Friday, August 22, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

by National Secular Society Newsline

Reposted from:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/whydawkinsisrightandhiscriticsar.html

As the Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin drew to an end on Monday, the usual chorus of insults reined down on the head of its star, Richard Dawkins. Despite the fact that Dawkins went out of his way to avoid bad-tempered arguments or overt proselytising on atheism, his critics saw only what they wanted to see — and often that was not what appeared on the screen.

In one section of the film, Dawkins met a class of schoolchildren and asked them what they knew about evolution. Most said they had the rudiments, but also stated that they preferred to stick with their religion's explanation. Dawkins took them to a beach in Dorset to hunt for fossils. He gave them a quick lesson on how these ancient relics illustrated clearly that life on earth was tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old. Not six thousand, which is what their religion told them.

Some of the children, though, were impervious to this knowledge, and Dawkins was disappointed. But he did not challenge them or demand that they change their mind. The Radio Times, however, still published a letter from someone criticising the programme, saying Dawkins "tried to promulgate his atheist doctrine amongst schoolchildren."

AA Gill in The Sunday Times wrote: "His anger and bombast stand in stark contrast to Darwin's quiet, inquisitive humility."

Michael Deacon, the Telegraph's critic, too, couldn't resist a pop: "I, too, am an atheist", he wrote, "yet Dawkins is so fanatical that I find myself playing devil's advocate, or in this case God's."

It was sad to see Libby Purves, once a half-decent journalist, now obsessed with religion. She has a "Faith" column on the Times website of such unutterable stupidity it leaves one wondering how this once-great newspaper fell into the hands of such nincompoops. She wrote of schoolchildren's fossil-hunt: "The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism."

What programme were these people watching? I saw none of this. It is quite clear that Richard Dawkins has learned his lesson from previous programmes and tries to subdue his personal annoyance at the wilful ignorance he encounters. I thought he was the model of restraint when confronted with John Mackay, a leading creationist who insisted that "before the flood, people lived to be one thousand years old" and the "science teacher" at a state-funded grammar school who insisted that the earth as no more than 6,000 years old.

And that is before we came to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose famous silver-tongue seemed to become tied as he foundered to find a way out of the logical mess he created when trying to square his beliefs with reality. I thought Dawkins let him off rather lightly when he put the embarrassing evasions down to the use of "poetic language".

Richard Dawkins wasn't prepared to say it on air, but I'll say it for him here — if the Archbishop truly believes what he said on Monday's programme, then he is a deluded fool. He's often advertised as an intellectual giant. Intellect giant? I've said before and I'll say it again now — it's all flim-flam. Rowan Williams is an emperor with no clothes, and in this film we glimpsed his nakedness.

I don't know what it is that makes sensible people want to throw in their lot with the creationists and intelligent design merchants as soon as Dawkins' name is mentioned. Maybe it is some kind of residual feeling that they must be respectful of religion, even when it propounds absurdities. They think it shouldn't be attacked because nice people believe in it as well as murderous wackoes.

But as Dawkins pointed out — the nice people who subscribe to ridiculous things simply open the door to the nasties who want to blow us up or impose their fantasies on us by law.

Creationism is stupid and that's all there is to it. There is no equivalence with science, and we must resist the claim that there is. Creationism belongs with the other fairy tales and horror stories that make up religious education; and religious education belongs in church, not in school.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 151 - 200 of 610 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

151. Comment #235282 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Comment #235185 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm

What a remarkable number of words you use to spout such utter nonsense when so many fewer would have done the job equally well.

Your 'rough' transcript is accurate, and I ask you to refer to one instance in it (apart from your unspecific reference to an 'it', of which there are many utterances) where Dawkins has 'promoted atheism in the classroom'.

(It will be noted that the latter phrase is the result of your rather unworthy re-casting of your initial and far more personal and emotionally-infused charge of Dawkins: 'He tries to persuade them to become atheists!' The distinction is, I submit, telling.)

You should offer an unreserved apology to Richard Dawkins, delete entirely, rather than petulantly and grandstandingly 'line through', your wrongheaded assertions on your blog, and revisit both the transcript and the classroom scene on the screen itself to see that Richard's performance with those poor, indoctrinated kids is a masterpiece in the teaching method and how they were lucky to have him as their educator, given the fearful and intellectually compromised teachers we see later on in the series, for even five minutes.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

152. Comment #235286 by Peacebeuponme on August 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Styrer - I do enjoy reading your posts

well...

