Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Darwinists for Jesus
by New York Times
Thanks to Logicel for the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Darwinists for Jesus
By YUDHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE
In 1981, Michael Dowd would have counted himself among the millions of conservative Christians who blame Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the idea of a godless, purposeless universe for the moral decline of society. That year, as a freshman at Evangel University in Springfield, Mo., Dowd felt a rush of indignant anger in biology class when the professor held up a textbook that taught evolution. As he stormed out of the classroom, Dowd could not have imagined that he would come to view evolution as a spiritually inspiring idea that religion must embrace.
In the years that followed, Dowd shed his more conservative views and served as a pastor in the liberal United Church of Christ. Today he calls himself an evolutionary evangelist. For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other — one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin — explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment. The religious advantage to embracing the evolutionary worldview, Dowd says, is that it explains our frailties, our addictions, our infidelities and other moral deficiencies as byproducts of adaptation over billions of years. And that, he says, has a potentially liberating effect: never mind guilt; once we understand our sinful ways, we can get past them and play a conscious role in the evolution of humanity.
The message is laid out in Dowd's book, "Thank God for Evolution," published by Council Oak Books last November and acquired this spring by Viking Penguin for $750,000. In the book and in his sermons, Dowd presents evolution as a sacred epic of emerging complexity that can be seen as "14 billion years of grace." He sidesteps the question of whose grace this is supposed to be, although the book's title offers a hint. Dowd makes it clear that he's not talking about an intelligent designer. Instead, he exhorts his audience to supplant — or complement — their individual notions of God with sometimes-fuzzy concepts like "cosmic creativity."
Of course, Dowd is hardly the first religious figure to reconcile God and evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." And next year, the Vatican will hold a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "On the Origins of Species." In many respects, Dowd's work echoes the once highly influential writings of the 20th century French Jesuit and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who described evolution as a part of God's plan, driving all of creation toward a sort of magnetic pole of higher consciousness that he called the Omega Point. In the 1960s, treatises by Chardin like "The Phenomenon of Man" and "The Future of Man" were campus best sellers. Such an interpretation transforms evolution from a process of random mutations with no purpose — which is how most scientists see it — to a more hopeful narrative. Though Dowd shies away from ascribing a divine plan to the unfolding of the cosmos, he finds it spiritually satisfying to look back at the unfolding and see in it a pattern of emerging complexity.
But Dowd's preaching also draws on more contemporary scientific thinking. Central to his pitch about a "God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way of thinking about evolution" is how findings from evolutionary psychology might help people overcome guilt about their immoral or unhealthful behaviors. "We live in a world today that is very different from the world that our instincts evolved to deal with," he says. "We have cravings for sugar, salts and fats because for 99 percent of human history, we didn't have easy access to those things." Likewise, he says, addictions like sex and drugs are part of our inner proclivities. "Today we have a far more empirical way of talking about human nature than through stories like the original sin," Dowd says.
More-conservative Christians, however, are unlikely to be satisfied with such a formulation. Ken Ham, who conceived the $25-million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., avows that Dowd's evolutionary gospel is of no religious value because it does not provide any of the answers that people want from religion. "What's his message?" Ham asks. "Who is God? Is the universe God? What is our purpose and meaning? What is good and evil? Who determines our future? The Bible gives us very specific answers." Ham says that what Dowd is telling his audience is "no different from what an evolutionary atheist would preach" with some of Dowd's merely subjective feelings "mixed in."
Yet to scientists and philosophers skeptical about religion, Dowd's efforts are no less misguided. "I find it fascinating that we are descended from something like Lucy," says Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, referring to a hominid that walked on earth 3.2 million years ago. "But I'm not sure I find it upsetting or comforting, spiritually." Daniel Dennett, the Tufts University philosopher and outspoken atheist, maintains that Dowd is right that self-knowledge gleaned from evolution "can and should temper our judgments about our morality and immorality." But even though he applauds Dowd's "effort at diplomatic teaching" of evolution, he worries that evangelical followers may be less likely to pursue Darwinism further than to develop a "healthy distrust" for such obvious "sugar-coating."
