Print
Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So
by The Discovery Institute
Reposted from The Discovery Institute website:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/should_strident_british_atheis.html#more
British atheist and staunch Darwin defender Richard Dawkins' official website is urging Americans to oppose the Louisiana Science Education Act. Newsflash for Richard, we're not a British colony anymore.
Barbara Forrest has been scare-mongering all over the country that the LSEA is a secret ploy to get religion or creationism into science classes. And she's been complaining loudly in Louisiana that outside groups are trying to get it passed. Now, though, she's not just asking for help from outside her state. She's asking for help from outside the country!
In fact, the LSEA
is a home-grown measure. Drafted by Democratic state senator Ben Nevers, the bill was inspired by the Ouachita Parish School District Policy which was established almost two years ago. The LSEA echoes some of what Discovery Institute has called for in its sample academic freedom legislation, but the bill has been advanced by Louisiana citizens and has won overwhelming support from Louisiana legislators.
Forrest and her friends, however, are calling for help from around the world. Forrest's letter is being showcased and e-mailed all over the world by Richarddawkins.net. As usual, the letter is full of falsehoods.
This bill is not about creationism or religion. That's a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory, as well as some that challenges it. If a tenth grader can understand arguments for Darwinism, she can understand scientific arguments against it. For more information on what the bill does (and does not) do, see here.
Forrest's new "coalition" is trying to rile up activists to flood Governor Jindal with hate mail. Instead, why don't you click here and send him a message of support and let him know Louisiana should lead the way to academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the LSEA into law.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/should_strident_british_atheis.html#more
British atheist and staunch Darwin defender Richard Dawkins' official website is urging Americans to oppose the Louisiana Science Education Act. Newsflash for Richard, we're not a British colony anymore.
Barbara Forrest has been scare-mongering all over the country that the LSEA is a secret ploy to get religion or creationism into science classes. And she's been complaining loudly in Louisiana that outside groups are trying to get it passed. Now, though, she's not just asking for help from outside her state. She's asking for help from outside the country!
In fact, the LSEA
is a home-grown measure. Drafted by Democratic state senator Ben Nevers, the bill was inspired by the Ouachita Parish School District Policy which was established almost two years ago. The LSEA echoes some of what Discovery Institute has called for in its sample academic freedom legislation, but the bill has been advanced by Louisiana citizens and has won overwhelming support from Louisiana legislators.
Forrest and her friends, however, are calling for help from around the world. Forrest's letter is being showcased and e-mailed all over the world by Richarddawkins.net. As usual, the letter is full of falsehoods.
This bill is not about creationism or religion. That's a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory, as well as some that challenges it. If a tenth grader can understand arguments for Darwinism, she can understand scientific arguments against it. For more information on what the bill does (and does not) do, see here.
Forrest's new "coalition" is trying to rile up activists to flood Governor Jindal with hate mail. Instead, why don't you click here and send him a message of support and let him know Louisiana should lead the way to academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the LSEA into law.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, June 20, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 111 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #197001 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 11:22 pm
FucktardismI hate the word strident constantly being used to describe Richard. It rarely, if ever, fits. Passionate, OK. I wish the Discovery Institute would discover that they are a bunch of fucktards. Now that's strident.
Other Comments by mordacious1
3. Comment #197002 by astroprof on June 20, 2008 at 11:25 pm
They have commandeered our own language! the DI pushing for "academic freedom" and "scientific inquiry"? you've got to be kidding me. In the spirit of academic freedom, let's have science teachers teach THE FACT that the Discovery Institute is a think-tank of religious lawyers (christian of course) who are trying to undermine the Constitution by violating Separation of Church and State. I used to avoid creationist bashing in my classes, but I will exercise my academic freedom from now on! Other Comments by astroprof
4. Comment #197003 by Quine on June 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Orwellian doublespeak.P.S. Richard Dawkins isn't doing anything on this; we who come here are doing it. Some of us are in the US, even Louisiana.
Other Comments by Quine
5. Comment #197005 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Newsflash the US needs all the help it can get combating the dumbing down of education by creotards. Even if it is from your former colonial masters.Dumbing down is a worldwide problem . Fortunately religious fucktardism aint the problem here in NZ as it is in the US . The creomorons tend to be ignored here ,which seems to work quite well,it
stops them getting any traction for their beliefs.
