Richard Dawkins FUNNY mistake

by Christ Alone 14 Replies latest social entertainment

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    This happened almost a year ago, but I thought it was funny. Here's the article:

    During this particular radio broadcast, Dawkins claimed that most Christians did not know what the first book of the New Testament is. He was trying to make the case that most Christians blindly follow and do not know what they believe exactly or why they believe it.

    After making the claim that most Christians did not know that Matthew was the first book of the NT, the dialogue continued this way:

    Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

    Dawkins: Yes I could.

    Fraser: Go on then.

    Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

    I almost feel bad for him. How embarassing. I don't think this illustrates ANYTHING like the article seems to imply. I just thought it was funny. Almost like watching someone fall down into a puddle of mud. You shouldn't laugh...but you can't help it.

  • Satanus

    You mean like slapstick humor?


  • DavePerez

    Fact is, it's an unimportant point and a false equivalency: 'Origin of Species' IS the name of Darwin's revolutionary and ground-breaking book (which actually was based on other trends in science: it's not THAT out of left field, as phylogeny was even a common man's hobby in the day), and no one but a true trivia wanker is worried about what the FULL sub-title is (vs one word: Matthew).

    While Origins is Darwin's seminal work, it's not like Darwin or Dawkins are the cornerstones upon which the theory of evolution rests, as its the SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS upon which the theory is built that counts. While people can try to dismiss evolution based on a trivial mental fart of Dawkins, you cannot erase or dismiss all the overwhelming mountains of biological evidence (fossils, DNA, microbiology, molecular biology, etc).

    Unlike the Bible, Origins is not a work of fiction, but a THEORY, which means it's always open to modification as evidence arises; in fact, Darwin's theory HAS been modified since when it was written, based on subsequent real-world verifiable evidence that you and I can touch and see, and is thus available for independent confirmation. That's the point of a theory: to offer an explanation for findings.

    The silly journalist who wrote the article in the British press acted like the priest had delivered a knock-out punch to evolution, when he did no such thing.

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    I wasn't arguing in favor of the writer of the article. I just thought it was funny that when he accused Christians of not knowing that Matthew was the first book of the NT (of which fact I find debatable), and then asked if he could give the full title of Origins (which he said, "Yes, I could"), he proceeded to flub on it.

    Just funny. Nothing I found profound about either position.

  • glenster
  • cofty

    Dawkins wrote:

    "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will.

    Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist.

    The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

  • Berengaria

    Not even Dawkins bases his daily life on the Darwin book. No one goes to war, kills, shuns, or descriminates in the name of Darwin. People don't head off to tax exempt temples every Sunday morning or Saturday night to read about, sing about and bow down before Darwin. I personally have never had anyone come to my door to tell me how foolish I am not to believe in Darwin and get straight away to one of the aforementioned temples.

    Oh and quite frankly, he did a pretty damn good job of remembering the title. Particularly since the original hasn't been in use for over a hundred years.

    On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species.

  • Berengaria

    Obviously this article resurfaced somewhere two days ago. Two of our posters simultaneously posted it after almost a year.

    Where did you hear of it?

  • MrFreeze

    I think it is a big difference to not know anything about the book you claim to base your life, your morals, your beliefs on, then to forget a little bit of a rather long title of a book that Dawkins doesn't base his life off of. He remembered most of it.

    A brain fart is not really that embarrassing when you compare it to complete ignorance.

  • cofty

    From the OP...

    He was trying to make the case that most Christians blindly follow and do not know what they believe exactly or why they believe it.

    This much is undoubtedly true.

Share this