For his part, Steven Case, a biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, says that Dowd's message has the potential to confuse listeners about where scientific explanation ends and religious interpretation begins. That could eventually hurt science, Case says, making society less willing to ask theologically discomfiting yet scientifically legitimate questions like when the human race might become extinct.
Nonetheless, Dowd's views do bring solace to some, going by reactions from parishioners who claim that a scientific perspective has helped them come to terms with their follies of the past. For some at least, the recognition of genetic and biochemical frailty is a healing act. Last fall, for example, after Bob Miller, an 81-year-old man, heard Dowd's sermon at a Unitarian church in Pensacola, Fla., he felt his guilt over a string of affairs from four decades ago melting away. "I could never quite understand why I had behaved that way," says Miller, who was climbing the corporate ladder when his infidelities began, leading to the breakup of his marriage. When Dowd began talking about viewing moral lapses against the backdrop of evolution, "suddenly a light went on inside my head," Miller says. His rising status at his company, he concluded, had probably contributed to increased testosterone. "I think the physical change in my body was so strong that it completely overpowered any moral teachings and religious beliefs I had," Miller says. "It was still inexcusable, but it made more sense."
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee is a writer on the staff of Science magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Darwinists for Jesus
By YUDHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE
In 1981, Michael Dowd would have counted himself among the millions of conservative Christians who blame Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the idea of a godless, purposeless universe for the moral decline of society. That year, as a freshman at Evangel University in Springfield, Mo., Dowd felt a rush of indignant anger in biology class when the professor held up a textbook that taught evolution. As he stormed out of the classroom, Dowd could not have imagined that he would come to view evolution as a spiritually inspiring idea that religion must embrace.
In the years that followed, Dowd shed his more conservative views and served as a pastor in the liberal United Church of Christ. Today he calls himself an evolutionary evangelist. For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other — one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin — explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment. The religious advantage to embracing the evolutionary worldview, Dowd says, is that it explains our frailties, our addictions, our infidelities and other moral deficiencies as byproducts of adaptation over billions of years. And that, he says, has a potentially liberating effect: never mind guilt; once we understand our sinful ways, we can get past them and play a conscious role in the evolution of humanity.
The message is laid out in Dowd's book, "Thank God for Evolution," published by Council Oak Books last November and acquired this spring by Viking Penguin for $750,000. In the book and in his sermons, Dowd presents evolution as a sacred epic of emerging complexity that can be seen as "14 billion years of grace." He sidesteps the question of whose grace this is supposed to be, although the book's title offers a hint. Dowd makes it clear that he's not talking about an intelligent designer. Instead, he exhorts his audience to supplant — or complement — their individual notions of God with sometimes-fuzzy concepts like "cosmic creativity."
Of course, Dowd is hardly the first religious figure to reconcile God and evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." And next year, the Vatican will hold a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "On the Origins of Species." In many respects, Dowd's work echoes the once highly influential writings of the 20th century French Jesuit and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who described evolution as a part of God's plan, driving all of creation toward a sort of magnetic pole of higher consciousness that he called the Omega Point. In the 1960s, treatises by Chardin like "The Phenomenon of Man" and "The Future of Man" were campus best sellers. Such an interpretation transforms evolution from a process of random mutations with no purpose — which is how most scientists see it — to a more hopeful narrative. Though Dowd shies away from ascribing a divine plan to the unfolding of the cosmos, he finds it spiritually satisfying to look back at the unfolding and see in it a pattern of emerging complexity.
But Dowd's preaching also draws on more contemporary scientific thinking. Central to his pitch about a "God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way of thinking about evolution" is how findings from evolutionary psychology might help people overcome guilt about their immoral or unhealthful behaviors. "We live in a world today that is very different from the world that our instincts evolved to deal with," he says. "We have cravings for sugar, salts and fats because for 99 percent of human history, we didn't have easy access to those things." Likewise, he says, addictions like sex and drugs are part of our inner proclivities. "Today we have a far more empirical way of talking about human nature than through stories like the original sin," Dowd says.
