I’ve expressed my views on that many times, for several years already. The problem for this century and beyond is the rapid rate of global warming, a result of power generation from billions of fossil fuel burning machines. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

In other words, the “end of the world” by global warming will be caused by the rapid speed of anthropogenic global climate change, much too fast for plants and animals to adapt/evolve. My view or the “end of the world” is when plants and animals on earth have become extinct. Many people will be surprised at how quickly things change.

For example, see the excerpt below on the concerns expressed by glaciologist Roman Motyka on how glaciologists will be surprised when they learn that the glaciers in southeast Alaska have been vanishing twice as fast as previously expected.
–
“Motyka is concerned a runaway process – initially triggered by climate warming but now controlled by glacial calving dynamics – may
already be underway in Southeast Alaska.

More of the same could be in store for world’s other coastal glaciers, he said.

“We have a lot of ice (in Southeast Alaska), but Greenland has more,” Motyka said.

In Greenland, Motyka and other Geophysical Institute scientists are attempting to learn how dramatic loss of ice at the base of a large
tidewater glacier, the Jakobshavn, is affecting the ice sheet at the top.”
–
Excerpt from:
Ice in Southeast vanishing twice as fast as expected By ELIZABETH BLUEMINK
Web posted August 2, 2006

Text copy of juneauempire article was posted by Tim Jones today at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveDiscussion/message/885

How would the “end of the world” be caused by global warming?

Secondly, science is a human endeavor and subject to human weaknesses. While we may strive to see the world as it is without any preconcieved notions, there is just too much that remains unknown, and we can not help but fill in the gaps with bits and pieces of our own world view/cosmology. Anyone who says that they don’t do this should not be trusted.

While many here think that differences and partisanships are bad, I think it is part of a healthy process! Otherwise we would be unchallenged in our own little viewpoints and the quality of our decisions would likely be less.

What!?

So before I, as a (hypothetically) classical liberal, can have an opinion on some matter, I have to establish where the middle ground is in order to avoid seeming too “partisan”. I live in New Zealand. Should I seek the local middle ground or that pertaining in the USA? (They are not the same.)

What I objected to, and still object to, is Richard Dawkins not making it clear that his atheism is a *religious* belief. He *believes* “God is a lie” because of his FAITH (in lack of a God). He does not, and can not, falsify God using science.

To put it in another way, my criticism of Richard Dawkins is that he does not, as Jesus (is alleged to have) advised, “Render under Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s…” (And render unto science that which is science’s.)

Here is another example of his lack of ability to see his OWN religious persuasion, and to confuse his religious persuasion with science. In an interview, he says:

http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.html

“Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive.”

His assertion that natural section is “guided not by any higher power…” is no more scientific than a statement that natural selection IS guided by a higher power.

The proper scientific way to explain it is that “natural selection can be explained with invoking a higher power.” (Or words to that effect.)

Here is still another example:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/41240;jsessionid=baa6gWCz81

“I think it was worth it, because if you do your history forwards, it looks as though evolution is aimed at the endpoint. And if the endpoint happens to be humans, as it is likely to be—because we are human and we are most interested in humans—then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, and that’s positively wrong.”

His statement, “…then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, and that’s positively wrong” is a statement of RELIGIOUS belief. It’s not a scientific statement.

If he’d said, “…then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, but I don’t think that’s the case,” or something like that, then I’d have no problem.

It’s not a good idea when a scientist confuses his own religious beliefs with science. That’s what Richard Dawkins does. (Unless he is simply making mistakes in his interviews, which is certainly possible and understandable.)

If one were to dig into the meaning of “the Bible is literally true”, I suspect you would find more nuances than have been suggested.

A number of religious people hold the view that there is one and only one reality, and thus science and religion will eventually be reconciled. They believe the Dawkins position to be a violation of Einstein’s advice to “make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In the meantime, they keep an open mind with regard to science, recognizing that today’s scientific truth might well end up as tomorrow’s scientific embarrassment. They also understand that some aspects of today’s religious orthodoxy might also end up on the trash heap. They are capable of reserving final judgment on a great number of issues, recognizing that contradictions between religion and science are temporary.

Not all religious people are irrational, thank you very much.

In Paul Starobin’s cover story on the politicization of science he mentions evolution, global warming and other subjects. Global climate change research means much more to the world than other sciences. Global warming may lead to the end of the world by itself or through human conflicts that develop as a result of global warming.

Author Pielke Jr., R. wrote on July 28, 2006:

“I criticized scientists at RealClimate last week for serving as agents of divisiveness in political debates.” …

… an internal memo from the Inter-Mountain Rural Electric Association that details, among other things, that the IREA have donated $100,000 to support the activities of Patrick Michaels, a long-time political advocate on the climate issue.

But the response to this memo, at RealClimate and elsewhere, suggest to me that many involved in the climate debate would much rather bash their opponents than work with them to find common ground. In a democracy, action occurs most often through compromise rather than complete annihilation of one’s opponents. Until this point is realized by those calling for “action” expect gridlock to continue.”

The point is that Pielke Jr., R. does not understand, believe or care that global climate change research means much more to the world than other sciences. That global warming may lead to the end of the world by itself or through human conflicts that develop as a result of global warming.

