Kevin Dorner

Stonetools: I think you may be missing my point. Let me diverge...

Heck, long before I "deconverted" I was into science very much, and science had very little to with my eventual decision of atheism... it was far more on philosophical and logical grounds that I did so. When I was a believer, I had no problem with evolution being a nifty way for a divine entity to cause a whole planetful of life, all perfectly adapted to their environment and their "role" in it, to occur with minimal effort. Of course, this is a personal thing... but here's the point that isn't:

See, I had the option. I could decide to be an atheist. Creationism and ID are about nothing more or less than the removal of the option of whether to believe in a god or not.It is about getting the government to tell children through teachers (who are representatives of the government and therefore authority figures,) incontrovertibly, in class, on public funds, with "scientific" backing, that a deity not only exists, but that there is evidence of it, and that life cannot be explained otherwise.

Faith being the opposite of proof, the creationists' faith is clearly so weak that they need to see proof, and cannot accept a universe in which a creator is optional (in which case one must have faith in one, there being no direct proof of one.) A person of true faith could look at a universe that showed no sign whatsoever of having come into being through anything other than naturalistic means, and still believe, without having to lie to themselves and others that they had found proof that wasn't there. Isn't that what "faith" is?

As far as the "checking your faith at the door" comment... why confine it to biology?
Do religious astronomers try to get Biblical geocentricism (the earth being the motionless centre of the universe) back into the schools? Does this affect their research? Do they "check their faith at the door?"
Does a religious mechanic pray your car better, or does he fix it? He must "check his faith at the door" too.
How about a religious meteorologist? Does she say on television that the hurricane travelling through the Gulf Of Mexico was caused by the wrath of an angry god, or instead that it was the warm front from the tropics hitting cooler air that blew west off the Atlantic? She must "check her faith at the door" too.

I think you get the point.

stonetools

KEVIN DORNIER
Stonetools: I think you may be missing my point. Let me diverge...
STONETOOLS
And I think you might be missing MY point. Everybody on this board seems to just go into anti YEC mode, when someone posts anything different from the STANDARD II POSITION. My point is that advocates of evolution are shooting themselves in the foot politically by letting Dawkins & Dennett and such types be the definers of the pro evolution stance.The truth of YECism and IDism is less important to this point. The point is that their political strength is fed by the anttheistic prounouncements of the so called evolution advocates.
KEVIN DORNIER
See, I had the option. I could decide to be an atheist. Creationism and ID are about nothing more or less than the removal of the option of whether to believe in a god or not.It is about getting the government to tell children through teachers (who are representatives of the government and therefore authority figures,) incontrovertibly, in class, on public funds, with "scientific" backing, that a deity not only exists, but that there is evidence of it, and that life cannot be explained otherwise.

STONETOOLS
Interesting. I would say that this is an overreaction.YEC and IDers would argue that they are advocating for choice, and that it is the (atheistic) evolutionists who insist that schools are teaching that you HAVE to beleive in evolution, and therefore atheism. IMO thats an overreaction too. But they have the votes.

KEVIN DORNIER
As far as the "checking your faith at the door" comment... why confine it to biology?
STONETOOLS
I was actually riffing on a well known statement by evolution advocate William Provine.
"Anyone who believes in God has to check his brains at the church door"
Is there any doubt why belivers should feel that their faith is threatened if such an attitude is typical of evolution advocates?

Kosh

Your implication here is that a 15 year old is
to young (dare I say naive?) to have to face
this decision? If that is the case, then why
do creationists (that is Christians) often
pressure young children under 10 to "dedicate
their life to Jesus"? Hmmmm? Why not wait till
they're an adult then let them analyze both sides
of the argument? Oh yeah, theism would be too
hard sell at that point....

Kevin Dorner

Reversing your own statement, because Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say stupid things, obviously this will scare people off of Christianity, so churches should offer science classes as a "choice." Silly? Yes.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's utterances do not change whether a deity exists, or whether that deity had a son named Jesus or anything else. Neither do William Provine's utterances change whether biological evolution occurred, or by which methods, or the evidence supporting this. Science must exist independently of the opinions of its detractors as well as its supporters.

BLoggins02

[rant]

Ack!! Let's try some UBB code people. It's much more pleasant to read an argument when you don't have to spend half your time sorting out who said what.

