1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #122183 by evad on February 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm

This was a great debate with the obvious conclusion that there is no compelling rationale for religious practice in schools. Even those presenting in its favor, would have us believe that they promote tolerance and equality to such an extent, that there is no reason for the existence of such schools.

I felt that Dawkins was robust, but as already mentioned, a little narrowly focussed and missed some low hanging fruit (the point on Socialist Schools in particular). Perhaps exposing the apostasy issue was worth it, but I am not convinced that people outside of the Muslim faith need further ammunition. I do feel Richard would have fared better had he not become a little agitated. Where we see passion, some will read zealot.

I was extremely impressed with Andrew Copsan, from the British Humanist Association. I have never seen him before, but he delivered his position in a very erudite and persuasive fashion. Do we have any other video of him presenting his views?

-- dave

2. Intelligent Design teaching materials sent to UK schools

Comment #11757 by evad on December 7, 2006 at 5:23 am

Not a great defense from Professor Walpert, he seemed rather too shocked to mount a coherent rebuttal. Meanwhile, Professor McIntosh had clearly rehearsed his position, speaking in an apparently reasonable and balanced way.

It is critical that representatives of the scientific community should be well read in the arguments and language of the ID folk, and be able to counter them in a clear and easily digestible way.

Part of the problem is language, just look at how the term 'theory' is misused. I know JoeK made reference to this, but to me the key thing is that non-scientific people do not understand that every scientific truth (backed by empirical evidence and reason) is called a theory. A theory is a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, by definition it leaves room for doubt. Doubt that is critical to the scientific process, but which in everyday use suggests genuine uncertainty.

When explaining the theory of evolution it is critical that people understand the scientific use of the term theory. We should perhaps liken the theory of evolution to that of gravity (thus stopping people drifting off into space and the planets arbitrarily bumping into each other), or that of electromagnetism (thereby enabling every-day electronic devices and the TV that people are watching).

There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection, corroborated from multiple disciplines, that leave this 'theory' in no-doubt today. All of the fossil, geographic, geologic, zoologic and DNA evidence point at the same conclusion, without a single exception. There is no evidence for ID, and people adopting this position should never be allowed to be perceived as reasonable.

-- dave