More-conservative Christians, however, are unlikely to be satisfied with such a formulation. Ken Ham, who conceived the $25-million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., avows that Dowd's evolutionary gospel is of no religious value because it does not provide any of the answers that people want from religion. "What's his message?" Ham asks. "Who is God? Is the universe God? What is our purpose and meaning? What is good and evil? Who determines our future? The Bible gives us very specific answers." Ham says that what Dowd is telling his audience is "no different from what an evolutionary atheist would preach" with some of Dowd's merely subjective feelings "mixed in."
Yet to scientists and philosophers skeptical about religion, Dowd's efforts are no less misguided. "I find it fascinating that we are descended from something like Lucy," says Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, referring to a hominid that walked on earth 3.2 million years ago. "But I'm not sure I find it upsetting or comforting, spiritually." Daniel Dennett, the Tufts University philosopher and outspoken atheist, maintains that Dowd is right that self-knowledge gleaned from evolution "can and should temper our judgments about our morality and immorality." But even though he applauds Dowd's "effort at diplomatic teaching" of evolution, he worries that evangelical followers may be less likely to pursue Darwinism further than to develop a "healthy distrust" for such obvious "sugar-coating."
For his part, Steven Case, a biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, says that Dowd's message has the potential to confuse listeners about where scientific explanation ends and religious interpretation begins. That could eventually hurt science, Case says, making society less willing to ask theologically discomfiting yet scientifically legitimate questions like when the human race might become extinct.
Nonetheless, Dowd's views do bring solace to some, going by reactions from parishioners who claim that a scientific perspective has helped them come to terms with their follies of the past. For some at least, the recognition of genetic and biochemical frailty is a healing act. Last fall, for example, after Bob Miller, an 81-year-old man, heard Dowd's sermon at a Unitarian church in Pensacola, Fla., he felt his guilt over a string of affairs from four decades ago melting away. "I could never quite understand why I had behaved that way," says Miller, who was climbing the corporate ladder when his infidelities began, leading to the breakup of his marriage. When Dowd began talking about viewing moral lapses against the backdrop of evolution, "suddenly a light went on inside my head," Miller says. His rising status at his company, he concluded, had probably contributed to increased testosterone. "I think the physical change in my body was so strong that it completely overpowered any moral teachings and religious beliefs I had," Miller says. "It was still inexcusable, but it made more sense."
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee is a writer on the staff of Science magazine
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 41 of 41 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #195790 by Fuller on June 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Darwinism V creationism is only one battle in the broader fight between reason and superstition. I can't think of much to say about this guy that's positive. Other Comments by Fuller
3. Comment #195792 by Brian English on June 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I think I have to agree with Ham here. Never thought I'd say it though.What is good and evil?
If we evolved, and evolution explains our foibles. Whither original sin?
Other Comments by Brian English
4. Comment #195793 by Farooq on June 18, 2008 at 8:10 pm
He is just trying to square the circle. How can someone understand evolution and still beleive in the fairy tales of any religion?Only thing missing here is the lack of courage to admit that religions have no place whatsoever in any scientific circle. These type of pseudo-scholars are more pathetic than the plain-old stupid religious folks because they have successfully conned the general public into thinking that there are two sides to the evoultion theory.
Farooq "The Militant Atheist"
(Because I have seen it all personally)
Other Comments by Farooq
5. Comment #195795 by Don_Quix on June 18, 2008 at 8:21 pm
If we evolved, and evolution explains our foibles. Whither original sin?
