The UK based Channel 4 is airing a three series program titled The Genius of Charles Darwin
He has presented television documentaries for Channel 4 including The Root of All Evil? and The Enemies of Reason. He is well known for his atheism and his forthright criticism of religious doctrine. In the forthcoming Channel 4 series Dawkins on Darwin he argues that Darwinism provides a more thrilling view of creation than any religion.
The first episode can be viewed at Google Video
The next few months the BBC and other channels will be producing some interesting programs for the celebration of the 200 year anniversary.
Make sure you check out the Channel 4 Site as it provides some useful materials.
It is an accomplished introduction for the naive viewer, but don’t believe everything you see in the programme!
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogsp[…]darwins.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogsp[…]n-doubt.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogsp[…]dawkins.html
PvM,
I’m sorry, but the way you’ve quoted this material makes it sound as if the focus is on Dawkins and attacks on religion, not Charles Darwin and evolution. Perhaps a quote that described the content rather than the host would be more appropriate.
I think Dawkins has done a good job communicating scientific ideas, and ‘reasonable’ job communicating atheism. I hope this program is not “The Genius of Richard Dawkins, Atheist”.
I thought it was a average program,only good in parts. Dawkins opening statement”that evolution is a vastly superior explanation to anything religion has ever provided” would not be well recieved in the US dispite it’s truth.
Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible and if this meant that Hindu children are equally correct in believing the often contradictory claims. In other words, the fact that “I grew up xxxx” was shown to lead to some interesting problems when substituting Catholic, Islamic, Hindu for xxxxx.
While the program certainly explains the genius of Darwin, Dawkins also adds a hefty atheistic spin to the mix. Some of the responses by UcD have been predictable and yet they seem to be missing the point.
There are some interesting publications surfacing in the year of Darwin’s celebration. There is a book which, incorrectly I believe, accuses Darwin of having stolen one of Wallace’s ideas on natural selection. I will likely write a posting on this topic because I came to realize that there has been a rich history of writers who have accused Darwin of improper actions and an even richer history of writers who have studied Darwin and have compared his earlier writings, his notebooks and his letters with “Origins”. So much I did not know about Darwin, it was shocking to me. The depth and breath of Darwin’s research and writings is even more amazing than it used to be to me.
Of course, the fact that something is a better scientific explanation than religious explanations comes to me as no surprise. Religion is not meant to explain the how, but rather the why and evolutionary theory can never be, or should never be seen, as contradicting religious claims, lest said religious claims invade the realm of science.
As such we see how YEC, ID all subvert science and undermine theology with their foolish and in case of ID, vacuous claims and we come to realize how for instance the position of the Catholic church, however confusing given the guidance of the DI in providing talking points, remains one which separates science and theology and remains critical of Intelligent Design.
For us Christians, Dawkins’ message may be a wake up call showing how atheism, which does not rely on any theological baggage is better equipped to deal with scientific findings than the many religions we have come to be comfortable with. As Christians, our task is not to lament and complain about these facts but rather learn and adapt. Unless of course we insist on remaining foolish…
Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible and if this meant that Hindu children are equally correct in believing the often contradictory claims. In other words, the fact that “I grew up xxxx” was shown to lead to some interesting problems when substituting Catholic, Islamic, Hindu for xxxxx.
While the program certainly explains the genius of Darwin, Dawkins also adds a hefty atheistic spin to the mix. Some of the responses by UcD have been predictable and yet they seem to be missing the point.
There are some interesting publications surfacing in the year of Darwin’s celebration. There is a book which, incorrectly I believe, accuses Darwin of having stolen one of Wallace’s ideas on natural selection. I will likely write a posting on this topic because I came to realize that there has been a rich history of writers who have accused Darwin of improper actions and an even richer history of writers who have studied Darwin and have compared his earlier writings, his notebooks and his letters with “Origins”. So much I did not know about Darwin, it was shocking to me. The depth and breath of Darwin’s research and writings is even more amazing than it used to be to me.
Of course, the fact that something is a better scientific explanation than religious explanations comes to me as no surprise. Religion is not meant to explain the how, but rather the why and evolutionary theory can never be, or should never be seen, as contradicting religious claims, lest said religious claims invade the realm of science.
As such we see how YEC, ID all subvert science and undermine theology with their foolish and in case of ID, vacuous claims and we come to realize how for instance the position of the Catholic church, however confusing given the guidance of the DI in providing talking points, remains one which separates science and theology and remains critical of Intelligent Design.
For us Christians, Dawkins’ message may be a wake up call showing how atheism, which does not rely on any theological baggage is better equipped to deal with scientific findings than the many religions we have come to be comfortable with. As Christians, our task is not to lament and complain about these facts but rather learn and adapt. Unless of course we insist on remaining foolish…
Words define members of tribes. The only people I see using the word “Darwinist”, a word I did not encounter in graduate school, are anti-evolution propagandists and atheists. So if a “Darwinist” is an atheist that “believes” in established science, what does that make me? Even though I’ve been speaking up against the anti-evolution movement since the 70s, I don’t think I want to be referred to as a “Darwinist”.
