GunnerJ

So, wait, you're saying it's better to let false ideas ("myths") continue to propagate without correction?

Strong charges. Any proof, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Hugo Holbling

Um, no he isn't. Freedom of thought isn't just applicable in that area - his arguments have always been considered applicable to education. Mill hopes that even the ostensibly soundest of arguments can be made subject to even the looniest of objections in order to prevent the former becoming a dead dogma. In this very forum we see time and again new creationist ideas (or perhaps the same old nonsense) trotted out and hammered, doing a valuable service (however bored of it the experts may become) to those who know little about this area. The existence of opposition makes the orthodoxy remain relevant.

Well, not only is the demarcation problem unsolved, but creationism has everything to do with science: according to its critics (and i agree) it's bad science. If that's so, surely anyone studying it alongside evolution will not only learn the difference between the two in terms of evidentiary support, but also gain a valuable lesson in critical thinking and discriminating between sound and unsound ideas and practices? If, as Dawkins claims, "any reasonable person" can be persuaded, what can come of exposing them to nonsensical theories of lesser (or no) explanatory or predictive power?

emotional

Those who believe in false ideas won't stop doing so just because Dawkins railed against them. In effect, all Dawkins is doing by his science-religion conflicting is swell the number of creationists.

Are you joking? The man is a fanatic. He's had plenty of interviews where he said he'd like a world without religion.

Doubting Didymus

Like Micheal Newdow.

Effectively you propose: "Hear me, evolutionists: throw down your swords, lest your enemies retaliate."

Indeed, a noble sentiment. Lie down en masse in front of the british horses, walk nobly and without fear toward the iron-tipped clubs, and eventually the right will prevail.

While dearest ghandi was successful in bringing India to freedom, setting a fine example all over the world, it is just as likely that the horses will trample your people, and the iron club will descend mercilessly on your heads. Sometimes peace works, sometimes you have to fight. There will be retaliation, but the alternative is extinction.

Imagine no religion. I wonder if you can?

Thank goodness Lennon was assasinated, he'd have launched a Jihad of fire and the sword against theists if he had the power.

theyeti

Actually, in regards to modern creationism, the exact opposite is true. The modern creationist movement began in the 1960's after evolution began being widely taught in public highschools for the first time. This was part of a larger reorganization of the science curriculum recomended by the NAS, which had been charged with the task after sputnik made it seem that the Soviets were beating us in scientific achievement. Once the teaching of evolution became widespread, the modern creationist movement formed as a reaction, beginning with Henry Morris and The Genesis Flood. The movement slowly gained steam in the 70's and became prominent in the early 80's with the rise of the Religious Right as a political force. Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker in 1986 (IIRC) in reaction to the creationists, who by then had been promulgating many of the myths he debunks for quite some time.

As for the association between evolution and atheism, no one makes this claim more forcefully than the creationists. It is an inherent part of their theology that evolution and God cannot coexist. The "accomodationists", as they see it, are even worse enemies than the atheists are. It would make not one bit of difference if all of the Dawkinses of the world were to shut-up tomorrow; there would still be a creationist movement that was dedicated to destroying evolution, because for them non-reconciliation isn't simply a reaction to Dawkins-like atheists, nor is it a matter of tactics, but it's an integral part of their world-view.

That being said, I agree that Dawkins doesn't help the cause too much. I think belief in God and evolution can be quite easliy reconciled, and the creationists pretty much got it wrong on that account, as they have with everything else. Simply by being an outspoken atheist Dawkins gives ammo to the creos who want everyone to believe that evolution and belief cannot be reconciled, nevermind the extent to which he believes it himself. People like Philip Johnson love to point to Dawkins as an example of how evolution leads to atheism, while simultaneously heaping scorn on theistic evolutionists who disprove the rule. I think it would be better if Dawkins would spend his time talking about science, which he is very good at, and forget about the religious stuff. But the guy has a right to voice his opinions.

theyeti

scombrid

Because the creationist want them taught in the science classroom. In primary education kids are to be taught the prevailing views in each respective field. The primary school classroom isn’t where controversies are solved. Unless creationism becomes the accepted explanation for the diversity of biota it shouldn’t be taught in the science class. When I was in primary school I went to church every day for half an hour before class and had theology class in grades 8-12. We learned the various creation myths. None of them showed up in Earth Science or AP Biology.

