Print
State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'
by Local 10
Thanks to James McDonald for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html
New School Curriculum Standards Pass By Narrow Vote
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- The teaching standards for Florida schools include the word "evolution" for the first time, under a decision Tuesday by the state school board.
The board approved the use of the term "scientific theory of evolution" in public schools science standards.
Previously, the term was couched by using phrases such as "change over time." The reaction in Tallahassee from those opposed and those for the change was fairly low key, Local 10 reported.
Adding the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise, not standards proposed originally to the committee. The option to include "scientific theory" was made late last week. The amendment, which supporters refer to as the "academic freedom proposal," was unveiled late Friday.
Board member Roberto Martinez said that the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards.
Terry Kemple, the executive director of the Community Issues Council in Tampa, opposed adding the language "scientific theory" during public comments. In his group's opinion, he said, adding "scientific theory does not begin to even address the problems" with the standards, which were drafted over approximately the past year.
John Sullivan, executive director-treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, has been outspoken in his opposition of the proposal. Sullivan sent a letter to all members of the Board of Education on Feb. 17 on behalf of the Convention's State Board of Missions, which represents Florida Baptists.
He said the teaching of evolution in Florida's schools should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory.
The state Board of Education agreed to adopt the new curriculum standards Tuesday by a narrow 4 to 3 vote.
Reposted from:
http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html
New School Curriculum Standards Pass By Narrow Vote
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- The teaching standards for Florida schools include the word "evolution" for the first time, under a decision Tuesday by the state school board.
The board approved the use of the term "scientific theory of evolution" in public schools science standards.
Previously, the term was couched by using phrases such as "change over time." The reaction in Tallahassee from those opposed and those for the change was fairly low key, Local 10 reported.
Adding the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise, not standards proposed originally to the committee. The option to include "scientific theory" was made late last week. The amendment, which supporters refer to as the "academic freedom proposal," was unveiled late Friday.
Board member Roberto Martinez said that the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards.
Terry Kemple, the executive director of the Community Issues Council in Tampa, opposed adding the language "scientific theory" during public comments. In his group's opinion, he said, adding "scientific theory does not begin to even address the problems" with the standards, which were drafted over approximately the past year.
John Sullivan, executive director-treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, has been outspoken in his opposition of the proposal. Sullivan sent a letter to all members of the Board of Education on Feb. 17 on behalf of the Convention's State Board of Missions, which represents Florida Baptists.
He said the teaching of evolution in Florida's schools should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory.
The state Board of Education agreed to adopt the new curriculum standards Tuesday by a narrow 4 to 3 vote.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 70 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #129634 by liberalartist on February 19, 2008 at 11:52 am
"The board approved the use of the term "scientific theory of evolution" in public schools science standards. "
now they need to teach students what exactly "scientific theory" means. As someone who lives in the south, I am pleased that they are at least recognizing evolution in the science curriculum. Its a step in the right direction. The real issue is, what will teachers teach in the classroom? That depends on the school district and how powerful the religous lobby is there. Many teachers in the US are skirting the whole evolution topic just to avoid controversy.
Other Comments by liberalartist
3. Comment #129635 by Adam Morrison on February 19, 2008 at 11:52 am
the teaching of evolution ... should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory
Ummm.... ok.
How about somebody comes up with some logical criticisms and not stupid poofist nonsense?
Any takers? No?
Between this and the 'oranges argument' Florida is really shining this week
Other Comments by Adam Morrison
4. Comment #129639 by thompjs on February 19, 2008 at 11:56 am
Of course they should teach scientific criticism of evolutionary theory. Since there are none of note, that will be a short discussion in the class room.Excepting of course, the FSM.
Ramen.
Other Comments by thompjs
5. Comment #129645 by quill on February 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm
You know...
I wonder if it might be possible to call a kind of general intellectual strike.
As in, teachers, professors, engineers, scientists, serious journalists, artists, newspaper editors, public intellectuals, etc. just STRIKE for a little while until all these nitwits get the message.
Do you think?
Other Comments by quill
6. Comment #129647 by al-rawandi on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm
quill,
A strike? Our infrastructure would collapse with these fucktards in charge of everything.
If the intelligent went on strike, they would be all too eager to hire Bible College graduates to teach that Dinosaurs roamed the earth just prior to the arrival of Christ.