[/rant]

Malaclypse the Younger

There are two issues here. One is what science should be taught in schools, and the other is the political battle between theism and nontheism.

As far as I know, Dawkins does not teach high-school biology, and I have no idea what he teaches in his college classes. Presumably he (like any good science professor) leaves his political opinions at the door and teaches objective science.

What he does outside the classroom is his own business. He has no particular ethical obligation to take or refrain from taking a political position regarding theism/atheism.

Indeed it might well be Dawkin's opinion that "If a religiously inclined teenager who was thinking of a career in science read this quote, he would come to the conclusion that he would either have to renounce his faith or give up any idea of a career in science." Dawkins is certainly entitled to that opinion, and you are entitled to refute it.

Orpheous99

One thing you must realize about most creationists, they will quote evolutionists out of context on purpose or even outright lie about it as well. To them it is not deception when they do it in their god's name.

Jerry Smith

Stone Tools,

I see your point: that the Christian majority would be more friendly to scientific ideas if vocal scientists were more friendly to Christians.

This is probably true, but you know we all have to remind you who began the pissing war over the philosophical implications of evolution first.

Unlike YEC which is an organized political movement, no mechanism exists within the academic structures (some may argue this - let me say to them that no mechanism SHOULD exist) to censor what any proponent of evolution may talk about outside of the science journals or the public school's science classrooms.

We could refuse to buy or plug Dawkin's books. The fact is that many of us agree with 99% of what Dawkins says in those books. Some of us feel it is appropriate to draw the same philosophical conclusions from the theory of evolution that Dawkins does (I, personally, have not been convinced of this yet, though I am still atheist).

What you are talking about is a potential knee-jerk reaction from YEC'ers and their flocks to words from science popularizers. It takes tons of education to deal with this (as it does to deal with YEC itself). We could beg Dawkins to hush, or at least ask him to publish his philosophical views separately from his science-popularization views, but we have little chance of convincing him. I believe he is probably committed to his views. I believe that his viewpoint would be majority-opinion-be-damned, I will think and say what I like, and majority-opinion still does not trump rule of law where it concerns what can be taught in a public school.

Instead of censoring Dawkins & his ilk, would it not be better for us to focus on educating people about the alternatives to an atheistic interpretation of the science. Would you, yourself, not be in a great position to work on this with us, given that you hold one of those interpretations to be true?

Just a few thoughts...
Jerry the Lurker

edited because ... does not underline anything.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

stonetools

Take a look at the "Creationism in the UK" thread
for a possible change of attitudeof Mr. Selfish Gene himself, aghast as what he has wrought...My Irony Meter is going through the roof!
The fact is, Jerry Falwell's statements DID scare quite a few people, and Dakins' statements have scared some Christians in the UK to the extent of setting up their own schools.Speech has its consequences, babe. If folks think that to allow the teaching of evolution is tantamount to having them indoctrinated in atheism, they won't allow it.They will continue to fight against it and if all fails, they will leave.they don't HAVE to stay, you know.
This battle may very well not end happily for atheists
unfortunately, what Dawkins et al say outside the classroom may very well affect what science gets taught IN the classroom. They may not even BE public school classrooms if the majority of religious parents get stampeded into thinking that the faith of their children will be attacked and ridiculed if they send them to public schools.And they could very well think that if they listen to the "evolution Advocates".


true.

true again.
I would like that, Jerry. But would atheists want to work with a stupid, misguided, hidebound, goatsherd-holy-book-believing theist?

Malaclypse the Younger

A battle is a battle. This is not going to be won by sweetness and light.

And if you compare the scariness of Falwell, Roberson, Phelps, Ham, Hovind, etc. to that of Dawkins... Well, there's just no comparison.

And if people leave the schools, they're just cutting off their nose to spite their face. If they want to hold onto their supersitions and risk raising their children in ignorance, that only hurts themselves.

&lt;shrugs&gt; But it has to be fought. Better to die trying (metaphorically speaking) than just give up.

Bah. I think this is unlikely. Besides, the religious have a perfectly valid counterargument: That religion (including atheism) should not be taught in schools. Just the facts and the good science. And good science is good science, regardless of your religion.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>