If this is the way in which teachers would address the teaching of theories then I’d accept the entry of alternative theories into the classroom. This isn’t the intention of the “equal time” lot. They want to present evolution through the eyes of Gish. Besides, at least in the US, science ends up being just so stories and cookbook recipe experiments. By and large kids get through primary school and even intro university science courses without fully understanding the scientific method and the nature of theory.

Gradeschool needs to have a course just on theory and evidence standards; but it should be taught in parallel to traditional biology courses. Of course I think courses need to be a lot more rigorous in general. Lessons in critical thinking are beyond the scope of basic gradeschool level Earth Science, Biology, etc… courses. Too many teachers let kids get away without actually learning principles because they’re supposedly teaching “critical thinking”. Critical thinking is the latest copout among students. “I don’t have to memorize that, you should be teaching me critical thinking skills”. You can’t think critically about a topic without actually knowing anything about it. It’s like creationists coming here, without any understanding of the principles of Evolutionary theory, and telling Rufus, Pz, et al. why diversity can’t be explained by evolution but then demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of the theory.

GunnerJ

But, you you claim that NOMA is a myth. Do you have a problem with dispelling myths? Does the existence of a few dogmatists mean that well intentioned fence sitters should be allowed to be misled?

Irrelevent. I would like to see a secular world. I would also like a blowjob. In niether case am I willing or inclined to use violence to attain my wants.

scombrid

That sword is cutting both ways and polarizing the conflict.

I know of more than one atheist that drifted to atheism from soft belief when pressed by biblical literalists. I happily had my little personnal god that I thanked for pretty days or praised when I'd be awstruck by a beautiful sunrise or asked for help through hard times while discounting the fundamentalists. Then a Gish clone dumped a shitload of tracts on my coffee table (under the guise of a friendly visit since it was an old family friend that we hadn't seen in awhile) and I got caught up arguing against creation myths and the flood story. That set forth a whole cascade critical analysis of my beliefs that led to unbelief (or really my admitting to myself that I really didn't believe but was just holding on to what I was taught as a child).

Maybe it would be useful for all kids to receive the extensive instruction in religion that I had through grade school. Actually knowing a little biblical history made literalism impossible to accept. Maybe that's why the Baptists in my old church chastised my parents for sending me to Catholic school where the OT stories were all "contextualized".

Kevin

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide us with a lesson plan which contains the amount of science a high school biology student is expected to know by the end of the year (Biology, 7th edition, by Campbell et al. may be helpful here) and also is able to allow for sufficient time to teach all claims which are made against orthodox biology (because Mill doesn't say that one must pick only one heterodox alternative and rebut it) and allows for sufficient time to present the orthodox counter to the arguments presented on behalf of the heterodox views. Please bear in mind that the hypothetical teacher is probably ignorant of the philosophy of science and may not have majored in the sciences during his or her college education, but instead has only taken general classes like "Science for Science Teachers."

Kimpatsu

Hardly. He's one of the few people bold enough to stand up publicly to this nonsense.
But there clearly IS a conflict. Miller and Haught want to have their cake and eat it. They want science to stop examining religion from a scientific perspective, but they also want "god" braught into science. This is nonsense.
Yes, there is a wonder. Dawkins describes to people how god is not necessary to explain life, and STILL they want a god in there somewhere. That's not Dawkins's fault; he's doing the very best that he can against the intellectual dwarfism of some people.
That means they have failed to understand what he is saying. The universe IS blind; there is no conscious hand guiding it. If this unsettles people, those people should deal with their own inner demons, and confront their fears (most palpably, their fear of death), rather than attacking Dawkins. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the meesage!
More fool you. I hate theists, for being sanctimonious and wilfully ignorant. Putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly will not change the truth of what Dawkins says one iota.