That's what I was wondering. If evolution is "God's Plan" (or ethereal-cosmic-conciousnesses' plan), then it must be perfect, and we must be perfect. Otherwise, if there is still Original Sin, then the plan must be imperfect, and therefore God must be imperfect, because we would not have been able to commit Original Sin if we are evolving according to the perfect plan. Unless of course part of the plan involves us committing Original Sin, in which case God is just an asshole. XD
Oh but then there's that dastardly devil character too, isn't there? ;)
Other Comments by Don_Quix
6. Comment #195797 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Surely that should be "whence" original sin? "Whither" means "where is it going?" rather than "where did it come from?".
If we evolved, and evolution explains our foibles. Whither original sin?
The answer, in any case, is doubtless some variant on magic sky goblins.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
7. Comment #195798 by Brian English on June 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Carto, I actually meant 'to where goes original sin?' in the sense, what use is it now that we have explained why we fuck up morally? What will happen to the concept? A concept so necessary for the false death and vicarious sacrifice of a god who condemed us to have meaning. But your interpretation works for me too.Whence original sin?
Now, about those magic sky goblins. I'm a bit worried. There's a dictum in psychology that says, first behaviour then belief. You keep behaving like magic sky goblins might be an explanation, I fear belief can't be far behind....
Other Comments by Brian English
8. Comment #195799 by Quine on June 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm
There are two parts to the battle going on out there. One is over the ToE in science class, and the other is over the general delusion of religion. I will take any win in the first even when it does not directly impact the second. Other Comments by Quine
9. Comment #195801 by AoClay on June 18, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I don't care who you are, the first will impact the second. They might try hard to make sure it doesn't and people will say it doesn't. Let's be honest, somebody out there right now is learning evolution and it is separating themselves from religion at least a little bit. Other Comments by AoClay
10. Comment #195802 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Of course the magic sky goblins are an explanation. You can explain just about anything with magic sky goblins - wonderfully versatile little things. I never said they were a very good explanation however...As far as belief and behaviour goes I generally recommend the approach of the cynical Japanese warlord Oda Nobunaga in his dealings with christian missionaries, which was essentially "what do I have to believe in order for you to give me all those guns?"
Other Comments by Cartomancer
11. Comment #195807 by Mike O'Risal on June 18, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Dowd will be speaking tomorrow night a few miles from where I live. I plan on being in attendance. I'm curious to hear what he has to say.I'll be taking notes and will write an entry at Hyphoid Logic shortly thereafter.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
12. Comment #195812 by mordacious1 on June 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I'm always divided on this. I prefer people who know evolution is the truth to be atheists. On the other hand, a religious person who accepts evolution, is half way there. I just am annoyed by religious people who co-opt evolution for their own nefarious purposes.Other Comments by mordacious1
13. Comment #195815 by irate_atheist on June 18, 2008 at 9:39 pm
2. Comment #195790 by Fuller -
Darwinism V creationism is only one battle in the broader fight between reason and superstition. I can't think of much to say about this guy that's positive.At least he's not called David Robertson. That has to count something towards his rehabilitation into rational society...
Other Comments by irate_atheist
14. Comment #195817 by Styrer- on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm
[Dowd] "God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way of thinking about evolution"
"What's his message?" Ham asks. "Who is God? Is the universe God? What is our purpose and meaning? What is good and evil? Who determines our future? The Bible gives us very specific answers." Ham says that what Dowd is telling his audience is "no different from what an evolutionary atheist would preach" with some of Dowd's merely subjective feelings "mixed in."
What an utter load of shite.
Why cannot this shit be determined in a ring? Why can we not all agree that gobshites like Dowd and Ham will NEVER receive public attention if they have refused to agree to be set in a ring to fight out their supernatural doctrines by themselves, without having any fucking wider effect on the rest of us?
Actually, while the real problem is of course nutjobs, an equal problem is the hard-nosed financiers putting up 750,000 grand because nutjob books sell to, er, millions of other nutjobs.
Fuck 'em. Still want to see the fuckers in the ring, a la Frankie.
