Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Per Ahlberg · 03-19-2002, 03:18 AM

Following on from the "Creationism in Britain" thread (I can't work out how to link to it), here's the public statement that Sir Neil Chalmers, Director of the Natural History Museum, put out in response to the Emmanuel College story (relayed to him, indirectly, via II). Apparently he has been quoted in two of our better broadsheet newspapers, the Independent (14 March) and Observer (17 March).

Per

Quote:

No one should be in any doubt that attempts
to portray creationism as a credible
alternative to evolution are wrong. Life on
earth was not created a few thousand years
ago within the space of a few days, as a
literal interpretation of Genesis would have
us believe. Evolution happened. Life on earth
has evolved over billions of years. The
evidence is overwhelming, and comes from
the work of tens of thousands of scientists
working throughout the world over the last
two hundred years. Much of this evidence is
quite literally before our eyes. The Natural
History Museum has in its collections
millions of fossils, many of them on display
to our visitors. The ages of the fossils, which
have been measured using highly reliable
techniques that are published and open to
public verification, range from 2.7 billion
years to less than 1 million years. The array
of creatures that were alive on earth 500
million years ago is very different from the
array that was alive 200 million years ago,
which in turn is very different from the array
that is alive today. As you pass through time
the fossil record changes, sometimes
slowly, sometimes rapidly. But change it
does. As you look at the many millions of
species alive today, their astonishing
diversity and their molecular composition
only makes sense in terms of evolution.

Darwin did not "discover" evolution. He
provided a powerful explanation of what
makes evolution happen. His theory of
evolution by natural selection is not a
passing conjecture, as the word theory
might suggest, but a robustly argued
explanation that has survived rigorous
testing for more than a century. Even if
contradictory evidence were to arise that led
to the fall of his theory, the historical fact of
evolution would remain and would need to be
explained.

These are the basic facts about evolution
that need to be at the heart of good teaching
in our schools. They need to be taught well
so that students can appreciate the
conceptual issues that are being addressed
and be given the intellectual framework to
assess the scientific evidence for
themselves. Creationism is quite literally
incredible. One might argue that it would be
good for schools to subject creationism to
rigorous critical analysis by their students, if
only to reveal its total inability to explain the
history of life on earth. But there must be
limits to how far we ask our schools to
devote their precious time to the teaching of
error.

Sir Neil Chalmers
Director

Alexis Comnenus · 03-19-2002, 04:28 AM

"With hindsight, it might have been better if those of us in Group Three had kept our big mouths shut..."

Horray! True words of wisdom from Prof Dawkins. I believe totally in evolution but also think arrogant scientists who show no respect for other peoples beliefs are part of the problem. Dawkins should shut up and stop trying to stuff his ideology down peoples throats. I mostly agree with him and he still pisses me off.

Regards

Alex

Pandora · 03-19-2002, 05:10 AM

The reason scientists such as Dawkins come across as arrogant are because they have to spend so much of their valuable time countering arguments that have no place on the laboratory table. Facts, evidence, controls, repeatable examples are what belong in science - faith checks in at the door.

Personally, I'm glad there are a few people who are prepared to have an opinion and stand up for it, rather than pussy footing round the issues being oh so politically correct like our wilted lettuce leaf of a Prime Minister.

Per Ahlberg · 03-19-2002, 05:56 AM

I just had an e-mail from Neil Chalmers, saying he's written to the Prime Minister about the Emmanuel College saga. Yes!

Per

pseudobug · 03-19-2002, 06:25 AM

Quote:

I believe totally in evolution but also think arrogant scientists who show no respect for other peoples beliefs are part of the problem.

Gotta disagree with you on the above Alex.

First of all, I think Dawkins has every right to make a commentary on the issue. Fundies of every stripe promote ignorance--plain and simple. They do it for a very specific reason-- to keep the masses of followers ignorant of the fact that religion's "carrot-stick" motivational system, (which is nothing mopre than a scare tactic) of a non-existent God who will save you from the molten fires of hell in a non-existent afterlife.