You have to keep on working just so it doesn't get any worse.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
7. Comment #129650 by liberalartist on February 19, 2008 at 12:25 pm
How about a relocation plan, put all the bible thumpers in certain states, and the smart people in other states and lets see what happens. They are already segregated by color (red/blue). Other Comments by liberalartist
8. Comment #129652 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:28 pm
*LOL* This is soooo Ayn Rand... Other Comments by jbblack
9. Comment #129653 by al-rawandi on February 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm
liberalartist,
I am always weary about population relocation.
But let's look at your statement:
How about a relocation plan, put all the bible thumpers in certain states, and the smart people in other states and lets see what happens. They are already segregated by color (red/blue).
Changes....
relocation plan----> Get rid of them plan
certain states-----> Space rocket with enough fuel to reach sun.
other states---> California, and any other coastal state with nice climate.
See what happens----> Party our asses off.
Also I would add we should keep a few to do labor, like farm and clean urinals. Sort of like how people always tried to domesticate the Zombies in George A. Romero films. (Bub in Day of the Dead for instance)...... Wait that never turned out well, the people still got eaten.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
10. Comment #129655 by Driver on February 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm
"Adding the term 'scientific theory' before the term 'evolution' was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise"
To be consistent we should reach a compromise on nomenclature for other subjects. For example, "The scientific theory of the cell"
Other Comments by Driver
11. Comment #129656 by al-rawandi on February 19, 2008 at 12:31 pm
jbblack,
Was Ayn Rand a creationist?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
12. Comment #129659 by padster1976 on February 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm
So Florida has excepted evolution? Er, welcome to the 20th Century!
Now hurry up to the 21st!
Other Comments by padster1976
13. Comment #129661 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Actually, no, she was an uber-conservative atheist author. One of her novels, Atlas Shrugged had the exact same storyline, where all the intelligent people went on strike and hid out until the entire infrastructure collapsed under the rule of the dooftards.While I don't agree with a lot of her philosophical works, I really did enjoy the book.
On an aside note, liberalartist, I really apologize. I was shuffling windows a while ago and accidentally tagged your post as spam. There's really not an "oops, I didn't mean that" option.
Other Comments by jbblack
14. Comment #129662 by joe brummer on February 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Wow, they are going to teach a "scientific theory" in the science classroom? This is the begining of the end. Next they will want to teach mathatical theory in the math classroom? Where does this slippery slope end?Other Comments by joe brummer
15. Comment #129663 by c4chaos on February 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm
gah! but this is still somewhat of a good news, though. personally, although i don't doubt that biological evolution is a scientific fact, there's more to the evolution debate than between creationists and evolutionists. allow me to link to my serendipitous post on my blog: "Will the REAL Evolution Debate Please Stand Up! (Reloaded)"
here's to the mother of all burkas!
~C
Other Comments by c4chaos
16. Comment #129664 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Know what you mean, Joe. If this gets to welding in shop class or baking in Home Economics, it'll all be over then. Other Comments by jbblack
17. Comment #129665 by annabanana on February 19, 2008 at 12:43 pm
the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards.
Why, in the name of the FSM, would we want to placate any of these morons?
Adding the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise
This is super annoying since it is re-affirming the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "theory".
Other Comments by annabanana
18. Comment #129666 by SamKiddoGordon on February 19, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I propose creating an athiest/intelligencia/scientific virtual on-line state. Anyone who is an athiest can become a virtual citizen. Together, that state would have incredible lobbying power, and maybe even create a physical state. You can borrow some acres I have off in the woods of northern Alberta Canada.Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
19. Comment #129667 by al-rawandi on February 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm
SamKiddoGordon,
In the words of the Guiness Guys.... Brilliant!
We could so buy like 25% of Canada.
I have often thought about what an atheist state would be like... I vote 2 drink minimum in the parliament (or other legislative body).
Other Comments by al-rawandi
20. Comment #129670 by liberalartist on February 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm
party our asses off sounds like a good result. As a fairly mobile American, I am constantly torn between living in the temperate zone of my current habitat and the deep freeze of more rational states (I'm thinking Wisconsin here). So your suggestion of California has many appeals for me. I came across a book the other day called Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach which is about California breaking away from the Republic for ecological reasons. Which is probably why I made the suggestion in the first place. I have not read this book yet, so will not recommend. Other Comments by liberalartist
21. Comment #129671 by quill on February 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm
You know, that's not as crazy as it sounds. Look how much money Ron Paul has convinced people to give to him. Other Comments by quill
22. Comment #129673 by rod-the-farmer on February 19, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I went to the ABC News web site article. There are already 216 comments about the story, AND a place you can vote on the subject. Here are the results, so farThe Florida State School Board votes this week on new science standards that mandate teaching evolution. Do you think schools should be required to teach evolution?