Tho I can`t get thru to the jehovahs witless who turn up on my doorstep every couple of months , used to be you could tell them you were a cato-holic and they would run away.
Other Comments by 8teist
6. Comment #197006 by Janus on June 20, 2008 at 11:42 pm
As is obvious to anyone who posts here, there are no valid arguments against evolution, there are only creationist lies and blunders, and that is what this act is meant to allow in American science classes. But how can we make the average Joe realize this when he's been fooled into believing that evolution is "just" a theory, that there is a real scientific debate going on between intelligent design and evolution, and that science is some kind of democratic enterprise where all points of view deserve equal consideration? Other Comments by Janus
7. Comment #197007 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 11:48 pm
8teistI keep an empty beer bottle by my door. When the JW's or Mormons show up (for some reason they're always women here), I rip off my shirt, grab the beer bottle, open the door and slur, "Are you duh hookers I ordered?" They actually run to their van.
You'd think they'd put me on a list to avoid by now.
Other Comments by mordacious1
8. Comment #197008 by irate_atheist on June 20, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Perhaps they want to teach about alternatives to the Theory of Gravity, too.
Adding myself to the list of those calling 'fucktards' on this issue.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
9. Comment #197009 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Haha they aint the brightest lightbulbs on the planet . Other Comments by 8teist
10. Comment #197011 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 11:55 pm
There is no gravity.......GOD sucksBudda boom
Other Comments by 8teist
11. Comment #197013 by King of NH on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 pm
These people sicken me. Discovery Institute is humiliating America and undermining the efforts of the intelligent all for personal glory and wealth. Sickening! Other Comments by King of NH
12. Comment #197015 by Richard Dawkins on June 21, 2008 at 12:03 am
For the record:-1. RD.net published an article by Barbara Forrest, who lives in Louisiana, called "We urgently need your help now." The "We" in that title referred to Barbara herself and the Louisiana Coalition for Science. It did not refer to me, nor to RichardDawkins.net, nor to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. This website publishes articles by a diverse range of people, some of whom we agree with, some of whom we don't. For example, we are publishing the above article by the Discovery Institute, and we have published many other articles by people and organizations with whom we disagree.
2. I have never expressed an opinion on the Louisiana bill, and I am not one of those who has written to Governor Jindal urging him to veto it.
3. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has not expressed an opinion on the Louisiana bill, even though three out of the Foundation's four trustees (Karen Owens, Andy Thomson and Claire Enders) are US citizens.
4. RD.net is run by Josh Timonen, a US citizen, and is not the website of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. The Foundation has its own website, also run by Josh, RichardDawkinsFoundation.org, which has not mentioned the Louisiana bill at all.
Those are the facts at the time of writing. However, there is no reason whatsoever why I personally, or the Foundation, should not, at any time we choose, express an opinion on this matter. I am a professional educator whose subject is evolution, and a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Although I have so far chosen not to say anything about the Louisiana case, it would be entirely reasonable for me to say something about science education anywhere in the world, especially where evolution is concerned. And the same applies to the Foundation, whose mission is to foster reason and science and whose Trustees, as I said, have an American majority. All I am doing above is pointing out factual errors in the Discovery Institute's article.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
13. Comment #197016 by LochRaven on June 21, 2008 at 12:05 am
I fail to see why the DI is so incredulous about criticism of the LSEA coming from people outside the borders of the United States. Does this somehow, to them, lessen the legitimacy of such criticism? Or are creationists organizations just really getting scared of Dawkins and other outspoken rationalists? Let's hope it's the latter. Other Comments by LochRaven
14. Comment #197017 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 12:08 am
RichardAnd darn it, there is no reason that you should.
I don't think that your foundation is a political action committee.
edit: I might add that there is no law in the U.S. or its states, forbidding foreign citizens from writing letters to political leaders.
Other Comments by mordacious1
15. Comment #197019 by 8teist on June 21, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hmmmm, Strident ,I dream of being Strident, Oh the shame, what a put down.A bit like lawyers calling each other "my learned colleague."