Furthermore, fundies meddle in governments around the world and are the primary cause of strife around the world today.

Have you read about atheists strapping a bomb on their chest lately and killing folks? Any agnostics bombed any abortion clinics.

Nah, Dawkins is right---stupidity and dishonesty with regard to promoting mythological fairy tales deserve to be stamped out.

Rage and ridicule on Professor Dawkins....

bluefugue · 03-19-2002, 08:44 AM

The question of "respect for people's beliefs" is tricky. I think atheist comments have to be viewed in the light of the fact that their beliefs (or rather lack thereof) have traditionally not been respected -- in fact they've been stigmatized and ridiculed -- and so they are bound to feel a bit defensive about it. Dawkins has indeed railed against what he dubs the "liberal bending-over-backwards" to avoid offending theists. This may be harsh and it may be unwise. I think the reason he has taken this line, however, is more as a reaction to some theist attitudes than anything else. If they'd be content to leave well enough alone, so, I imagine, would he. When fundamentalists are trying to get their beliefs taught as science (and, whether true or not, these beliefs are not science, as science by definition works within a specific set of philosophical and epistemological constraints), then guys like Dawkins take off the kid gloves and fight back. Quite understandably in my opinion. I will grant that Dawkins is particularly vociferous in his dislike of religion, but most other publicly-known scientists -- I'm thinking specifically here of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Jay Gould -- are in fact generally respectful of religion and are willing to let it be as long as it doesn't step on their turf.

The problem really comes when you have theists who perceive science education in toto as an attack on their beliefs. Some argue that science proceeds from an unwarranted "naturalistic bias." In fact some sort of naturalistic bias is essential to doing science in the first place. That's part of the method that has been adopted, and it's why scientists don't think angels push planets around, they don't think God is crying when it rains, and they don't think mental illness is caused by demonic possession. The peculiar epistemological biases of science have not been vindicated in any ultimate philosophical sense, but they have caught on because they have been so damn useful. For some reason these biases don't seem to have bothered most theists when it came to the germ theory of disease, the law of universal gravitation, quantum mechanics, or the idea that mental illness correlates with physical brain disorders. Perhaps in part because the practical benefits resulting from such knowledge have been so pronounced. When science begins investigating origins (the origin of the solar system, the origin of the universe, and above all the origin of man), suddenly they have struck a nerve and many theists are up in arms. I don't know how this conflict shall ever be resolved. Some people (like Kenneth Miller) seem able to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific understanding. Others, like Dawkins, or Duane Gish, or myself, have a hard time reconciling faith with science, and so take a firm stand on one side or another, winding up either an atheist or a fundamentalist. (Though Gish wouldn't characterize himself this way, as he insists what he is doing is science.) I suppose only time will tell which of the 3 approaches will prove the most prevalent.

Alexis Comnenus · 03-19-2002, 09:56 AM

Pseudobug,

Your post was just the sort of thing that gives unbelievers a bad name. If I go around characterising other peoples beliefs in the silly way you did, insinuating that normal members of society are about to start bombing doctors etc then all I do is polarise opinion and make it harder for us all to live together.

I've sat through a couple of evangelical services. It was a bit weird, the music was highly dubious and I would have rather been watching TV but it was harmless. No one mentioned hell, no one railed against heretics, no one mentioned evolution. Frankly I thought they were a bunch of normal people dealing with life as best they can.

If Dawkins says that they are daft and irrational and then also says evolution is true, are they going to believe him? Of course not. Dawkins hates religion - Dawkins loves evolution. If I were an evangelical I'd disbelieve Dawkins on principle.

So, the best thing Dawkins can do to get these people to stop worrying about evolution is to shut up. In general creationism isn't a big issue in the UK because no one gives a damn. I wish everyone would accept scientific fact but until atheists (and theists, but they're not here) stop mixing ideology up with it, that is not going to happen.