...some of the time...

That one was a beauty though.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

153. Comment #235289 by DrCogSci on August 22, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Styrer - Meadon has apologised and withdrawn his initial claim. Asking for him to provide clarification at this point is rather unnecessary. He has revisited the scene, explained where he made his mistake - and left us with a more interesting topic to discuss, namely, his point number 2, as well as why compatabilism seems so taboo on this forum.

There is no reservation etc. in Meadon's apology - and he furthermore refers to "Hanlon's Razor" I'm not sure how much more "mea culpa" he could be? Your opinion on the correct course of action for the correction of his own blog is also rather amusing. Meadon has offered to remove the offending remarks completely should Richard deem it fit - it's not for you to decide.

Other Comments by DrCogSci

154. Comment #235290 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Styrer,

One form of "promoting atheism" - the one I was referring to - is to attempt persuading people it is true. I'm not quite sure what distinction you're trying to make.

So... from the transcript:
Boy: Even if it's got evidence I just like I follow the stronger evidence which is the holy book, so...
RD: So the reason you believe ***it*** is because that's the one you were told first [trails off].

Now - what does "it" in Dawkins' sentence refer to? The boy's religion? Or creationism? My initial interpretation - which I have since retracted and admitted is quite possible wrong - was that "it" referred to the former.

I'm not quite sure striking through my own errors instead of deleting them amounts to "petulant grandstanding". All else being equal, I'd rather no one know about my mistakes. Deleting it, in my opinion, would be cowardly. I will, as I said, remove it if Dawkins asks me to.

Other Comments by Meadon

155. Comment #235291 by Lucas on August 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

132 - Meadon - I'm trying to find the syllabus for that class right now, as I can't remember the names of the books or authors off the top of my head. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no chance of me restating an entire semester worth of argument on this site. I will direct you to the arguments, though, and you can judge for yourself whether they "make sense." By the way, asking me what I mean by "make sense" is an example of the wankery I was referring to. If you don't get that point without further explanation, then I'm at a loss. I could point out that the sentence of yours I quoted included the word "necessarily", not "necessary", but then I would be guilty of wankery too. Got it?

Be right back with those names and such.

118 - PennandTeller - You see that little link a the bottom left that says "Other Comments by Diacanu?" Read them and you will know exactly why Diacanu has the attitude he does. And also why we here at RD.net love him so.

Other Comments by Lucas

156. Comment #235294 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Lucas,

I'm sorry you see it as "wankery". What I wanted you to clarify is whether you think the compatibilist positions are (1) false, (2) incoherent (or otherwise logically contradictory), (3) simply unparsimonious or whatever. (I endorse a version of (1) and certainly (3) but not (2)...)

I can understand that you don't want to rehash that much material for some random person you don't know. I'm entirely happy with references.

Other Comments by Meadon

157. Comment #235295 by Lucas on August 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Both 1 and 2, Meadon. 3 means shit to me. They are incoherent, yes, and thus their conclusions have no basis. They are not necessarily false, but they make no coherent, rational argument for compatibility.

Other Comments by Lucas

158. Comment #235296 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Just to chime in as a biologist, but not as a philosopher.

The compatibilist position is absolutely unparsimonious. It takes a concept for which there is abundant evidence (evolution) and just takes on a rider (god) which has no evidence what so ever.

Evolution is compatible with fairies as well, but I think it is foolish to talk of fairies.

The fact that a concept of god (not the concept given in the bible mind you) is compatible with evolution in no way supports the idea of god.

Other Comments by J Mac

159. Comment #235298 by Lucas on August 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Meadon -

Ian Barbour's "Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues"

and

John Haught's "Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation"

both of which in their own way respond to

David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"

I have talked mad shit about John Haught on this site before in reference to a post of some of his writing. No, it was an interview. Anyway, we all thought he was a wanker.

And that's all for me today folks. Too much beer and too many friends in this room to keep going like this on a Friday night.

Other Comments by Lucas

160. Comment #235299 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Meadon, the fact that it is logically possible to construct a version of deism compatible with evolution makes no difference. Those kids had quite clearly been indoctrinated with views that were incompatible with evolution and each other i.e those of the other holy books. Ducking such a conflict just won't do.