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
15. Comment #195822 by King of NH on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 pm
My fear is that this is not a scientist explaining how evolution works. Dowd is using a scientific theory as a theological tool. I don't care what damage this may do to religion, but I fear that it will only further the terrible idea that sciene is religion, something one can choose not to believe in, or say with all confidence "[scientific theory] is against my religion."
Dowd should not teach evolution. But he could easily instruct his flock to seek out education on evolution, biology, history, etc.. If he did this, I would have no problems.
If this guy is a friend of evolution now, he's the kind that tells everyone he's your friend while you realize you will have to flee the country to ditch him and promise never to be friendly with strangers while drunk again.
Other Comments by King of NH
16. Comment #195824 by Layla Nasreddin on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Related: I almost fell off my chair reading this quote from a 2004 National Geographic interview with Dawkins about The Ancestor's Tale -- I kept looking at the title to make sure this was really him!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_dawkins_darwin_2.html
Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form.
He said, "I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant. Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education. What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education. And it doesn't just annoy me. It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion."
"Respectable" and "theologians" in the same sentence, along with the notion of "the reputation of 'true religion'"? Then again, this IS National Geographic, who are all about "understanding and respect for other peoples' cultures and religions"!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
17. Comment #195835 by catskill on June 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Quine has got the right idea here. Believing in magic, fanciful gods, and every ridiculous superstition under the sun is foolish and bizarre there is no doubt about that. Rejecting truth and pushing nonsense in our schools is absolutely unacceptable though. Let someone who speaks their language have a go at it. Other Comments by catskill
18. Comment #195885 by Laurie Fraser on June 19, 2008 at 1:24 am
Too right, Catskill. I have no problems with a bloke like this pushing evolution from (admittedly) a ratbag theological position. After all, the main purpose is to get people, especially young people, to accept, and then revel in, the wonder of a scientific understanding of our origins. At least, then, they're more likely to become advocates for evolution themselves, within their own religious circles. Small steps can be productive. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
19. Comment #195893 by Szkeptik on June 19, 2008 at 2:03 am
Looks like Ken Ham is right for probably the first time in his life.Other Comments by Szkeptik
20. Comment #195895 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 2:10 am
The Vatican has already claimed that god created aliens,(if any are found on Mars),no doubt they will claim god created evolution too, just to keep all the bases covered.I guess we are all living in gods goldfish bowl ,just for his amusement.
Other Comments by 8teist
21. Comment #195899 by Barry Pearson on June 19, 2008 at 2:24 am
YUDHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE said: Dowd shed his more conservative views and served as a pastor in the liberal United Church of Christ. Today he calls himself an evolutionary evangelist. For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other - one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin - explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment.Being in the UK, I am not familiar with these specific audiences. I seriously wonder: who else COULD reach that audience? Is this a case of "better than nothing", where "nothing" is the only REAL alternative?
There is a massive risk with trying to attack on all fronts at once. This is a "war" of enlightenment being fought across generations, with several different "battles": "god versus no god"; "religion - good or bad"; "science - right or wrong"; "where should we find our ethics/morals"? For each battle, we need to advance where we can, and at least hold ground where we can't advance.
I don't agree with the sort of "all or nothing" approach implied (at least to me) by the following:
Fuller said: Darwinism V creationism is only one battle in the broader fight between reason and superstition. I can't think of much to say about this guy that's positive.Should we think of Dowd as half-wrong and try to stop him (and how)? Or half-right, and be in favour as long as the other half doesn't result in damage? (And his motivation appears to come from the religious part of his work - without that, perhaps he would give up. Having Dowd stop teaching evolution, but suggest education elsewhere, is probably not an option that is on the table).
Farooq said: He is just trying to square the circle. How can someone understand evolution and still beleive in the fairy tales of any religion?
Only thing missing here is the lack of courage to admit that religions have no place whatsoever in any scientific circle.
Styrer said: What an utter load of shite. Why cannot this shit be determined in a ring? Why can we not all agree that gobshites like Dowd and Ham will NEVER receive public attention if they have refused to agree to be set in a ring to fight out their supernatural doctrines by themselves, without having any fucking wider effect on the rest of us?