Dawkins idiosyncratic views on both Darwin and evolutions importance for atheism can be irritating at times.
But I don’t begrudge him the opportunity to make a hero worship program to his taste.
Atheist are decidedly not using the term. And why should they?
Dawkins peculiar use, which seems to spill over from considering the importance of selection specifically to a description of common descent in general, is what I have seen irritating to many who works against antiscientists. And that includes most atheists with a rational world view.
Perhaps you can go back to his anglican background to find out why he takes evolution and selection in particular to be so important for (his) atheism.
Oh, and I forgot this claim: atheists aren’t much of a tribe, and I doubt you can identify them as such. See my example. Famously organizing atheists is like herding cats.
Even the term “atheist” is debated over and over, as it is a philosophical term that groups wildly disparate world views such as philosophical agnostics and naturalistic atheists.
I recently read John van Wyhe’s essay with delight, and, as a layman, I must say that you make a compelling case in your comments why “concern” is a minor or non-existent factor for Darwin’s delays in publication.
History is much a projection of today on yesterday it seems to me, at least that is how I have made mistakes here. OTOH it is harsh to judge it as “not a science” as commenters of yours do, perhaps unless one is convinced about absolute contingency. It could be possible to make statistical hypotheses on recurrent historical processes and test them. Biology is fraught with contingency, yet it manages to be a science.
In the US if an evangelical minister were, in a secular classroom, to tell someone else’s children what to believe about God, like Dawkins is doing here, we would all be up in arms. Why is it alright when Dawkins does it? What the hell does promoting atheism have to do with biology education? I mean, besides motivating the anti-science movement. Is it stupidity, or just narcissism, or is there a difference? Like his contribution to “Expelled” wasn’t enough. I read elsewhere that this gem has been in the can for awhile. I wonder if it was kept back until “Expelled” blew over out of fear that Dawkins had already done enough damage.
I’m more upset with actual scientists, or former scientists, who insist on linking religious culture wars with support for biology education than I am with the other group that does the same thing: anti-evolution propagandists, the liars for Jesus. I expect scientists and university professors to have respect for the common good, if not someone else’s religious beliefs. The linking of science defense with prostyletizing atheism is obviously convincing the uninvolved majority that a “critical analysis/equal time” compromise is necessary in the biology classroom. This is insane. Dawkins and Myers aren’t leading us to a “new enlightenment”, they’re just giving political leverage to the other prostyletizing idiots on the otherside of the cultural divide.
Richard Dawkins is indeed a gifted communicator when he restricts himself to biology, the Selfish Gene and the Ancestors Tale for example fully justify his professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. However, like Torbjorn and others above I’m disappointed and irritated at his confusion of the case for evolution with the case for atheism, and at his use of the word Darwinism as if it were a cult of some sort! Darwin was indeed a genuine hero of modern science, and his findings certainly had a huge impact on modern Christian interpretations of our origins. However science itself has nothing to say directly about the absence or existence of God, there is no peer-reviewed body of scientific findings about such a purely philosophical or theological issue, and Dawkins should not imply that there is. Prof Michael Ruse and others have made the point that Mike rightly notes, that by exceeding their scientific brief, Dawkins and others are simply inviting modern creationists to claim Darwinism as yet another religion. In the videoed interviews about the TV series Dawkins refers dismissively to “bishops and cardinals” who claim that religion can accept evolutionary science. He does not mention the inconvenient views of scientists like Ken Miller or Francis Collins.
Evolution is by far the most satisfying explanation for the origin of species, because it is the only one for which actual supporting physical evidence has been presented. What on earth is so difficult to understand about this? Why is it necessary to get caught up in theological irrelevancies? Dr Dawkins and Professor Myers are certain that there is no god. PvM, Francis Collins and Ken Miller think that there is one. Me, I simply don’t know. What does it matter? None of us can present conclusive evidence either way.
(Yes, yes, we *can* argue about it, but those arguments have been going on for at least several thousand years and have engaged some of humanity’s sharpest minds, without a conclusion. There is no new evidence, and no way to get any. “It is a capital error to argue in advance of the evidence,” said Sherlock Holmes, and it’s good enough for me.)
So why take on people who think in theological terms on their own turf? The physical, verifiable, demonstrable evidence is for evolution, there’s stacks of it, and there is none for any other explanation. Anything else is irrelevant.
Tremendous communicator and splendid educator as he is, I believe that Dr Dawkins is making a tactical error by being drawn into the god question.