It is logically consistent to believe the devil or an intelligent teapot seeded the planet with life so that it would evolve by natural selection.

Other Comments by spiderdancer

161. Comment #235300 by gunnarjb on August 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #235290 by Meadon:

Now - what does "it" in Dawkins' sentence refer to? The boy's religion? Or creationism?

Read the transcript again:

RD: Right. So you know what you believe when you start and any new book that says anything different you don't read it, or what?
Boy: Even if it's got evidence I just like I follow the stronger evidence which is the holy book,
RD: So the reason you believe it is because that's the one you were told first [trails off].

Wouldn't you agree that by "it", Dawkins is referring to the holy book? In the context of the conversation, Dawkins is simply suggesting that the evidence for evolution (in the science book) should override a literal reading of the Bible, inasmuch as the Bible is inconsistent with the evidence for evolution.

Other Comments by gunnarjb

162. Comment #235301 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Comment #235290 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Certainly a distinction, Meadon, do you not think, between 'And what does Dawkins do? He tries to promote atheism!' and he 'promoted atheism in the classroom'. The latter is a statement, which you open up for discussion; the former is delivered with rhetorical flourish that insists on its own veracity and discourages dissent. You strike me as someone who can surely grasp the difference here, and it does your otherwise evident perspicacity, and facility with language, a disservice to claim ignorance here.

I fail to see the difficulty - now you have kindly identified the one which has been troubling you - with the 'it' in question. It surely refers - as I understood it on first hearing - to the 'holy book' just mentioned by the student. Wherein lies Dawkins 'horrendously bad pedagogy' in asking the child if the first book read means the best book found?

As for your remaining claim - regarding your struck-through but clearly legible blog comments - that 'deleting it, in my opinion, would be cowardly', I disagree. It would have been honest and fair to delete them entirely, without requiring Richard to give you the all-clear to delete what you have already repudiated here.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

163. Comment #235302 by phasmagigas on August 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm

The fact that a concept of god (not the concept given in the bible mind you) is compatible with evolution in no way supports the idea of god.

a concept of god is compatible with perhaps anything atall, thats why theists can and do say what they want, think of the various nonsense spouted by the theists in the video, R willaims was merely pleasant, he was no more persuasive than any of the nastier kooks. Praying at church on sunday and then going home to find your dog pinned alive to your fence is entirely compatible with god. DISCLAIMER!! Ok, when i say this im using it as a demonstration NOT a threat, oh heck, no, trust me, i like dogs.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

164. Comment #235304 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I think SpiderDancer said it quite well:

"...the devil or an intelligent teapot seeded the planet with life"

While the ambiguous and meaningless term "god" is not inconsistent with science, any concept of god worthy of the name can be proven not to exist.

Other Comments by J Mac

165. Comment #235309 by Enlightenme.. on August 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm

I've turned up late to the argument, and find myself in agreement with Meadon's suggestion that later readers of this thread should be able to read his words struck-through, if only to serve as a salutary lesson.

As he said, he could just delete it to lessen his embarrassment.

Oh, and by the way - NOMA, in whatever form it's presented, is a load of apologist smoke & mirrors bollocks.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

166. Comment #235310 by AfraidToDie on August 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

I think you are all too quick to throw Meadon under the bus. In the intro, RD says "It's one reason why I don't believe in God". Was that a necessary conclusion he hopes others to come away with? Not necessarily, but I can see how one might infer that as promoting atheism. So it brought the ire of RD and PK who called his conclusion a lie. Wow, my two heros just got a little testy, and calling a fellow atheist a liar might be a little strong. Everybody was sure ready to jump on the bandwagon. Anybody else see this comment as a personal conclusion (albeit mine as well) that should not be part of a class on evolution?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

167. Comment #235312 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm

AfraidToDie-

RD says "It's one reason why I don't believe in God".

He kind of had that line forced on him though by some network notes.

Other Comments by Diacanu

168. Comment #235313 by phasmagigas on August 22, 2008 at 5:41 pm

afraidtodie

. Anybody else see this comment as a personal conclusion (albeit mine as well) that should not be part of a class on evolution

i dont think that was said in the classroom, that was to the audience. theres no teacher worth their salt who would say 'well thats evolution so now you dont need to believe in god' the only thing you can say is that a god isnt actually needed as far as anybody can reasonably ascertain.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

169. Comment #235314 by Enlightenme.. on August 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm

^ more to the point, RD's statement is to the classroom scene as TGD is to the Darwin programme, completely seperate.