Of course. In the 21st Century we should all accept the science of evolution.
267
Absolutely not. I believe in creationism. Evolution should not be taught.
71
I'm on the fence.
10
It should be up to each school to decide for themselves.
9
Total Vote: 357
I suppose we should be pleased that so many people voted for the first choice.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
23. Comment #129675 by liberalartist on February 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Canada's even colder than Wisconsin, isn't it? Such a dilema, but I am getting tired of the simple-mindedness down here in the south y'all! Other Comments by liberalartist
24. Comment #129677 by konquererz on February 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Gee congratulations Florida! Now we are only a couple decades behind the world in the field of science! Other Comments by konquererz
25. Comment #129683 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm
This is super annoying since it is re-affirming the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "theory".
Only if you read into it the original compromise. But in fact it can be read as a simple statement that 'the scientific theory of evolution' is to be taught. I think the publicity could (and probably should) be used to assert that evolution is a scientific theory like gravity is a scientific theory.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
26. Comment #129705 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm
From Feb 12 NCSE update:http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/FL/731_evolution_under_siege_in_flori_2_12_2008.asp
The previous set of standards, adopted in 1999, received a grade of F in a
2005 report from the Fordham Foundation, which observed, "The
superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the
grade 'F'." Lawrence S. Lerner, a coauthor of the report, evaluated a
previous draft of the new standards, grading it as a high B, and
commenting, "With a little bit of extra effort, Florida could bring that up
to an A." The final draft, released on February 1, 2008, incorporated many
of the suggestions offered by Lerner and other experts who reviewed the
draft. The standards have also received the editorial approval of
newspapers around the state, including, most recently, the Vero Beach
Press-Journal (January 23, 2008).
I suspect the nutters wanted "scientific theory" in the standards because in got the word "theory" next to evolution and we all know how much the fools love to attack evolution for being "just a theory". Of course "scientific theory" is accurate but I wonder how many other subjects covered in the new standards were designated as "scientific theory". Anyway, the nutters can now point to "theory" in the standards and try to exploit it for propaganda--which they will certainly do. But, from what I've seen, propaganda is all the anti-evolution bunch got. For example, they didn't get any "teach the controversy" bullshit. So, I look at this as a big win for science and a big defeat for creationism.
As for teaching scientific criticisms against evolution, I think most on this blog are well aware of the whole bag of propaganda tricks being used to get creationism, prayer, and "bible literacy" into the U.S. public schools. For those convinced that some form of bible literacy is needed, don't be fooled by the current programs; they are nutter programs.
Other Comments by MelM
27. Comment #129706 by The Schuermannator on February 19, 2008 at 1:37 pm
As a native to the Space Coast of Florida I can finally have (dare I say) faith that my future children have a quality public education to look forward to?
I just wish they'd stop building churches at every street corner around here... Why not a new library, or museum? =(
Other Comments by The Schuermannator
28. Comment #129708 by delduq on February 19, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I just want all the folks that don't believe in evolution to do me just one favor. If you don't believe it is real, then stop taking anti-biotics. Let your sky daddy take care of you. Seems like the problem would solve itself shortly.Other Comments by delduq
29. Comment #129714 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Comment #129673 by rod-the-farmerABC news link: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4311046&page=1
Vote by clicking on "Should Schools Teach Evolution" under "Related News" about 2/3 down on the right.
It's now 366 (for) 97 (against)
Other Comments by MelM
30. Comment #129718 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm
A comment by PZ: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/hiaasen_will_be_disappointed.phpOther Comments by MelM
31. Comment #129730 by Mike O'Risal on February 19, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This is particularly to liberalartist...How's this for a track: I moved from the San Francisco Bay Area to Florida and, most recently, to Massachusetts. I don't think I ever quite got over the culture shock of North Florida, but I will say it's nice being back in the northeast (I was born in NYC), even if where I am now is a lot more expensive to live in than was Tallahassee.
I made a couple of good friends in Florida and I loved the biodiversity of the Big Bend/Panhandle. But would I ever move back there again? No way. Too many cultural aspects of the place are stuck in some previous century. I never lived in the southern part of the state and I'm told things are very different there, but I wouldn't consider going back to the north.
Funny how the world thinks all of Florida is like Miami when, in reality, most of the state is more like Mississippi.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
32. Comment #129732 by atheist_peace on February 19, 2008 at 2:12 pm
"Canada's even colder than Wisconsin, isn't it?"Not Vancouver.
