Dear Richard Dawkins

(KeepThatFaith creates fantastic graphics and content for the conservative movement. This is a great example.   – promoted by garrett3000)

Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Dinesh D'Souza.  You may have known this if you watched our the first video, Time To Debate, about the Dawkins/D'Souza relationship.    

Dawkins probably needed a good book to read and we had just the gift to raise his spirit during this holiday season.  Merry Christmas, enjoy, and KeepThatFaith.

About KeepThatFaith

  • He has a website where it seems he accepts correspondence and also there is a forum there.  Has anyone brought the D’Souza issue up?

    The problem I have with D’Souza, as I mentioned before, is that this isn’t his field.  It would be better to have someone who is a biolgist of some kind that understands exactly what Dawkins is talking about.  As I’ve seen before, people that don’t understand what Dawkins is talking about will hit Dawkin’s on how he thinks everything just happened by random chance.  And then Dawkins, rightly, says “You have no idea what you are talking about.”  Personally, I don’t understand it either.  Biology was not my strong subject.  At all…

    Dawkins explains himself here:

    Every living creature has ancestors, but only a fraction have descendants. All inherit the genes of an unbroken sequence of successful ancestors, none of whom died young and none of whom failed to reproduce. Genes that program embryos to develop into adults who can successfully reproduce automatically survive in the gene pool, at the expense of genes that fail. This is natural selection at the gene level, and we notice its consequences at the organism level. There has to be an ultimate source of new genetic variation, and it is mutation. Copies of newly mutated genes are reshuffled through the gene pool by sexual reproduction, and selection removes them from the pool in a way that is non-random.

    Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.

    If Dinesh is going to talk about randomness and chance, then he loses.  It doesn’t matter at all if the audience loves him.