Seeing the the two as connected, in both cases, is wilful ignorance.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

170. Comment #235315 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I find it hard to believe that many people in the UK where the show was broadcast aren't already aware of Richard Dawkins' position on religion (and thankfully a large percentage if not a majority of them probably agree with him), so I also find it hard to believe that anyone would find it strange that he would say something like that.

I can't exactly remember the context of when that was said, but I think he was explaining why *he* found evolution so convincing. He said this while speaking directly to the AUDIENCE as a presenter, not to the children as an educator. There's nothing wrong with him stating his own opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

All that aside, it all basically comes down to:

EVOLUTION: Lots and lots and lots of evidence from lots and lots and lots of independent sources.

CREATIONISM: No evidence.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

171. Comment #235316 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Comment #235310 by AfraidToDie on August 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

You're flat-out wrong.

Under discussion here is Meadon's outright calumny that Richard 'tried to promote atheism in the classroom' and that he is therefore, according to Meadon, 'guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy'.

You're confusing voice-over commentary with recorded video in the classroom, which shows CATEGORICALLY that Meadon's accusation is 'horrendously' false.

Get with the programme, man. Literally, in this case.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

172. Comment #235317 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Comment #235310 by AfraidToDie I think you are all too quick to throw Meadon under the bus.

Meadon deserved to go under the bus for substantially misrepresenting things.

However in the interests of fairness I should point out that Paula Kirby's defence 'Richard does nothing more than ask them to look at the EVIDENCE' apparently contradicts Dawkins 'I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM'.

"Deism" according to Wikipedia is 'the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene...'. That sounds to me like deism as well as theism requires at least a belief in creationism. Are there really a lot people in practice who believe in a god that did not create the universe? Or maybe Richard is defining CREATIONISM to include the rejection of evolution? Anyway I'm confused by the distinction so how the hell are kids supposed to understand it?

Other Comments by spiderdancer

173. Comment #235318 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Well, in America at least, creationism is purely a christian literalist idea/movement.

Other Comments by Diacanu

174. Comment #235319 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Comment #235047 by J Mac:

Women, more so than men, are concerned with their partners loyalty. So from a female perspective rejecting or even questioning faith in a god can be cause for concern. Men who passionately and devotedly follow their faith can be displaying characteristics which are attractive to women.

This is an interesting question. I am always checking for any cause that would provide gene selection for religious behavior in spite of any reasonable behavior, as in the peacock's tail. What I would wonder about the above, is if the devotion is needed, or just the appearance of devotion? Does hypocrisy have a built-in edge, or is it a wash against true belief?

Other Comments by Quine

175. Comment #235320 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 6:18 pm

"Richard is defining CREATIONISM to include the rejection of evolution"

It wouldn't be his definition.

Creationism is the movement to teach children in science classes that the world was created in 6 days approximately 6 thousand years ago. Among the ideas of this view is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. It is not an ambiguous term, at least not in america.

And as I have done many times I'd like to quote Lewis Black:
"I can't be kind about this, these are the people who are watching The Flinstones as it it's a documentary."

Other Comments by J Mac

176. Comment #235321 by abilard on August 22, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Interesting thread. I saw all three episodes as well, and I do not agree that Dawkins attempted to "preach" atheism, whatever that might be. He did attempt to force the children to think, and I suppose a probable consequence of thinking might be that they would abandon beliefs that should never have left the Bronze Age. Asking provocative questions in a Socratic manner is not the same as advocating a position of atheism, however.

I do find it telling that so many equate forcing something to think (questioning) with forcing atheism (a possible consequence of thinking). If people like Libby Purves actually believed religious claims then they might not be so quick to make that identification. Like the archbishop's poetic language, the thread of the this emperor's garments is just too fine for my peasant eyes to see.

Other Comments by abilard

177. Comment #235322 by Ian Bamlett on August 22, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Comment #235266 by PennAndTeller

"PennAndTeller"... would you please consider using another log in name. The REAL Penn and Teller are supporters of Richard Dawkins; they even wrote a blurb for 'The God Delusion' for goodness sake. For you to use their name is frankly insulting.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

178. Comment #235323 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Comment #235320 by J Mac. Ok fair enough. I accidentally undestood it purely as belief in a supernatural creator without the other claims added.

