Amateur Christian Apologist Gaslights By Quote Mining Dawkins

I don't have any strong opinions about Dawkins. I never closely followed his work. However, here we are.
Youtube's algorithm threw me this bone to chew on.
Let's see if we can reach the marrow, before I see a passing squirrel. ----------------------------
For the rest of this blog, I'm going to refer to the host of the above-linked video as "FGI" (short for "Faith Growth Initiative"), because I don't know his name. There really isn't a most famous atheist ever. As examples, Christopher Hitchens is more often quoted by atheists. And Ernest Hemmingway is far more celebrated than any of the Four Horsemen. However, being an "atheist" is like being a non Leprechaun believer. Who is the most famous non-Leprechaun-ist ever? It's not a really meaningful designation. ---- 0:36 Big Bang Theory is cosmology. It has nothing to do with how biological life began. ----- 0:47 I have yet to encounter an atheist, or a non-religious scientist ... who thinks anything came from literally nothing. Not even Laurence Krauss (author of "A Universe From Nothing") thinks it came from literally nothing. He thinks it all started from virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. Dawkins certainly isn't invoking ex nihilo. Although, some Christian Theists say it all came from nothing. In fact, it was Christians who popularized that idea. Today, it's still such a common claim from Christians that Dan Maclellan has released two videos correcting it.

------ Dawkins is a biologist. He's not qualified to speak with any scientific authority about cosmology. Big Bang Theory is cosmology. Big Bang theory doesn't even attempt to account for where any of the material or energy came from. It's a scientific theory (in the same sense that gravity is a theory). It's only about the rapid expansion and how that pertains to the development of our known universe. It's not about anything prior to rapid expansion. Zero scientists know anything about anything prior to rapid expansion. They don't know what the laws of physics were like before then. They don't know how to account for the existence or central location of all that energy. They don't know what made it rapidly expand. They don't know anything about "time" prior to that moment. They don't know anything about energy or matter before that moment. They don't know that those energies ever didn't exist. etc.. ------ Next, I too found it strange that Dawkins might have answered anything differently if he knew a Christian fundamentalist was asking. I haven't seen any proof he ever said this. I can just grant it, for the sake of argument. But then I'm left wondering if he just meant he would have been better at anticipating where the line of questioning was going. [*** edit *** Spoiler Alert. In just a moment, I'm going to finally realize the most probable reason why Dawkins would have answered differently; if he had known which pile of shit Stein was sitting on] It's very uncharitable to just assume Dawkins was confessing some devious anti-God agenda. When two Christians have a conversation about any doctrinal or philosophical matters, they may also tailor their choice of words differently than they would if they were talking with someone in a rival sect, rival religion, or rival social demographic. I don't think this has to mean they are being disingenuous or sneaky. ------ 01:57 "It could come about in the following way". This is a reference to one possible way that life began on Earth. He's pointing out that the true first beginning of life in our universe could have (for all we know) started on some other planet. Per that scenario, ... Chemical evolution
led to abiogenesis,
led to biological evolution,
led to evolved aliens,
led to our planet being seeded with biological organisms that were "intelligently designed" by people who themselves were not intelligently designed.
This is how it could be possible that Terran biological life could show the signature of "intelligent design" without a God designing it. In that hypothetical scenario, there is still no "God" needed. And no God is invoked. All the same explanations that biologists and chemists normally propose still apply but started somewhere else. To his credit, he prefaced his speculations with "I don't know". Ben pressed for a hypothetical. Richard gave him one. -- Next, Dawkins did not say "outside of our universe". We can't rule that out either. Although, he never said this. In fact, FGI had just got done quoting him (repeating his words for us) where he specifically says: that speculation is about a race of beings that evolved IN this universe. Dawkins said that. FGI repeated it. So I know FGI heard it. And then FGI immediately claimed Dawkins said exactly the opposite. And then FGI mocked him for saying what FGI already admitted he never said. That's some low-quality gaslighting. But FGI will get away with it with it. Why? Because it all happened so fast. Why else? Because his similarly-religious followers will be in a receptive/compliant mode; as they wait eagerly for FGI to score imaginary points for their team.

-- Next, "Intriguing" might mean "fun to think about". But sure. He does also seem to be taking that possibility seriously. And yet, there's no reason to mock this openness to the possibilities ... except that FGI is closed to all possibilities other than the religious narrative (and culture) he has come to identity with. --- 03:07 [Here, FGI is attempting to sum up what Dawkins just said] "There is a designer". No. That's not what Dawkins was saying.

Remember. Stein asked him to speculate about a specific hypothetical where it turns out that intelligent design has been verified in the biological life here on Earth. Dawkins isn't offering that requested hypothetical as what Dawkins thinks "is" the case. Dawkins is offering a requested speculation for what could account for verified intelligent design IF intelligent design ever gets verified as true. He's indulging a hypothetical. He's not telling us what he thinks "is" the case. But if he had realized which slimy cult Stein was from (Conservative Christianity; the Mos Eisley of humanity's philosophical Tatooine), perhaps Dawkins never would have fallen for this. - Because *of course* Bad Faith Actors (like the "Faith Growth Initiative" guy) are going to spin it into something they find useful. ----- We are only 1/3rd of the way through this.
I can't even think of a reason to keep going.
- Unless someone wants to pay me to keep reviewing this. I wouldn't turn down some of Ben Stein's Money.
But that's what it would take.
I've made my case.
There's no need to spend and more time on this.
Also,