Sunday, July 20, 2008

Dawkin's Incredulous over Creationists and IDers

from this over-fawning article:

That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.”


How laughable - maybe it is because it is a non-falsifiable theory - a "just so" story that presupposes it's conclusions. A modern fairy tale built on a cosmic accident that reduces morality to brain chemistry and purposeless gene-passing.

Don't be fooled, only the poseur is afraid of debating his adversaries for fear of exposure.

9 comments:

  1. Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, but needs to stay in is element. In the case of God, he is the ignorant one. To use his argument, it would be as though you knew nothing of theology and were passionately arguing against the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "To use his argument, it would be as though you knew nothing of theology and were passionately arguing against the existence of God."

    And puritan lad just summed up most of Dawkins' books in one sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PL,

    You *do* know that theology requires a presupposition that there is at least one god, right? Evolution does not require atheism before you can recognize its value as a scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry skeptimal, Darwinian Evolution is an atheistic theory, especially when espoused by Dawkins. Evolution has it's own absurd presuppositions like naturalistic abiogenesis, and requires one to ignore the observable limits of selective breeding.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Darwinian Evolution is an atheistic theory,..."

    Then why do so many Christians, including the pope, believe it? And why do only fundamentalist Christians and Muslims believe in creationism?

    "Evolution has it's own absurd presuppositions like naturalistic abiogenesis"

    Plenty of Christians believe that god started the process and let evolution take it from there. ONLY Christians and Muslims believe in creationism.

    "(Evolution) requires one to ignore the observable limits of selective breeding."

    Can you tell me where you've come by the impression that "selective breeding" is part of the theory of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Skeptimal: "Can you tell me where you've come by the impression that "selective breeding" is part of the theory of evolution?"

    Original Post: "That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.”"

    Unless you have a definition of "natural selection" that doesn't include breeding. That would be a new one to me...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Skeptimal,

    "And I'll repeat my origional assertion: you don't have to be an atheist to accept the validity of evolution."

    Care to offer some proof? Of your own, I mean. Because if you are going to quote Christians who accept evolution as true, then you have to show what nuances they add to the theory to make it fit with Christianity. Or where they compromise on their Christianity to make it fit evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...we are but more progressive, or day-age, creationists...."

    I'm not sure what that is. Do you mind saying?

    "It is unavoidable to have faith-based assumptions."

    I thing assumptions are unavoidable, but I'm not sure I agree that faith-based assumptions are. Once faith gets involved, you've closed the door on all alternatives that disagree with your view.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Skeptimal, day-age creationism says that the "days" of creation are not necessarily six 24-hour days, but refers to longer periods, or ages, of creation.

    My own position is a lot more unsure than that (because of the relationship between God and time, and that time as we know it could only come into existence at the conclusion of certain creation events), but I prefer it over 6x24 creation.

    "I thing assumptions are unavoidable, but I'm not sure I agree that faith-based assumptions are. Once faith gets involved, you've closed the door on all alternatives that disagree with your view."

    It is indeed unavoidable. For example, do you trust the reliability of your senses? How would you prove that without being viciously circular?

    ReplyDelete

Why I believe in baptizing babies (condensed version)

I grew up with the traditional Baptist view, typically referred to as " believers baptism ". It is theologically known as credobap...