:)
Other Comments by atheist_peace
33. Comment #129758 by Mitchell Gilks on February 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Ha! I for on am happy. Now on the first day of science class they merely have to explain what a scientific theory is, and all is good, also how all natural science is theory.
I consider this a big win. I also went and voted on the ABC webpage, and I thank you for the link. I hope everyone on here goes and votes.
SamKiddoGordan, I will join your virtual communitee. Although, I must worn you that I am a virtual rapist, murderer and thief. Because without virtual god, I have no reason not to.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
34. Comment #129766 by liberalartist on February 19, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mike O'Risal - thanks for the input. I currently live on the gulf coast of Alabama. But I do get out (to Rhode Island) once in a great while and what a world of difference.
I am looking at PhD programs for next year and since the best education is not in the south, I have hope for my future.
Other Comments by liberalartist
35. Comment #129767 by Healyhatman on February 19, 2008 at 2:56 pm
At least it's not "the theory of evolution".The "scientific theory of" makes it a lot easier - explain to the kiddies what the difference between a scientific theory and a lowest-common-denominator-usage of theory is.
Sick of those fundies calling for the scientific criticisms of evolution though - what they really mean is the pseudo-scientific criticisms invented by ID.
http://healyhatman.blogspot.com/
It's YOUR Hell. YOU burn in it.
Other Comments by Healyhatman
36. Comment #129774 by cjnkns on February 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It bothers me we are even having conversations like this at all. Hmm do we teach are kids to count or should we just let god do it for them?
Other Comments by cjnkns
37. Comment #129854 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm
From the ABC News comments:
Common sense tells us that evolution is crap. Really, why would we just quit evolving? i mean its not like we have wings and can stop polluting the earth by flying instead of driving and using buses and planes. Its not like we've evolved new skin so we dont get sunburned.
good gracious people. common sense doesnt even support evolution. God made us perfect the first time, we didnt have to evolve from an animal to what we are now. If evolution made any sense, why have we stoped evolving,
Well the kids in Florida can't spell Monkey, maybe that is where some of them came from. There are no facts to prove evolution,like most things in science it is just theory.
"The arguments always seem to be between biblical fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally." I always think it's funny to see this type statement. Obvious you hardly read the Bible. Can you show me what parts of Genesis, Exodos, etc. are not literal.
Can anyone prove evolution? No, that's why it's a theory.
And this guy called 'Forgiven sinner' who posts these ridiculously long prayers, one ending with this...
I would suggest doing the next steps: (1)Get a Bible and start reading the book of John (2)Plug-in to a Bible believing Church (3) Share your faith to others and continue walking with the Lord Jesus until He brings you home.
Sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American.
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
38. Comment #129857 by jaster on February 19, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Pop quiz:In what year did evolution officially become a scientific theory?
(this is NOT a loaded question and is not meant to make a point.... just a little trivia!)
Other Comments by jaster
39. Comment #129860 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 5:06 pm
1859 - Darwin publishes "Origin of Species" Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
40. Comment #129868 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm
ABC poll is now 493 for/128 against/19 let them decide/17 fence.Good as it is. Teach what 'scientific theory' is. Teach what evolution is.
A lot depends on the teacher in the classroom. You need good teachers.
Teach critical thinking.
YEC and IDers want the 'controversy' taught. Teach the students how to evaluate information. They will discover there really is no controversy.
There is a scientific theory of evolution. There are questions within the theory that deserve attention and thought. There is nothing to challenge the theory itself.
Science class should have a basic rational thought component. Teach students how to think clearly. Teach them how to detect bullshit and bad thinking and poorly designed experiments.
That should take care of creationists.
BTW
So Florida has excepted evolution?
No. They use to. Now they accept it. The majority of them anyway.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
41. Comment #129871 by phasmagigas on February 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm
'He said the teaching of evolution in Florida's schools should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory.'
so what does he mean by scientific criticisms??? as far as i know, there arent any actual 'scientific' criticisms. does he support criticisms of all scientific theories in schools? i bet not. he just doesnt like the idea that hes not the centre of the universe.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
42. Comment #129875 by phasmagigas on February 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Good as it is. Teach what 'scientific theory' is. Teach what evolution is.
A lot depends on the teacher in the classroom. You need good teachers.
thats the problem, having even a biol specialist explain digestion is one thing, explaining evo and getting it right is far more difficult, im not knocking teachers in high schools but unless you understand evo really well its very easy to pass on misconceptions.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
43. Comment #129883 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm
its very easy to pass on misconceptions
You can tell outright nonsense lies to students and they will believe you because you are the teacher.
That explains why they believe the drivel from the preachers.
Teach them critical thinking.