They aren’t being “drawn” into it, of course. My impression is that they think they’re leading us to a new enlightenment. I think its empirically obvious that its not working, that the effect is just the opposite. Linking biology education to criticism, and in some cases juvenile taunting, of religion is causing real damage to how our society thinks about, and uses, science.
Let’s please be clear on this. Dawkins, Myers, et al. have a right to their social movement, but they aren’t immune to criticism. They should not be leaving the impression that biology education is going to convert little Johnny. They could cut the rest of us some slack, but that’s not the solution. The solution is that the rest of the scientific community, those who have previously left defending science to the atheists, study the issue (very important to do that first) and speak up. One way to do that is to get everyone to see what a hash the atheists have made of things, and that they do not necessarily speak for the scientific community.
Dawkins approach drew this response, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co[…]e4474112.ece Here is Dawkins answer,scroll down to comment 6 http://richarddawkins.net/article,2[…]Libby-Purves.
To be clear, I’m not disappointed and irritated by his use of evolution (or any other observable fact) to argue for atheism. In as much as the title for his hero worship series is “The Genius of Charles Darwin” he is allowed to express his opinion as much as anyone else.
If nothing else, it serves as a refreshing counterweight to the all too common religious apologetics in television.
I see the confusion of portraying or describing science with defending it often on Panda’s Thumb, for easily understood reasons. Nevertheless, it is wrong to assume that every article, presentation or movie is, or should be, focused on the latter.
So we can summarily dismiss that atheists makes a ‘hash of things’ merely by speaking up. It is, btw, a boringly common attack, which is a major part driving atheists to speak up in the first place.
That the scientific community has left defending science to atheists doesn’t quite ring true either.
First, by a devastating margin the scientific community consists of atheists. But most scientists are more interested in science than religion - until religious movements threaten science of course.
Second, this web site is AFAIU an initiative by NCSE, which is religiously neutral, though it cooperates nationally and locally with religious organizations, as well as scientific and educational organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association.” It counts scientists among its members. That doesn’t seem like an atheist organization to me, yet it has defended science and science in education for quite some time now.
Those of us who keep hearing this mantra chanted continue to eagerly await the first shred of evidence that this is the case. With the unprecendented popularity of atheist books, and the increasing level of social acceptability of atheism, it seems empirically obvious that it is working, as every other social movement has worked - not through playing nice and appeasing the enemy, but confronting him, his bigotry, and his ignorance head on. Idiocy flourishes when intelligent people say nothing.
Dear Rough Guide to Evolution:
Thanks for posting the links to your blog on the Darwin documentary:
I regret to say this, but it looks as though Dawkins got a lot of his facts wrong with respect to Darwin. For a shorthand version of what Darwin actually did and why, then I encourage fellow PT readers to take a look here:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin
This special exhibition devoted to Darwin was curated by eminent AMNH invertebrate paleontology curator Dr. Niles Eldredge who was assisted by Dr. David Kohn, a retired historian and philosopher of science, and Darwin descendant Randal Keynes (The exhibition itself will be at the British Museum (Natural History) during the Darwin bicentennial next year.).
Dawkins also erred in referring to Dr. Craig Venter as the one solely responsible for sequencing the human genome. The actual hard work - not computer simulations - was done at MIT’s Whitehead Institute by a team led by Dr. Eric Lander (whom I regard as a potential Nobel Prize laureate alumnus from our New York City high school alma mater).
Appreciatively yours,
John
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with Dawkins book production (I know I’m not), but he wrote a whole book explaining why creationist gods are improbable. It is titled “The God Delusion” and is a good read.
Quite right it isn’t peer-reviewed, but it uses peer-reviewed facts, and to date no one has managed to make a valid response.
I’m not sure what type of research magazine one would want to pass it through, it seems quite paradoxical to try to pass it off as philosophy or theology while asking for scientific review. Taking out the central hypothesis it isn’t long or announcing any new or scientifically interesting result. Why would anyone want to publish that?
So my conclusion is that Dawkins makes it obvious that observation constrain factual religious ideas, including existence of this and that religion’s gods, but that as in so many cases of science applications it isn’t within the current purview of peer review.
He didn’t tell them what to believe about the gods so much as challenge their epistemology of “damn the facts, I believe my book and how I was raised”. That answers the other question as well - the elephant in the room is that Dawkins is basing his views on evidence, whereas ministers base theirs on centuries old traditions of making shit up. It’s remarkable to me that something so obvious needs to be said.
FYI, my path to atheism was quite different from Dawkins’. I was a theistic evolutionist for the first 15 or so years of my cognative life. My atheism was prompted, ironically enough, by a challenge from a Church of Christ roommate to read the Bible.
Its no ones business, certainly not your’s or Dawkins, what someone else’s children’s epistemology is.
We need to get some facts straight.
