'm sure we're the only site that pays attention to you, but I don't see you complaining about that.
Has anyone else noticed that Science is Mr. Dawkins' religion?
Science is not a group of claims about reality like religion is.
Science is a METHOD for testing claims.
Religion has no such method.
Therefore science is not a religion.
Thank you.
Has anyone else noticed that Science is Mr. Dawkins' religion?
Religion is a Commitment to a kind or quality of life that purports to recognize A Source Beyond Itself and that recognizes certain fruits in human's conduct, culture and thought.
ReligionS try to answer the question of what commitment is the best to follow. (the buddhist way, the christian way, etc)
Now tell me where does the commitment factor applies to Dawkins? A scientist does not accept things withouth evidence, nor commits to something if sufficient and valid evidence to the contrary is presented. Where is the source beyond itself present in science and in Dawkins?
Don't confuse a passionate scientist for a dogmatic person.