For Pielke Jr., R. to suggest that RealClimate.org scientists fail to see that in a democracy action occurs most often through compromise rather than complete annihilation of one’s opponents, and then for Pielke Jr., R. to blame RealClimate scientists for contributing to gridlock (which is happening but is not in any way a result of the efforts by RealClimate scientists to educate the public on global warming), is unacceptable in this world created by God.

The first statement is what being an atheist is all about, and unless you think scientists have no business being atheistic I don’t know what the problem is. On the subject, I said if religious scientists can write books on their perspective regarding science / religion, so can irreligious ones.

The second statement – which you made of Dawkins – is simply inaccurate. First, Dawkins has repeatedly criticized the notion THAT you must “disprove” an idea to not take it seriously. Second, like all minimally competent scientists he has quite nuanced views on the role of ‘proof’ in the empirical sciences. Reading that he thinks ‘evolution disproves all religious views’ is bizarre to anyone who’s read his work. What he has said, and repeatedly, is that when science can test a factual claim a specific religion makes, it usually finds that the religion was wrong (a stronger statement of the sort you’ve yourself made in this thread). A deeper point he’s made is that evolution makes a life-god unnecessary, sort of like understanding nuclear fusion or meteorology make sun and wind gods unnecessary. Again, this is a statement with a distinguished intellectual pedigree – think Laplace saying ‘I have no need for that hypothesis’.

The statement also differs from ‘evolution disproves the notion of gods, makes the notion of a creater logically impossible’. You can be an atheist without believing that. Most atheists don’t make that very strong statement.

“D responded, “A red herring. If you read his work, he says modern science makes creater-designer gods less useful / insignificant / irrelevent by explaining life and its evolution without needing to invoke such concepts.”

All I need to do is read his quote, “Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it,” Dawkins has said about faith in God. “But who wants to believe a lie?”

If that’s an accurate quote, he clearly doesn’t know what science can and cannot address. His characterization of God as a “lie” is not science…it’s his opinion.

“He does not, at any point, say ‘QED! hence (does not exist) (God).’”

Didn’t you read the quote? Or do you deny it’s an accurate quote? Richard Dawkins said believing in God is believing a lie. That’s NOT a statement of science.

“Falsifiability is wonderful and all, but entirely beside the point. I compared (for example) Francis Collins, the human genome guy who says science makes his Christian worldview convincing / *more* likely, with Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, who says the it makes it *less* plausible.”

His quote doesn’t say knowledge of evolution makes the existence of God seem less plausible. His quote says God is a lie. That’s not a statement of science. That’s a statement of his (anti-religious) belief.

Richard Dawkins should stick to science. There are plenty of places where the literal words of the Bible (provided the translations from ancient Hebrew to English are accurate!) can be shown by science to be false.*** But to say that God is a “lie,” is simply NOT a statement of science.

***P.S. I was debating with some folks on Free Republic a several years ago. I’m too lazy to try to find the exact exchange, but it went something like this:

1) I said that the story of Noah’s Ark was obviously false, because no one could gather several of ALL the animals of the world…especially in Noah’s time.

2) The response was that maybe the animals came to the Ark themselves.

3) I then noted how unlikely it would be, for example, for penguins to swim across thousands of miles of oceans, and then walk hundreds of miles across land. If the Ark was in Turkey, for example, I wondered why no one reported large numbers of unusual animals converging on a particular location.

4) The response was that maybe the animals were made invisible (by God).

5) I stopped there, but I could have gone on to point out that the distribution of animals at present doesn’t match the idea that all the animals in the world came from one point only 4000 years ago. (For example, polar bears are in the Arctic but not anywhere else in nature.)

6) But a supernatural explanation could be given. For example, God flew the polar bears from wherever the Ark landed up to the Arctic (while they were invisible, of course).

My apologies. The true figure is closer to 45% (and 34% of all Americans believe the Bible as a whole – and not just Genesis – is literally true):

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

If you think anything like 45% of Americans as a whole or scientists in particular take Gaia mother goddess stuff seriously, um, you can go on thinking this.

“Richard Dawkins can’t know much about science, if he thinks that science can be used to prove that God doesn’t exist.”

A red herring. If you read his work, he says modern science makes creater-designer gods less useful / insignificant / irrelevent by explaining life and its evolution without needing to invoke such concepts. He also makes several angry statements about how awful religion is. He does not, at any point, say “QED! hence (does not exist) (God).” In fact, one of his points IS that the very idea of that you need to disprove the existence of God to be an atheist is absurd and akin to having to disprove the existence of ghosts or gremlins or teapots orbiting Pluto in order to not take such claims seriously. You can like him or dislike him or critique his views. But to say he thinks science “disproves” the existence of god is just plain absurd.

“It has to do with falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of science, and which separates science from religion.”

Falsifiability is wonderful and all, but entirely beside the point. I compared (for example) Francis Collins, the human genome guy who says science makes his Christian worldview convincing / *more* likely, with Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, who says the it makes it *less* plausible. If one is acceptable (and of course it is!) so too is the other.