Hugo Holbling

This flaw in your comment is this: Galileo had evidence based on a newly invented telescope that was anything but clear in its implications. His observations were highly speculative and relied on his own theory of motion and the continuum which challenged Aristotle's and which appeared to be a step backwards, as i explained here. His evidence was not publically known and could not be so demonstrated at that time, nor was it persuasive to those who studied his telescope initially to the tune of much skepticism, let alone the general public. He employed other rhetorical techniques before his ideas were to prove convincing. On the other hand, the evidence for the pre-Copernican view was obvious for all to see. Unfortunately the Galileo affair is not so clear-cut as you make out.

I could adduce numerous other examples from the history of science in which ideas that initially appeared nonsensical, with no empirical support and opposed to other views that seemed well-argued and had persuaded all reasonable people turned out to be mistaken. The point is not to make the non sequitur that i'm suggesting creationism may turn out to be sound in the end, given enough faith in it, but that demanding it be kept from schools runs aground on Mill and that Dawkins' comments are based on a simplistic history and philosophy of science. It may be that he has to adopt this for the purpose of explaining things to the not-so-scientifically minded, but he is supposed to be advancing such understanding.

Nevertheless, i'd like to see some comment on my allusion to Mill. In addition, Dawkins is suggesting that the better theory is the one supported by the most evidence, a long-forgotten notion in the philosophy of science. Oh well.

Where's the fun in agreeing all the time? Who'll defend the underdog (or rather, the hopeless side)? I'll refrain from dragging this further off-topic if asked by a Mod, but i'd like to see some arguments contra Mill as to why his celebrated defence of dodgy ideas isn't applicable to creationism. I've already made the refence above, for any takers.

gcameron

I adore Dawkins. But he doesn't make it easy for theists to accept evolution.

Godless Dave

Correct. And his observations, and Copernicus's description of the solar system, were not accepted by the scientific community until they had been repeated and verified by other scientists.

Dawkins isn't saying Creationism shouldn't be researched, he's saying it shouldn't be taught to children as if it had already been researched.

emotional

Exactly. Kenneth Miller write a book called "Finding Darwin's God", and John Haught writes a tract called "Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence", each attempting to show the timid theist that evolution is not the end of story for their beliefs. Good works, these are. But then comes Dawkins, and with a huff and puff of his fire-breathing mouth, blows and burns all those attempts away. Who can you count on to dispell the myth of non-overlapping magisteria? Dawkins, that's who! And he has the nerve to complain about creationism...

And I don't adore Dawkins. I fell under his spell in the past, but now I see through him for what he really is: a High Priest of the Church of Materialism. He's as contemptible as the fundamentalist ministers and rabbis and mullahs he lashes against. He'd launch a Jihad of fire and the sword against theists if he had the power. Hypocrite. Fraud.

Hugo Holbling

Since i'm yet to be told off by a Mod, i'll continue to press for the application of Mill here, which you again don't address. I'll gladly put this down to my failure to provide anything for you to go on, so here - in the hope that the Mods appreciate why it's relevant to this forum - is Mill's (excerpted) argument for freedom of thought and discussion. I want to know why it doesn't apply to the teaching of creationism and any other creation myths in schools, assuming you find it a valid discussion.

From this link to the whole work via the relevant chapter:

In the context of this discussion, the important objections are the third and fourth.

Sauron

They are? Why is that, exactly?

Why is it that a scientist or science writer is supposed to search for ways to keep someone from tossing their religion onto the scrap heap?

The deliberate accommodation that you speak of - - should scientists be doing it for Buddhism? Islam? Confucianism as well? Since when did taking extra efforts not to offend religion become a goal of the practice of science?

Seems to me that the scientist and the science writer should merely present the facts, and let the chips fall where they may. The religionist is free to dispute the facts. Or to find whatever accommodation they can, that allows them to retain their religion and deal with the facts of science.

You mention "timid theists". That describes people who are sitting on the fence, agonizing over the conflict between rationality and religion. But the articles in the Guardian aren't talking about that group of timid people; they're discussing the far right creationists who aren't timid about their beliefs at all, and aren't worried about what science might say.

You blame Dawkins for taking away the illusion. Why don't you blame the original charlatan, who foisted the illusion on people in the first place?

Nic Tamzek

Um Hugo, Mill isn't talk about teaching, he's talking about free speech and freedom of conscience. As a political and legal matter, people are free to believe and say whatever damn nonsense they please, and I will defend that right even while I exercise my equal right to call their bunk bunk.

Teaching is another matter entirely. There have to be some standards or else any wacky idea -- homeopathy, alien visitation -- creationism is just one of many, many, loony possibilities -- will get taught and there will be no space for real information. What the standards are is determined broadly by taxpayers via their elected representatives, who if they are smart appoint committees of experts who know something about the topics in question. If they don't then we, scientifically-minded organizations, biotech companies, etc., should give 'em hell. This is what politics is for.

In the U.S. at least there is the additional restriction that the government cannot establish religion, so this rules out teaching things like young-earth creationism, although not, I suspect, sufficiently disguised forms of "Intelligent Design", although everything would depend on details in that case. There is no constitutional argument against teaching vapid nonsense, and this is probably a good thing (There may be legal arguments, depending on what the laws say in various states). It does mean, however, that we have to work hard to show the public why something like ID is vapid nonsense.

emotional

You know why the pseudoscientific movement of Creationism arose in the first place? Because of people like Dawkins. After 1859 a lot of church leaders were only too glad to accept Darwin's new theory (obviously they had learnt the lesson of the Galileo Affair). But then a host of "Darwinian bulldogs" harping on about how evolution = atheism set the whole thing on fire. A lot of strife would have been avoided if such Dawkinsians had shut up instead of raising the conflict so loudly.

Just think about it: a theist wants to keep his belief, since it gives him meaning in life, and he also wants to be on the cutting edge of science. But then comes a Dawkins and tells him he can't do both these things. What option does the theist have? The option of redefining "science" so as to match his belief. That's how creationism was born.



The religionist is not free to dispute the facts, but if he does not have an outlet of reconcilement between the facts and his religion, then disputing the facts is exactly what he's going to do.



Those far right creationists find support for their notion of "conflict between evolution and Christianity" precisely because of people like Dawkins who promote this conflict.

I don't know if their religions are an illusion, that's a subject for a different debate. Be it an illusion or not, there are lots of people who can't help but stick to it, and if they are told that they can't stick to it and be on the cutting edge of science at the same time, they'll probably become creationists.

Godless Dave

What Nic Tamzek said. I read the excerpt of Mill and I don't see how it applies to teaching.

I have no problem with creation myths being taught, in a class on mythology or religion. But I do have a problem with them being taught in a science class as if they had anything to do with science.

Oolon Colluphid

Which is, of course, exactly what Dawkins has said, many times.

Oolon