Regards

Alex

Dr Rick · 03-19-2002, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexis Comnenus:
<strong>Pseudobug, Your post was just the sort of thing that gives unbelievers a bad name. If I go around characterising other peoples beliefs in the silly way you did, insinuating that normal members of society are about to start bombing doctors etc then all I do is polarise opinion and make it harder for us all to live together.</strong>

These "normal" people behave normally because their religious beliefs have been tempered with secularism. It was only by challenging religious beliefs that Western Civilization progressed beyond the ignorance that religion brought to and held over much of Europe for generations, and it was only by challenging the ignorance of the faithful that a measure of tolerance was introduced into their beliefs. Continued advancement can be achieved by continuing to confront the blind beliefs of the faithful.

To the people of his time, Galileo's views could have been potentially "polarizing" as well, but it was important that he spoke out.

<strong>

Quote:

...Frankly I thought they were a bunch of normal people dealing with life as best they can.</strong>

One can say the same about the people of Europe living during the times of the Crusades and Inquisition.

03-19-2002, 11:44 AM

I have no respect for religious belief and I am very glad that Dawkins is prepared to speak up for atheism. The trouble in the UK has always been that it's thought not nice to argue about religion. I left school in England in 1957, before most of you were born, and I still resent the religious indoctrination I suffered (by Act of Parliament) during my state school education.

In more recent years, the indoctrination has been toned down, but not from any respect for the rights of atheists. Oh no! It's because we have become a multicultural society and mustn't upset the believers in other types of daft superstition. Witness Prince Charles and his desire to become a "Defender of Faith" and his remarks implying that any faith, however deranged, is better than none and that non-believers are second-class citizens.

I'd agree that Dawkins should come across as more tolerant of religion if the bloody theists would be more tolerant of non-belief. It annoys me every christmas and easter when The Times has pompous first leaders about the truth of the xian message. Isn't that arrogant? The Telegraph is even worse ever since Conrad Black and Charles Moore got their hands on it.

The UK is bursting with religious leaders all prepared to tell you how profoundly true their various beliefs are and how necessary religious belief is to morality. Humility is supposed to be a xian virtue, but they don't seem to practise what they preach.

Dawkins has two separate roles: as a scientist and as an atheist. Can't the idiots tell the difference? His beliefs on religion don't in the slightest invalidate his scientific views.

There is more discussion of this issue <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000209" target="_blank">here</a>

I note from yesterday's The Times that

Quote:

American creationists are considering whether to invest millions of pounds in British schools to promote their literal interpretation of the Bible as an alternative to evolution.

I don't know why, but The Times is now preventing free access to its archives, so I can't post a link. The story said that they wanted to do what Sir Peter Vardy had done in setting up this Emmanuel College. They are a bit puzzled about the widespread support for evolution in Britain. So look out chaps! Here come the nutters!

Godless Dave · 03-19-2002, 11:49 AM

I thought you Brits were immune from this sort of foolishness. If you want to fight fundamentalism in the UK, it's time to bring out the big guns:

If fundamentalist Christianity becomes as powerful in the UK as it is in the US, the drinking age will be raised to 21!

That should make your countrymen realize how dangerous this movement is.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 04:28 AM	#12
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	"With hindsight, it might have been better if those of us in Group Three had kept our big mouths shut..." Horray! True words of wisdom from Prof Dawkins. I believe totally in evolution but also think arrogant scientists who show no respect for other peoples beliefs are part of the problem. Dawkins should shut up and stop trying to stuff his ideology down peoples throats. I mostly agree with him and he still pisses me off. Regards Alex

03-19-2002, 05:10 AM	#13
Pandora Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: UK Posts: 367	The reason scientists such as Dawkins come across as arrogant are because they have to spend so much of their valuable time countering arguments that have no place on the laboratory table. Facts, evidence, controls, repeatable examples are what belong in science - faith checks in at the door. Personally, I'm glad there are a few people who are prepared to have an opinion and stand up for it, rather than pussy footing round the issues being oh so politically correct like our wilted lettuce leaf of a Prime Minister.