Other Comments by 8teist
16. Comment #197021 by Elles on June 21, 2008 at 12:12 am
Oh for cryin' out loud! This is absurd!The "Academic Freedom" bill is obviously anti-intellectual anti-science mush which is going to screw up science education even more in this country which happens to have a foreign policy that involves extending beyond its borders.
Pardon Richard Dawkins for caring about the dung pile of ignorance I'm sitting in whose stench is continually being carried across the seas.
I for one am glad that we're getting help from the rest of the enlightened world. The Discovery Institute is just upset because they can't get anybody outside of this nation of backwardness because the world is shooting ahead of us while we fall back into the 16th century.
Kudos to Richard.
Other Comments by Elles
17. Comment #197022 by irate_atheist on June 21, 2008 at 12:15 am
Richard - Do we detect more 'Lying for Jesus?' here. One of those 'honest mistakes', or was it 'wilful mendacity'?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's over to you.
Edit: Just read this on the Financial Times online a few minutes ago:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afecb14c-3efc-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html
There is no room for complacency in dealing with the religious mindset, especially when it is backed up by 'tradition' and a few billion quid. A delusional Prime Minister or two also helps in the progress of this madness.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
18. Comment #197023 by 8teist on June 21, 2008 at 12:21 am
Lying for cheesus ,never..........could it be?...no I don`t believe it ...christians don`t lie ...do they?.....no I thought not...wot would cheesus say? Other Comments by 8teist
19. Comment #197024 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hey, irate's link didn't work either. Now I don't feel so stupid, I've been having this problem all day and thought it was me (probably was actually).edit: so irate, how did you go back and make your link work. I'm embarrassed to say that I can build a computer from assembled parts, repair any problem on a computer, but I'm new at blogging and suck at it. I'm always asking my kids how to do things.
Other Comments by mordacious1
20. Comment #197025 by 8teist on June 21, 2008 at 12:26 am
Now for something completely different, time to watch the All Blacks thrash England in the rugby.back in 90
Other Comments by 8teist
21. Comment #197027 by quill on June 21, 2008 at 12:27 am
These people are such losers. Reading this thing I'm reminded of Dembski's pathetic Flash animation he made of Judge Jones in which he inserted fart sounds because he thought it would make Jones look stupid and not himself.Just let them pass their law, as soon as it gets to trial it'll just be slapped down just like their last one, and the one before that, and the one before that. They're never going to fool a Federal court with this transparent nonsense.
Other Comments by quill
22. Comment #197029 by irate_atheist on June 21, 2008 at 12:32 am
19. Comment #197024 by mordacious1 -Hey, irate's link didn't work either. Now I don't feel so stupid, I've been having this problem all day and thought it was me (probably was actually).The problem is definitely not you. Normally links 'just work' on this site. I wonder if Josh has been playing with the css settings or something. Anyway, I've now edited the link myself to make it more easily accessible.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
23. Comment #197030 by fitzyp on June 21, 2008 at 12:33 am
So incredibly stupid its rich.Other Comments by fitzyp
24. Comment #197033 by huzonfurst on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 am
How come these "equal time" crusaders never offer to have evolution taught in Sunday school?Could it be they're lying hypocrites...?
Other Comments by huzonfurst
25. Comment #197034 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 12:40 am
I was waiting for the backlash from the DI. I'm just suprised (though I shouldn't be) that they imply that Richard's foundation is behind this and leading a bunch of wild, godless foreigners to "dictate education policy to the states". It's a ploy aimed at the ignorant masses of religious sheep.Other Comments by mordacious1
26. Comment #197036 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 12:43 am
Comment #197022 by irate_atheistAt the moment they can use the pseudo-entry criterion of adherence to their faith. Given that they are taking state money for these academies they ought to have the same entry criteria as state schools. I suspect that not being able to cherry pick which children they admit might have some effect on their results.
Edit: Just read this on the Financial Times online a few minutes ago:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afecb14c-3efc-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html
There is no room for complacency in dealing with the religious mindset, especially when it is backed up by 'tradition' and a few billion quid. A delusional Prime Minister or two also helps in the progress of this madness.
EDIT: While Blair, Brown, Balls and Kelly have screwed this up I am not sure that Cameroon would be any different.
