Talk:The Blind Watchmaker

message: May we remove the Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow. tag that some joker inserted? --Wetman 10:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning

message: In light of the above discussion, I removed the following text:
: While he calls this the "deepest of problems," it has been noted that he makes no attempt to explain the origin of matter and energy, space, and time—the material and framework of evolution—nor the origin of physical law—the underlying rules for evolution (for example, see Davies (1992)).
Dawkins' goal is to explain why, given natural law, evolution is not only true but necessary.  Therefore, demanding that he now explain natural law is unreasonable.  Instead, Davies would have to explain how natural law could be otherwise, and how life might be possible in such circumstances without the benefit of evolution.  When he does that, he'll deserve mention in this article. Alienus 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davies 

message: I added links to criticisms of Dawkins's blind watchmaker hypothesis. 
Here they are:
*The Blind Watchmaker Thesis by Phillip Johnson
*The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker by Phillip Johnson 
ken 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not balanced to include two links by the leading proponent of "Intelligent Design." I have removed all external links. Laurence Boyce 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For potential future reference: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo  *Spark* 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you declare that the book in question is based on philosophical grounds.  It is not.  It is based on 150 years of research on biology.  If you actually bother to read and understand books on evolution, you will realize that all the natural wonders we see can be explained by evolution based on two simple principals: random mutation and non-random natural selection.  If any 'scientist' can come up with a theory and corresponding experiment to prove evolution wrong, this person will immediately get a Nobel Prize. Evolution has withstood 150 years of 'attacks' by researchers.  Everytime, a problem is posed and a solution is found (e.g. why is there a need for sexual reproduction). Not a single researcher has been able to bring down the theory of evolution.  If this is called argument based on philosophical grounds, I don't know what can be called science. Fred Hsu 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone just tried to add this very same link back today. I removed it. Anyone who claims evolution by natural selection is "just a theory" or "only based on philosophical grounds" should take time to consider the following.  Evolution has withstood 150 years of rigorous research. It has prediction powers which have been repeatedly proven correct. Evolution is based on the same scientific process which gives us modern medicine and airplanes. If you think evolution cannot be believed because it is just a conjecture, you should stop taking plane rides and stop taking pills. Think about it. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added links to criticisms of Dawkins's blind watchmaker hypothesis 

message: Here is what I wrote: Philosopher Dallas Willard criticized Richard Dawkin's work The Blind Watchmaker and called it "metaphysical speculation".  ken 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made the article less biased and offered criticism of The Blind Watchmaker 

message: :Image:Blind Watchmaker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the situation by adding Fair Use explanation to the image. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blind Watchmaker.jpg

message: Where are the criticisms? Faro0485 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the criticisms?  Maybe there weren't any.  Perhaps you could find some reliable sources and then improve the article with them.  Be bold if you think the article is missing detail on aspects of its subject.  If you're thinking of adding a specific criticism section, have a look here first.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The very nature of computers makes them unreliable sources for simulating unintelligent systems. Or said this way; any complex non-intelligent system must be reduced to a simpler and intelligent system in order to be simulated; the system disqualifies itself by being the product on intelligence. His computer program would be much more impressive in proving his point, if the computer and the computer program had evolved without the input of an advanced intelligence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.82.50 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Now in 2018 there are more criticisms of Dawkins and more awareness of its shortcomings. However, there is still nothing in this article. Lehasa (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criticism sections are discouraged.  However, if you read the "Reception" section, there is some criticism there already, in what seems to be due weight.  —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms