Synaesthesia

Coragyps,
*lol* Quite right.

His books are really brilliant, as someone wrote of him, "He understands so clearly he compells you to understand." As Douglas Bender has hinted, however, Dawkin's occasional indulgence in delightful acrimony has some drawbacks. I often feel uncomfortable suggesting his books to creationists friends because the one or two comments on religion he makes really turn people off what he emphasises as his more imortant message.

This is tragic because I can think of few authors better equipped and more talented at dispelling the depth and breadth of creationist confusion.

I just read the extended phenotype(which happily contains no attacks on religion... not that I don't enjoy RD even then.) It is, however, not meant as an introduction to evolution. It is a refinement and demonstration of the power of evolutionary thinking.

KC

One of my favorite Dawkins stories was his response to being called arrogant. He said he didn't think he was arrogant, just more humble in the face of the facts.

Cheers,

KC

tgamble

where was it that he wrote that those who doubt evolution are stupid or insane etc.?

edited to add:

never mind. found out.
<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html" target="_blank">http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html</a>

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Corwin

What can I say? Dawkins is occasionally a bit windy.... but overall he's just too damn cool.

Howay the Toon

The problem is that this is almost always the level of criticism of Dawkins. I have never heard a creationist or even a theist actually address in detail the arguments which Dawkins makes.

Lizard

Isn't eye-rolling the general "argument" against science from creationists?

Once a little old lady creationist accosted me in the lobby of a pro-evo conference with some typical question or statement based on Genesis. When I asked her how she could be sure the Genesis version was correct, she just *knew* it was.

Then I asked her, "What about the legend that the earth was born out of the egg of a giant turtle? Or what about the theory that aliens seeded earth with life? How do you know those versions aren't true?"

She just started laughing and made a dismissive gesture, saying, "Oh, that's just silly!"

Don't the Genesis stories seem just as "silly" as Hindu, Egyptian, Sumerian or other ancient legends?

Myths and legends occupy an important place in human history. They tell us more about the people who invent them than they do about the reality on which they may or not be based. But in any case, we have to be clear about what is a story and what is reality. Particularly when it comes to teaching K-12 science. We cannot give children the impression that ancient legends form a foundation for learning science. If anything, adhering to myths and rejecting science has had a deleterious effect on the progress of science.

Why creationists cannot separate ancient myths from the notion of "God" is a mystery to me. The book can be fairy tales, and "God" still a valid concept. The two are not indivisible. I'm not sure about this, but I'm pretty sure, that there is nowhere in the Bible where it is stated that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. After all, it is a collection of separate books assembled when the Emperor of Rome was trying to formalize Christianity. It isn't as if it appeared whole on a hilltop somewhere. A bunch of churchmen put it together in the 4th(?) century.

Comments? Corrections?

Richiyaado

I think the mistake people make is reading Genesis as though its principal theme were about establishing a literal history of creation. Its real theme, of course, is about establishing the covenant between God and man. So, sadly, millions of people persist in not seeing the forest for the trees and, unfortunately for science, insist that everyone else do the same.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

Principia

Here's an <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran4.htm" target="_blank">interesting website</a> on the current statistics of believers in Biblical inerrancy.

I can only see history repeating itself here.

Scientiae