Other Comments by epeeist
27. Comment #197038 by infidel_michael on June 21, 2008 at 12:49 am
This bill is not about creationism or religion. That's a red herring from desperate Darwinists.No, the "academic freedom bill" is a red herring from creationists. Here is the history:
1. Book of Genesis - pure religion
2. Creation science / Scientific creationism - argument against evolution based on 1.
3. Intelligent design - similar arguments as 2., but without reference to Bible and God (unknown "designer" used instead)
4. Teaching the "controversy" / Academic "freedom" - same arguments as 3., but without reference to ID
The same people, the same old tired arguments, only the trademark and marketing strategy is new.
Other Comments by infidel_michael
28. Comment #197044 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:14 am
What a bizarre claim.By having an internationally accessible public website, run by a US citizen, where the facts are simply reported and discussed, allowing people to make up their own minds, Richard is apparently personally telling Americans what to do. All he is doing is enabling us to "discuss the controversy"!
Their knowledge of how the internet works is either extremely poor, or they are lying.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
29. Comment #197045 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 1:17 am
SteveI pick lying.
Other Comments by mordacious1
30. Comment #197046 by Brian English on June 21, 2008 at 1:21 am
There's no controversy, they're lying.Other Comments by Brian English
31. Comment #197047 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:30 am
Comment #197008 by irate_atheistPerhaps they want to teach about alternatives to the Theory of Gravity, too.
I wonder if you aren't actually on to something.
How could "teach the controversy" campaigners possibly object to a bill which insisted on the teaching of critical thinking skills in general, including the philosophy of science and reason. Perhaps even add some theories of ethics as well in there. That would, I believe, be far more corrosive of superstition than the creationists fear evolution is, yet could hardly be objected to, as "an understanding of differences of opinion" is what the creationists claim is all they are after. Let the children be taught how to rate different opinions; how to make their minds up, how ethical frameworks have and can be established without any mention of God.
What a positive campaign that might be, and in being so, it might attract more support than "stop the bill" alerts, as important as those are.
Athough such a change in education would be wonderful in itself, the implicit message would be "hands off evolution or we'll philosophize your ass!"
Other Comments by Steve Zara
32. Comment #197048 by Bluff_King_Hal on June 21, 2008 at 1:32 am
Forrest's article clearly states:"We want people all over the country to do this, as many as possible, since Louisiana will be only the beginning. YOUR State could be next."
This clearly indicates that she is addressing USAnians only, and of course, RD and this site are in no way associated with the appeal other than it being posted here.
In fact, since no source URL is given the impression it gives, perhaps inaccurately, is that the piece was written specifically for posting here, in which case, far from actively appealing to Brits, Forrest is actually making a common though minor discourtesy on the web to Brits and other non-USAnian readers of this site by writing as if we all her readers will be USAnian.
Other Comments by Bluff_King_Hal
33. Comment #197050 by Xplodyncow on June 21, 2008 at 1:37 am
The Discovery Institute, staunch defender of God, desperately urges Americans to oppose the opposition to the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which hopes to restore blind faith and quash questioning. Newsflash for the Discovery Institute--we're not in the Middle Ages anymore.The institute claims that so-called Darwinism is a secret ploy to overthrow "God," a vague reference to a vague creator-dictator that lives vaguely over there. By employing startling tactics such as "developing and testing hypotheses," "critical thinking," and "existing," the Darwinists and their ilk offer God's followers their most formidable opponent to date. Despite biblical evidence that God is all-powerful and all-awesome, without the Discovery Institute's unflagging determination, God just might lose his chokehold on the human race.
The LSEA promises to break students of their annoying habit of living in reality. Under the guise of academic freedom, the bill purports to "teach the controversy."
"The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory," said the institute, "as well as some that challenges it. In your face, Darwinists!"
But what really enrages the institute is that people from other countries have opinions on things.
"We're not a British colony anymore," the institute said in a posting on its website. "We're a colony for God. It says so in the Constitution. So there."
Next on the institute's agenda? A challenge to the germ theory of disease.
Other Comments by Xplodyncow
34. Comment #197051 by Partisan on June 21, 2008 at 1:45 am
I'm sure the fact the LSEA concerns itself solely with criticisms of evolution, despite a wimpy attempt on the DI website to qualify it as applying to all science, and its whole-hearted backing by the DI, is all just a coincidence and their interest in it is entirely in the interests of skeptical inquiry. Yea. Sure. This thin end of the wedge is so weak its set to shatter. Other Comments by Partisan
35. Comment #197052 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 1:53 am
The New York Times weighs in - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21sat4.html?ref=opinion Other Comments by epeeist
36. Comment #197053 by alexmzk on June 21, 2008 at 2:06 am
Newsflash for Richard, we're not a British colony anymore.
woo, you go girl!
Other Comments by alexmzk
37. Comment #197055 by Logicel on June 21, 2008 at 2:11 am
Some very good comments on this thread (Janus#6, elles#16, infidel-michael#27, Quill#21, Xplodyncow #33, Bluff King Hal#32, Zara#31 and of course Richard's). ______
LochRaven wrote: Or are creationists organizations just really getting scared of Dawkins and other outspoken rationalists? Let's hope it's the latter.
The success of this website (and of PZ Myers) in terms of it allowing diverse individuals from all over the world to pummel religion in a critical thinking manner, consistently without letting up for nearly two years is about something to be concerned.
The IDiots reaction is probably a mix of smugness (we can lie, cheat, and steal our way out of this like we have been doing) and genuine powerlessness against a new weapon, the Web, on which their children can plug into a world of reason and critical thinking demolishing the careful walls of ignorance around them that their parents built.
These IDiots are watching the walls crumble in horror--some of them may be denying this reality, but others are scrambling to pick up the broken stones and patch them back into the disintegrating edifice, to only have them come tumbling back down on their IDiot heads.
IDiots are failing to see that moat building in the age of the Web is null and void.
Other Comments by Logicel
38. Comment #197056 by notsobad on June 21, 2008 at 2:11 am
The chauvinistic remark at the beginning was a sign where the article was going.Anyway:
Christianity 'could die out within a century'
Other Comments by notsobad
39. Comment #197057 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 2:28 am
Comment #197047 by Steve ZaraIn the best Martial Arts tradition it is always easier to topple an opponent by using their momentum and going with it.
"If you want open debate in the classroom, we'll give you open debate", looks a very viable way forward. Critical thinking skills are obviously needed to judge a "strengths and weaknesses" classroom debate.
If teaching at this age is to take this NEW step of adding "make your own mind up" material it is only fair that the thinking tools are provided.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
40. Comment #197061 by Richard Dawkins on June 21, 2008 at 2:38 am
Anyway:
Christianity 'could die out within a century'
I wish I could see that as unequivocally good news. The article itself, in the Telegraph (sorry, I don't know how to make it jump automatically, but notosobad's original comment does it) implies that Islam is increasing as Christianity declines. And if you think Christianity is bad . . .
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
41. Comment #197063 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:46 am
Comment #197057 by phil rimmerThat is my view.
Although excellent and necessary work has been done, the current approach seems partly defensive - waiting for the next place that the creationists will strike, and trying to prepare for their next technique. A push for teaching of critical thinking skills in general would help immunise youngsters against such attacks on their education. It would be pro-active, and would work with the current tactic of creationists against them. It isn't just a possibly useful tactic against ID, it is also a great life skill in itself.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
42. Comment #197064 by Goldy on June 21, 2008 at 2:47 am
Should a British person's opinion influence US policy? Heck why not - after all, a dead Jewish person's olicy has influenced the world. A dead Arab warlord has influenced the other half (apparently). We drive German cars, eat French or Italian food (I just had a pizza - top tip, put porridge oats in the pizza dough...rather tasty!), see US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan...need I go on?We can't pick and choose what we want to follow - look at any Christian following the Bible - and we can't shut out ideas by saying it's a foreign idea.
Deny Richard, Hitch, Dennett, Harris et al and you may as well deny Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha too - all have as important a message as each other in these global times :-)
So, Richard D (Dicky D, as some people call you in the Dept of Pharmacology at Auckland Uni) - don't get all defensive (Comment #197015). Your nationality has no bearing on your views if they are accepted by people in other countries. By accepting your views, they make your views theirs and by inference, you views become as American, German, Italian, Chinese, etc as the people who subscribe to them.
