13 February 2009

Which came first...the fish or the human?

I like how this guy pauses to answer a simple question.

What is your response to it?



Source:CMI INFObytes.

4 comments:

Fr. Matt said...

Perhaps the Red Herring came first? He didn't answer the question. The question was for an example of an instance where the information on the genome has increased. He gave us a lesson from Evolution 101. Red Herring.

CMWoodall said...

correct.

His only defense is that these blokes turned up at his home without letting him in on the fact that they were creationists. He simply wasn't ready, but it did not take him long to figure it out.
In an upcoming post He [Richard Dawkins] will interview the Bishop of Oxford.

Richard Naff said...

I concur with Fr. Matt. The question Mr. Dawkins answered was a question that wasn't put to him.

I can't see founding a "defense" in not knowing to whom you're talking. If Mr. Dawkins is so absolutely sure Evolutions is hard-fact science, it shouldn't matter who asks a question about Evolution; the science should both require and dictate a concrete answer.

If a Morlock (H.G. Wells "Time Machine") asks me a question about photon waveform interference, I should be able to answer the question despite the Morlock never having seen the Sun. Stumbling over waveform interference because the person who asked has never seen light isn't an excuse for not being able to answer the question.

Loved the moment, though. Made me kind of curious if he keeps crib notes on the ceiling to answer hard questions.

Or perhaps he was silently appealing to heaven, "Dear Lord, I'm on the spot! If you get me out of this, I promise I'll go to church every Sunday."

Acolyte4236 said...

I think what Dawkins is trying to argue is that, we can't give an exmaple since the transitional forms are in the fossil recored. All we have are the present forms.

What he should have appealed to are cases among bacteria or other small organisms or better yet in plants since transitional forms can be "seen" by us there.