King of NH said: My fear is that this is not a scientist explaining how evolution works. Dowd is using a scientific theory as a theological tool.... Dowd should not teach evolution. But he could easily instruct his flock to seek out education on evolution, biology, history, etc.. If he did this, I would have no problems.
I think the following are more realistic and constructive:
Quine said: There are two parts to the battle going on out there. One is over the ToE in science class, and the other is over the general delusion of religion. I will take any win in the first even when it does not directly impact the second.In the Dover courtroom, Ken Miller was the right scientist to speak. Richard Dawkins would have been a wrong one (and I believe he accepts that). Next century, things will be different. But many millions of the existing religious people with influence will still be alive for decades to come.
AoClay said: I don't care who you are, the first will impact the second. They might try hard to make sure it doesn't and people will say it doesn't. Let's be honest, somebody out there right now is learning evolution and it is separating themselves from religion at least a little bit.
mordacious1 said: I'm always divided on this. I prefer people who know evolution is the truth to be atheists. On the other hand, a religious person who accepts evolution, is half way there.
catskill said: Quine has got the right idea here. Believing in magic, fanciful gods, and every ridiculous superstition under the sun is foolish and bizarre there is no doubt about that. Rejecting truth and pushing nonsense in our schools is absolutely unacceptable though. Let someone who speaks their language have a go at it.
Laurie Fraser said: After all, the main purpose is to get people, especially young people, to accept, and then revel in, the wonder of a scientific understanding of our origins. At least, then, they're more likely to become advocates for evolution themselves, within their own religious circles. Small steps can be productive.
I was mildly Christian at school (just because that was the nature of UK state schools in the 1960s) but it made no difference to my science education. And the latter gave me the mental toolkit I needed later to examine religions and see that they were man-made. Let's get our priorities right.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
22. Comment #195901 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 2:39 am
I don't want to appear too cynical here, but I can't help thinking this is to do with Dowd having spotted a lucrative gap in the 'moderate' market. It doesn't smell like a 'genuine conviction' to me. And I can see how it would appeal to the many fence-sitters who find their position uncomfortable. It allows them to have their cake and eat it.Other Comments by jaytee_555
23. Comment #195914 by lozzer on June 19, 2008 at 3:11 am
It should be called theovolution.I think the guy is a bit of a nutter myself. Other Comments by lozzer
24. Comment #195919 by LaurenceH86 on June 19, 2008 at 3:19 am
I've actually read Thank God for Evolution, and it is very very good! It was bought for me by my fundie friend who thought it might convert me to christianity so I approached it quite dubiously but when i saw it included Dawkins' letter to his daughter about good and bad reasons for believing I was really impressed!All the science in the book is accurate, all the religion is metaphorical and its basically just about showing how science can have the poetic beauty that many religious believers don't want to let go of - so similiar to Dawkins and Tyson in that respect. Also his simplified description of our evolved mind as a way of reworking the tired concepts of good and evil are quite useful.
I have a lot of support for Dowd and would highly reccommend his book.
Other Comments by LaurenceH86
25. Comment #195937 by Fuller on June 19, 2008 at 4:34 am
I spose there's good that comes from it. But personally it annoys me, one of the beautiful things about evolution is it removes the need to posit a designer. Trying to thread Him back in undermines the explanatory power of the theory. But I presume I'm preaching to the choir on that point.
Other Comments by Fuller
26. Comment #195949 by RamziD on June 19, 2008 at 5:33 am
Having your cake and eating it too.To gladly accept natural evolution to explain why people are "sinful" yet to fudge about whether this process is guided by god. How can one say they believe both in a supernatural creator and natural selection, yet deny that they believe in intelligent design. Maybe he's a deist?
Other Comments by RamziD
27. Comment #195952 by wonderer* on June 19, 2008 at 5:49 am
21. Comment #195899 by Barry PearsonI seriously wonder: who else COULD reach that audience?
Very insightful post.
