oh trust me, I hear what you are saying
the only reason I dabble in medicine and auto mechanics is because I know all to well not everyone is good at what they do for a living, and that is especially true for doctors and mechanics
luckily I do know professionals who are good at what they do for a living so I am not solely dependent on my amateur skills at either trade .
Perhaps I should state that I am not against people stating their opinions, no matter how absurd they may be, Dawkins writing his book is not what riles me, it's the fact that he adds elements in his story which are out right lies.
Again in full disclosure, I did not follow Dawkins throughout his life and so my claims that the schooling Dawkins lists as under his belt are fabricated can't be taken as fact. What I am saying is that he is no scientist, as even a person with the degrees can opt to abuse the name of science by injecting lies to ones work. And while I did get the list from Wikipedia, I don't think that part of the entry in discrepancy with what Dawkins claims, the error stems from it not being true, but I have no doubt Dawkins does claim the schooling and research the wiki lists, he just does it from a very carefully worded legalese standpoint
but there is a world of difference between a degree earned by taking the required classes and getting a passing grade and the degree that is awarded honorary
My problem with Dawkins is that he makes claims for other scientists which they never made. Darwin authored books himself, so I don't think it's OK for Dawkins to make his assertions and attribute the non-existence of God to another author's work.
Believe me, I get just as angry as Dawkins does at the conservative right wing, however I do not use their fabricated science as an excuse to fabricate my own science in retaliation. I do not believe there is ever an excuse to fudge science, I strongly believe that when people do it, the know damn well when they are doing it, and I believe it is wrong to state those areas of philosophical imaginations as opposed to theory based on what is accepted as science in a specific field.
Granted, he wrote his books in the eighties, and scientists knowledge of Genetics has grown leaps and bounds since then, mostly because of the discovery of a heavy duty transcriptase taking from bacteria that lives in hot springs with temperatures near that of boiling water. This transcriptase which is able to transcribe DNA and RNA at temperatures where our own transcriptase would fall apart and not be functional is what allows Polymerase Chain Reaction
PCR is responsible for the bulk of our knowledge since the eighties
Dawkins is not wrong to publish his fantasy view point of evolution and his theories of social and psychological evolution
He IS wrong to do so while also incorporating lies to punctuate his assertions. I believe there are very few instances in life where incorporating lies are acceptable, however science is one of the areas when and where fallacy is never acceptable. Scientists devise hypothesis and test them, never would a scientist attempt to publish a untested hypothesis, that would be the work of a journalist
there is a huge distinction between psychology and science, and Dawkins blends the two as if they are one and same, however psychology is a sub-set of pseudo-science in that it is restricted to opinion as opposed to fact. Psychology is light years behind all other science disciplines because of people like Dawkins who see nothing wrong with twisting the truth while denying the twist
it does matter, and until the day comes when people can be taught the benefits of truth and the gifts of understanding life that is offered to those who practice honesty, the field of psychology will remain severely crippled by the very male character trait of living in the firm grip of denial
Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-25-2013 at 04:47 AM.