Other Comments by spiderdancer

179. Comment #235324 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

"is if the devotion is needed, or just the appearance of devotion?"

Interesting question. Hard to answer as my idea was complete speculation bordering on bullshit to begin with. :o)

I certainly think there could be something to it, but its so highly undeveloped of an idea that addressing the detailed questions is a bit odd.

I may have to look it up, I recall a similar idea in an Evolutionary Psychology text. I suspect the appearance of devotion would be sufficient; but in related ideas there is evidence about deception and how the most effective way to deceive others is for one to deceive themselves first. In other words devotion would be much easier to fake if the faker actually believed it.

Other Comments by J Mac

180. Comment #235325 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Comment #235324 by J Mac:

In other words devotion would be much easier to fake if the faker actually believed it.

No question about that.

Other Comments by Quine

181. Comment #235327 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Women, more so than men, are concerned with their partners loyalty.

This is an interesting question. I am always checking for any cause that would provide gene selection for religious behavior in spite of any reasonable behavior, as in the peacock's tail.

I think many women may be more interested in their partner's loyalty to them personally and their partner's ability/willingness to bring resources to the relationship (whatever those resources may be), much more so than their partner's loyalty to their religion. Otherwise, atheist men (and women) would be long extinct ;)

I'm only being half-serious. Human beings certainly exhibit behavior that is defined at least in part by their genes, but I also think our ability to reason and think abstractly clouds such easy distinctions as to the reasons behind our behavior (then again, our ability to reason and think abstractly is also defined by our genes).

Other Comments by Don_Quix

182. Comment #235329 by utelme on August 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm

The religious hierarchy is being challenged and is responding in the only way that religious, "intellectually challenged" pedagogues can. Ignore any evidence for evolution and it's almost total destruction of any basis for their beliefs, (after all, it contradicts their infallible bible) and, at the same time, maliciously slander anyone who points out the weaknesses in their belief system. They have no problem indoctrinating their children with biblical nonsense filled with contradictions and convoluted thinking but woe betide anyone who points this out. However, they expect everyone else's children to be subordinate to their beliefs and want to impose it's ramifications on the rest of society. They also NEVER provide any scientific evidence or proof of their goddidit philosophy, especially when directly challenged, other than pointing to passages in their book that God wrote.

Other Comments by utelme

183. Comment #235330 by funflower on August 22, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Anyone know whether this program is likely to make it to US television any time soon?

Other Comments by funflower

184. Comment #235332 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 7:37 pm

"I think many women may be more interested in their partner's loyalty to them personally"

Yes, but in choosing who to pursue a relationship with they can't know this. How do they know who will be loyal to them before they are in a relationship. They look to cues of which men are loyal to other aspects of life.

But more important than the loyalty issue is in-group membership. If a man plays an important role in a group or society he should be more desirably than a man who is not involved in any such group. In fact it is a primary strategy of many animals to form coalitions for mating purposes.

Other Comments by J Mac

185. Comment #235335 by AfraidToDie on August 22, 2008 at 7:48 pm

I have some theist friends who really don't trust the idea of evolution, probably because their religion has indoctrinated them. And, since our schools in the US haven't been required to teach it for many years, they really don't know enough about it to think critically about the rubbish the church is feeding them. I have enjoyed sending them links to several of RD's lectures on evolution, knowing it was a great introductory. But with his early comment of "It's one reason why I don't believe in God", I don't feel like sending them the link as they'll think there might be a hidden agenda I'm promoting besides promoting knowledge about evolution (I guess that would be true). So be it. It was a great piece of work and I enjoyed it. RD even said he wouldn't make a good witness for the trials involving the teaching of ID, or am I misquoting that as well?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

186. Comment #235336 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 8:08 pm

AfraidTodie-

There's really no way to sneak evolution past a religite without the anti-religious implications biting 'em on the nose eventually.

Other Comments by Diacanu

187. Comment #235337 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:15 pm

J Mac,

You referred to me as a f*ck-nut. What does that mean?

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

188. Comment #235338 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Ian Bamlett,

The REAL Penn and Teller. Who are the REAL Penn and Teller?