I hold a sort of trickle down view of humanity's education - where everyone speaks different languages, and everyone learns from others to the extent that they understand the other's language, and teach others to the extent that they can communicate their understanding in the student's language.
There are serious communication barriers between someone scientifically minded who was raised as an atheist, and a True Believer. In some ways those communication barriers may be insurmountable without a translator. Because I was the child of a fundamentalist preacher, and because I had enough curiousity to eventually drag me out of the mental trap of Christianity, I can speak and understand the language of both scientists and Christians.
This allows me to act as a translator, which I actively do. In fact there is one particular Baptist minister who turns to me for translations of things RD has said. And I myself have needed the translations of others, in developing a clearer understanding of reality.
Therefore I urge others to have empathy for those who do this kind of translating, as well as those who need this kind of translating. We are all born ignorant, and we'll all die only somewhat less ignorant. Atheist xenophobia towards those who don't understand as we do, is no more constructive than theistic xenophobia.
Other Comments by wonderer*
28. Comment #195963 by Border Collie on June 19, 2008 at 6:07 am
What on Earth was that last anecdote about?! ... The typical inability to separate sex and guilt?! I really wish writers wouldn't throw that "from left field" stuff in. Creepy ... Anyway, I was where this guy was for a long time. Still am to a small degree. However, it seems to be another attempt to absorb evo into the dominant paradigm/mythos of the culture. Has to be the other way around. The dominant paradigm/mythos has to keep up with science. Otherwise it (p/m) loses its relevance. Can't overlook the fact that evo is a completely new(er) thing which can't go backwards. Get a bigger god/view of life. Don't try to make evo fit your small god/view of life.Other Comments by Border Collie
29. Comment #195985 by Telic on June 19, 2008 at 6:38 am
For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other - one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin
He might get them to kiss, but their offspring just don't have a future...
Other Comments by Telic
30. Comment #196026 by justaperson on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 am
Ken Ham is being disingenuous when he says people want "answers" and the bible gives them whereas evolution does not. I am not certain whether he thinks "answers" is synonymous with "explanations"; I suspect not. If I thought as he does I would probably argue that an "answer" (a la Genesis) is always true (because based upon some authority, e.g., God) but an explanation can be anything someone makes up--a rationalization, a guess, etc. But I say it's more the other way around. An answer is true for whomever can be convinced, but an explanation is basically a scientific hypothesis based on evidence, which can be changed when better evidence is found. Other Comments by justaperson
31. Comment #196039 by Dinah on June 19, 2008 at 8:33 am
While I would agree it is contradictory to be both an evolutionist and a believer in the supernatural, it is still a positive thing for Christians who accept evolution to stand up and say so, in order to counteract the creeping cancer of creationism and IDiocy. There have always been creationists and bible literalists in Europe and the UK, but in the past they have tended to lurk on the wackier fringes of religion and been regarded as nutters, whereas now creationism and ID are becoming more mainstream, perhaps due to the influence of US fundamentalists. Christians are more likely to be persuaded creationism/ID is nonsense by other Christians rather than by atheists.Other Comments by Dinah
32. Comment #196100 by severalspeciesof on June 19, 2008 at 9:50 am
With regard to evolution: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Other Comments by severalspeciesof
33. Comment #196167 by D'Arcy on June 19, 2008 at 11:53 am
The creationists have something of a point. IF the Bible is wrong about the origins of the Earth and biology, as evolution, in particular, and science in general shows, then what else is "incorrect". Their whole house of cards has been built upon the shifting sands of knowledge.