Hmmm...hope that makes sense...
Other Comments by Goldy
43. Comment #197065 by noamzur on June 21, 2008 at 2:47 am
I would love to see some SCIENTIFIC arguments against "Darwinism". However, I am afraid we all know what these so-called arguments consist of and how to counter them if the mood strikes us and we don't have something better to do than waste our time on the same old BS again.Richard, Josh, et al - we are behind you!
Other Comments by noamzur
44. Comment #197066 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:51 am
Comment #197065 by noamzurI would love to see some SCIENTIFIC arguments against "Darwinism".
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/nice_new_logo.php
Other Comments by Steve Zara
45. Comment #197067 by Goldy on June 21, 2008 at 2:51 am
Christianity 'could die out within a century'
Been done - didn't happen
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19660408,00.html
Other Comments by Goldy
46. Comment #197068 by NJS on June 21, 2008 at 2:55 am
Would I want a world renowned evolutionary biologist telling me what should be taught in biology lessens?er....Yes.
(I understand that's not the case but the point remains)
Other Comments by NJS
47. Comment #197069 by Goldy on June 21, 2008 at 2:57 am
The article itself, in the Telegraph (sorry, I don't know how to make it jump automatically, but notosobad's original comment does it) implies that Islam is increasing as Christianity declines
Dunno about that. Less Christians obviously means that the ratio of Christian to Muslim tilts more to Islam. Doesn't mean there are more Muslims as such. One can also say the ratio of non-believers to Muslims is tilting towards non-believers....and that's not such a bad thing, is it?
C'mon, Richard, glass 1/2 full, please ;-)
Other Comments by Goldy
48. Comment #197070 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 2:57 am
At #197055 Logicel said: The success of this website (and of PZ Myers) in terms of it allowing diverse individuals from all over the world to pummel religion in a critical thinking manner, consistently without letting up for nearly two years is about something to be concerned.Yes - that is a new factor that they don't know how to handle.
The IDiots reaction is probably a mix of smugness (we can lie, cheat, and steal our way out of this like we have been doing) and genuine powerlessness against a new weapon, the Web, on which their children can plug into a world of reason and critical thinking demolishing the careful walls of ignorance around them that their parents built.
These IDiots are watching the walls crumble in horror -- some of them may be denying this reality, but others are scrambling to pick up the broken stones and patch them back into the disintegrating edifice, to only have them come tumbling back down on their IDiot heads.
There has been a lot of talk about "new atheism", as though this is something that they can try to understand and learn how to combat. Here is an email I sent in April to the website "Investigating Atheism", which had a page discussing "new atheism":
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/controversies.html
My email:
Here is a hypothesis that could be a topic for study:
"There is no such thing as "new atheism". Instead there is a "new context" ("new audience" and "new media") which has changed the perception of "existing atheism"."
Examination of Jack Huberman's "The Quotable Atheist" shows that nearly all the themes in the latest set of books were present in earlier works. Also, the language of many of those earlier expressions were at least as disrespectful of religion.
Here is a thought experiment:
Suppose that Richard Dawkins had had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand that outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated? What would the reception have been?
For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.
Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11". That influenced some of the content of the book and surely changed the audience.
Given all of this, how far would people have taken an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it? Would people even have been talking about "new atheism"?
This sort of analysis could be extended to earlier decades, and to all of the current set of books.
Rather more speculative, how will the current books be viewed in 2016, 2026, ...? And what will new books about atheism, perhaps written by a new and less restrained generation, be like in those years? Will the "conversational climate" have changed so that the current books will be seen as quite mild, with new books being more aggressive?
End email.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
49. Comment #197072 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 am
Comment #197063 by Steve ZaraWould love to stay and develop this but I have to go and watch my daughter in a football match...
I would be intrigued by Richard's view on this.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
50. Comment #197074 by DalaiDrivel on June 21, 2008 at 3:20 am
"Phase One in progress Dr Evil,"Number One reports to his superior at the Discovery Institute.
"Phase Two (Explicit Promotion of Religion in Classrooms) in.... Design... stages... haha.... hahaha,,, hahahaha... hahahahaha."
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
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
1. Comment #197000 by Drew on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Other Comments by Drew