03-19-2002, 05:56 AM	#14
Per Ahlberg Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 582	I just had an e-mail from Neil Chalmers, saying he's written to the Prime Minister about the Emmanuel College saga. Yes! Per

03-19-2002, 08:44 AM	#16
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	The question of "respect for people's beliefs" is tricky. I think atheist comments have to be viewed in the light of the fact that their beliefs (or rather lack thereof) have traditionally not been respected -- in fact they've been stigmatized and ridiculed -- and so they are bound to feel a bit defensive about it. Dawkins has indeed railed against what he dubs the "liberal bending-over-backwards" to avoid offending theists. This may be harsh and it may be unwise. I think the reason he has taken this line, however, is more as a reaction to some theist attitudes than anything else. If they'd be content to leave well enough alone, so, I imagine, would he. When fundamentalists are trying to get their beliefs taught as science (and, whether true or not, these beliefs are not science, as science by definition works within a specific set of philosophical and epistemological constraints), then guys like Dawkins take off the kid gloves and fight back. Quite understandably in my opinion. I will grant that Dawkins is particularly vociferous in his dislike of religion, but most other publicly-known scientists -- I'm thinking specifically here of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Jay Gould -- are in fact generally respectful of religion and are willing to let it be as long as it doesn't step on their turf. The problem really comes when you have theists who perceive science education in toto as an attack on their beliefs. Some argue that science proceeds from an unwarranted "naturalistic bias." In fact some sort of naturalistic bias is essential to doing science in the first place. That's part of the method that has been adopted, and it's why scientists don't think angels push planets around, they don't think God is crying when it rains, and they don't think mental illness is caused by demonic possession. The peculiar epistemological biases of science have not been vindicated in any ultimate philosophical sense, but they have caught on because they have been so damn useful. For some reason these biases don't seem to have bothered most theists when it came to the germ theory of disease, the law of universal gravitation, quantum mechanics, or the idea that mental illness correlates with physical brain disorders. Perhaps in part because the practical benefits resulting from such knowledge have been so pronounced. When science begins investigating origins (the origin of the solar system, the origin of the universe, and above all the origin of man), suddenly they have struck a nerve and many theists are up in arms. I don't know how this conflict shall ever be resolved. Some people (like Kenneth Miller) seem able to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific understanding. Others, like Dawkins, or Duane Gish, or myself, have a hard time reconciling faith with science, and so take a firm stand on one side or another, winding up either an atheist or a fundamentalist. (Though Gish wouldn't characterize himself this way, as he insists what he is doing is science.) I suppose only time will tell which of the 3 approaches will prove the most prevalent.

03-19-2002, 09:56 AM	#17
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	Pseudobug, Your post was just the sort of thing that gives unbelievers a bad name. If I go around characterising other peoples beliefs in the silly way you did, insinuating that normal members of society are about to start bombing doctors etc then all I do is polarise opinion and make it harder for us all to live together. I've sat through a couple of evangelical services. It was a bit weird, the music was highly dubious and I would have rather been watching TV but it was harmless. No one mentioned hell, no one railed against heretics, no one mentioned evolution. Frankly I thought they were a bunch of normal people dealing with life as best they can. If Dawkins says that they are daft and irrational and then also says evolution is true, are they going to believe him? Of course not. Dawkins hates religion - Dawkins loves evolution. If I were an evangelical I'd disbelieve Dawkins on principle. So, the best thing Dawkins can do to get these people to stop worrying about evolution is to shut up. In general creationism isn't a big issue in the UK because no one gives a damn. I wish everyone would accept scientific fact but until atheists (and theists, but they're not here) stop mixing ideology up with it, that is not going to happen. Regards Alex

03-19-2002, 11:49 AM	#20
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I thought you Brits were immune from this sort of foolishness. If you want to fight fundamentalism in the UK, it's time to bring out the big guns: If fundamentalist Christianity becomes as powerful in the UK as it is in the US, the drinking age will be raised to 21! That should make your countrymen realize how dangerous this movement is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.