The more slimy Christians who accept evolution as God's way of doing things, must make do with a virtually non interventionist deity, who allows malaria, HIV, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and other disasters that have befallen humanity. A deity who waited some 13.7 billion years to put Adam on the Earth. But what's 13.7 billion years to a god? A piss in the ocean.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
34. Comment #196314 by notsobad on June 19, 2008 at 4:19 pm
You can accept evolution and believe in some kind of god. But evolution and the god of the Bible? That's mutually exclusive and only shows that the person is a master of cognitive dissonance. Other Comments by notsobad
35. Comment #196322 by robotaholic on June 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm
lol "magic sky goblins" Other Comments by robotaholic
36. Comment #196323 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Not relevant to the discussion but, I'm in Springfield now. If you want to see some real funny stuff that goes on here with the the fundies take a look at this,Brother Jed
Edit
I tried to link it to a search result but it didnt work. Just search youtube for brother jed at missouristate for more of Brother Jed its funny stuff
Other Comments by Samir Nayanajaad
37. Comment #196341 by wonderer* on June 19, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Brother Jed gets around. I took a beautiful autumn afternoon off work last year to go discuss things with him at Purdue U.It was fun, but I clearly had him on the ropes with my arguments and counterarguments, and I felt kind of sorry for him. He was acting pretty worn out by the time I left. It's amazing to me, but it seems that people have been financially supporting him in doing this stuff for ages. He was doing his schtick at least 25 years ago when I was in college. I remember his wife "Sister Cindy" too. She was quite a hottie at that time. She might have had some luck in getting me to see the light. But I think overall, Brother Jed turns more people away from Christianity than towards, so I'm not sure his outspoken wackaloonery is necessarily a bad thing.
Other Comments by wonderer*
38. Comment #196356 by Al420 on June 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I'll take it. They're preaching about Genesis in science class, at least now we have someone teaching evolution in church.
I wonder about his views on gay fish, though...
Other Comments by Al420
39. Comment #196369 by Mike O'Risal on June 19, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I have just gotten home from attending Michael Dowd's talk in Willington, CT. I'm far too tired to write a coherent review of the ideas he presented at the moment (I will be doing so on my own blog in the morning), but one thing he is definitely NOT is a theistic wolf in sheep's clothing. He is absolutely not a sectarian by any stretch and he has no problems with atheists (in fact, he's married to one). His definition of "god" is quite naturalistic and essentially a sort of universal set (see John Allen Paulos' book Irreligion on or about page 99 for a fair proximation of Dowd's position). He expressly stated that both Creationists (he calls them "flat-earth Christians") and ID advocates are both wrong, although they believe in different things and are wrong for different reasons. He stated quite plainly that religion is the product of a sort of dream-language mode of interpretation and that ancient cultures dreamed it up because they didn't know any better (an ambiguous point I'll address in more detail tomorrow).I don't find myself in agreement with everything Dowd said and I think he has a few catch-22 problems with his ideas. That being said, there's none of the exclusivity of religion in his ideas, no fire and brimstone (he maintains that this world is what's important; if there is a "next world," we can't do anything about what will happen to us there anyhow because we can't actually know anything about it), and certainly no literalism. One statement he made was that "Facts are the language of God," and he considers science to be "public revelation." He considers literalism/fundamentalism to be a mockery.
Dowd isn't without his problems, but I generally found myself in agreement with him. If anything, there's perhaps too much of a tinge of New Age self-help in some of what he has to say... but I think any concerns about him trying to convert people to religious belief (he's not big on belief, by the way) are entirely unfounded.
I didn't mean to write such a long response, but after seeing some of the comments on this thread and then hearing what Dowd actually had to say without first passing it through a journalistic filter I thought I should at least put this much out there.
There will be more on Hyphoid Logic tomorrow... after I've had some sleep.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
40. Comment #196586 by Mike O'Risal on June 20, 2008 at 7:27 am
I've posted a critique of Dowd's presentation as promised. It can be read here. Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
41. Comment #212069 by black wolf on July 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Interview with Dowd on Infidel Guy:http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLR6Ss9Bll8
Other Comments by black wolf
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #195763 by adk on June 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm
This is one thing that I really don't like about religion though, is how difficult she's finding it to just love herself, good and bad.
Other Comments by adk