They should question the source of information and always ask 'What if this isn't true? How can I tell?"
Other Comments by Frankus1122
44. Comment #129925 by twilleyj on February 19, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Here's a comparison of the OLD science standards Vs. the NEW science standards.Except for the last-minute Friday evening pandering to the religious right...and adding the term "Scientific Theory", the board did a great job. I feel ALOT better about my daughters' public school science education here in Florida.
--------------------------------------------------
How the NEW and old Florida science standards compare:
http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/425062.html
Excerpt from article:
NATURE OF SCIENCE
- Old: Studies include how scientific knowledge is subject to modification as new information challenges prevailing theories, the revision and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, and how that never ends, leading to a better understanding of how the world works, but not to absolute truth.
- New: Studies include how science is open to change and differs from other activities involving thought, that a scientific theory is a well-supported, powerful and accepted explanation of nature, not simply a claim - differing from how the term is used in everyday life - and that scientific laws are descriptions of natural conditions but, unlike theories, do not offer explanations.
Other Comments by twilleyj
45. Comment #129933 by twilleyj on February 19, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Wow.The topic is a rather heated one.
Look at the comments on the TambayBay Online news forum:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/19/tallahassee-debates-evolution/?news-breaking
Warning: Lots of fundies with their undies up their...
Other Comments by twilleyj
46. Comment #129934 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Excellent, twillyj!
Thanks for posting that Old vs New excerpt. The "new" standard should be sent to every fundie church and painted on 50ft letters in the parking lot of the Creation Museum! Oh, let's not forget to send a copy to Ben Stein, as well!
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
47. Comment #129935 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Looks like it's not over yet. There's going to be an attempt to get the legislature into the act to get "academic freedom" included.http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/florida-the-sta.html#comment-143557
What many may not known is that "scientific theory" was inserted into the standard in a number of places including the "scientific theory" of cells and the "scientific theory" of the earth's evolution. However, there is plenty of material covering the nature of laws and theories. So, while the fundies have stuck some propaganda handles into the standard, there's a remedy for the teachers included right in the standard itself.
Other Comments by MelM
48. Comment #129937 by dragonfirematrix on February 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I read another article about this "Dover, PA" styled nonsense.I guess the parents, who want their kids in good schools, will move their kids to schools that teach the truth, which is "The Law of Evolution."
I hope parents will take charge and put an end to this "theory of evolution" bulshi, if they want their kids to get a good honest and correct education.
I feel very sorry for the children of the parents who support the Florida decision. However, for those parents who want bible fantasies taught as fact to their children instead of the "Law of Evolution," well... I guess those children will be left-behind. Our evolving planet does not have time to wait for these people to catch up to the truth of their own existence. I feel very sorry for the children.
Do you recall that this is another state that run for a while by the Bush family? We also need to remember that Florida is the state where the radicalized Christians were going postal over trying to keep alive the hopelessly brain-dead woman, Terry Shrivo.
Oh well, so much for Florida… maybe becoming brain-dead is contagious.
I BELIEVE NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO RECALL A QUOTE BY DR. CARL SAGAN
"History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power [have] destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again." -- Carl Sagan
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
49. Comment #130028 by dlitt on February 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Or a quote from Mark Twain..."God created the idiot for practice - then he created the School Board."
Other Comments by dlitt
50. Comment #130040 by Justanotheratheist on February 20, 2008 at 12:49 am
Evolution is a theory but virgin births, resurrected corpses, and walking on water are facts?Man, you gotta love it.
Other Comments by Justanotheratheist
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'."
Richard Dawkins
"Secularists are often wrongly accused of trying to purge religious ideals from public discourse. We simply want to deny them public sponsorship."
Wendy Kaminer
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."
Richard Dawkins
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake."
Richard Dawkins
"The fight both for and against slavery in the United States was waged first along scriptural lines. . . . There was also the theory of the descent from Ham which attained great vogue and still does in certain quarters. . . . With the superseding of religion by science the battle of inequality shifted from a scriptural wording to a scientific one. Now it was no longer what "God had said" but what color, hair, and skull showed. . . . In other words, the pro-slavery faction and the antislavery one had entered the stage in new costumes. Underneath were the same bodies."
Joel Augustus Rogers
Other Recommended Reading
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Genome
Matt Ridley
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #129632 by Fenriswolf on February 19, 2008 at 11:51 am
In a way this is a good thing I suppose, but it is a shame that the theory should still be regarded as "controversial". It's also slightly worrying that the vote was so close. What the fuck is going on over there?Other Comments by Fenriswolf