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

189. Comment #235339 by Ian Bamlett on August 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Comment #235330 by funflower:

"Anyone know whether this program is likely to make it to US television any time soon?"

This is the age of the internet my friend, no need to wait:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=genius of darwin&emb=0&aq=2&oq=genius of #

[Edit - sorry, don't know why the whole link didn't copy. just search 'genius of darwin' in google video - you will find them.]

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

190. Comment #235340 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:19 pm

PennAndTeller just got marked as an obvious troll. Stop feeding it.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

191. Comment #235341 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:20 pm

When all of you finish up your daily discussion, regarding the sciencific proof of evolution, do you sit in a circle and play with your Tonka toys?

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

192. Comment #235342 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Does this blog encourage intelligent debate in regards to evolution and Intelligent Design?

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

193. Comment #235343 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Comment #235336 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Exactly, Diacanu.

And so I think that it is intellectually dishonest, hugely condescending and ultimately utterly futile - no matter what NOMA advocates profess we may temporarily win - to present evolution as a huge peg on which any theistic, pastafarianitic, fairyistic, santaclausistic, ghostoricious label can easily and accommodatingly be hung.

Let the nose biting begin sooner rather than later.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

194. Comment #235344 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:24 pm

This is the age of the internet my friend, no need to wait:

Also, all 3 episodes are available here :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqm285F8Fks

Although, I would like to see this on US television too. Unfortunately it will probably end up on one of the self-selecting semi-science channels like Discovery/History/Discovery Science Channel, so the people who really need to see it, those who could have their minds opened by it, probably won't.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

195. Comment #235345 by Ian Bamlett on August 22, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Comment #235340 by Don_Quix:

PennAndTeller just got marked as an obvious troll. Stop feeding it.

Agreed. And apologies for biting earlier. Marked as such.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

196. Comment #235346 by Wosret on August 22, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I think that this fear of "promoting" atheism is utter foolishness, and completely impossible to interpret that way unless you misunderstand what that would look like. Telling someone that their religion is wrong is not necessarily promoting atheism, other theists do that all the time. Pointing out that your reasoning for believing something is invalid, or fallacious also in no way implies that what you belief for that reason is therefore wrong necessarily. One is quite capable of believing something that is true for really bad reasons.

It would appear to me that the problem Meadon has is with RD correction obvious fallacious reasoning, and promoting critical thinking. Unless he thinks believing something because it was the first thing you were told, or because you were raised to believe it are good reasons for believing something then s/he should have absolutely no objection to RD pointing this out.

Promoting atheism would only be him telling them that no gods exist, neither theirs, anyone else's or even non-interventionist deist gods. It is impossible to promote atheism without being pretty damn specific. Saying that if you're religion teaches X and we have proven Y which contradicts X, then you're religion is wrong in this regard is neither promoting atheism, nor should it be even remotely controversial.

The only things RD does is correct obvious fallacious reasoning, and say that creationism is wrong, and evolution is true. The former is an act of christian charity (of which their real teachers damn well should be doing), and the latter is necessary in order to teach evolution.

Other Comments by Wosret

197. Comment #235347 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Mrs.Bamlett,

Why would you call me a troll? Because I have a different opinion then you?

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

198. Comment #235348 by Wosret on August 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Lastly a compatible view with theism and evolution is logically possible, if and only if you reject Darwinian mechanisms, and thus the scientific explanation for evolution, and instead insert your own explanation (i.e Goddidit). Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are spontaneous genetic mutation, and natural selection. Adding a type of divine magical selection usurps the scientific explanation, and is thus not compatible.

You can believe in theism, and that life evolved, but you must reject the scientific explanation for how it evolved, which is not compatible with what is taught in schools, and you might as well line right up beside the creationists, you're both rejecting science and evidence.

Other Comments by Wosret

199. Comment #235349 by PennAndTeller on August 22, 2008 at 8:34 pm

To all of you,

Q: Given a few billion years or so, how does a fish get across the island?

A: It grows wings and flys across.

Ha Ha

Other Comments by PennAndTeller

200. Comment #235350 by Wosret on August 22, 2008 at 8:36 pm

199. Comment #235349 by PennAndTeller

Fish don't usually live billions of years, nor do they sprout appendages for any reason, let alone because they feel like it.

You're favorite book must be "the secret".

Other Comments by Wosret

Reload Comments | Back to Top