Not surprisingly, the percentage of believers in the scientific community isn’t too different from that of the population that raised them. Those ratios haven’t changed much in a century. See, for instance: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa[…]C0A961958260 and http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn[…]_30_1899.asp
Only a surprising few academics take the time to study the anti-evolution movement, and then take the time to get productively involved. If not for the enormous amount of time and sacrifice by just three professors in Ohio, Steve Rissing, Jeff McKee, and Patricia Princehouse, things would be alot different in Ohio. And Ohio was lucky to have three.
We are losing. Louisiana is far from alone. Most don’t realize that there are now more policies and laws introducing creation science into the public school biology class than can be turned back in court. See this link And these are presumably just the ones the DI knows about and has had a hand in. They apparently don’t include Kentucky’s 158.177 because of its upfront creationism language. Note that Kentucky’s creationism law has been unchallenged for years. Polls confirm my personal experience that there is a substantial fraction of high school biology teachers who introduce “alternatives to evolution” even if they themselves don’t believe in it. Its certainly the case in AP Biology. The ACLU has limited resources, so this can’t be fought in the courts alone.
We are at the present time raising a generation of voters who do not understand science, or the importance of peer review in science. They’re being taught that anyone’s “science” is as good as anyone else’s. These are the people who are going to be deciding the course of research funding.
So there isn’t a rising tide of atheism coming to our rescue, and we can’t rely on some lawyers working pro bono to fix things for us. The hard work of persuasion and education has to be used, and poking the student in the eye isn’t particularly good pedagogy. Biology education and atheistic prosyletizing have to be decoupled.
But is it not a fact that there is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion (about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members)?
We need to get some facts straight. Not surprisingly, the percentage of believers in the scientific community reflects the society they were raised in. There is no “devestating margin” of atheists in the scientific community. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa[…]C0A961958260 and http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn[…]_30_1899.asp The NAS is an old boys club, and doesn’t reflect the demographics of the wider scientific community in a number of ways, gender for instance.
Sorry. Perhaps the post is too long? The error message doesn’t seem to be specific to whatever the problem is.
There are surprisingly few academics shouldering the burden of fighting the anti-evolution movement at state and local levels. For example, in Ohio just three biology professors did the bulk of time and professional sacrifice that kept creation science out of the state curriculum: Steve Rissing, Patricia Princehouse, and Jeff McKee. Ohio is lucky to have three. Things would also be very different in Ohio without the active partication of faith groups.
We are losing. This isn’t sufficiently appreciated. Louisiana is far from alone. There are now too many policies and laws promoting the introduction of creation science in the public school biology classroom than can be turned back in the courts. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/0[…]en.html#more
And these are just the ones that the DI knows about, and presumably had a hand in. They don’t include Kentucky’s 158.177 because of its honest creationism language. Note that Kentucky’s creationism law has been unchallenged for years. Polls show that anywhere from a quarter to a third of high school biology teachers introduce some form of “alternatives to evolution”. The ACLU’s resources are limited. We can count on them taking on one of these in the next few years, but that’s about it.
We are presently raising a generation of voters that do not understand the nature of science, or the importance of peer review in deciding accepted science. They are being taught that one person’s “science” is as good as any other, and the deciding what’s the best science can’t be left to the biased scientific community, which everyone knows is just made up of a bunch of atheists anyway. These are the people who are going to decide the course of research funding. Not only will they be electing officials who will directly control and interpret it, but increasingly they are also going to be directly voting on it.
So there’s no rising tide of atheism that’s going to save us, and a few lawyers working pro bono aren’t going to be able to fix things either. That leaves the hard work of education and persuasion. Poking the student in the eye is generally considered bad pedagogy. Biology education can not be mixed with prostyletizing atheism.
No you typed, many times may I say (we do have a preview button which would save me from a lot of painful editing) <http://xxxx> which is just not valid html either use http by itself or use <a href=”xxxd”>link</a>
Did Dawkins promote atheism or did he promote critical thinking here? I do not even think he mentioned atheism but I will revisit the video
from 3:30 -6:00 the classroom scene “You were brought up to believe it. Is that a good reason to believe it?”
Watching.. Will report back if I find other scenes of relevance
As usual, Dawkins is misrepresented. Why is that? What you believe Dawkins said and what he actually said seems to be a bit different. But perhaps there are other scenes?
A couple of comments:
1 - I have read that in Great Britain ‘darwinist’ is used to refer in a non-negative way to one who accepts evolution;
2 - I am surprised that commenters are saying that Richard talked about atheism in the episode. Did I miss something? What I saw was a challenge to inherited beliefs in the light of the evidence. Looked like good education to me; and,
3 - The above posts seem to me to reflect a different issue, namely the way to go about social change and the role of scientists in said process. Challengers like Richard and PZ are taking on a difficult but absolutely necessary task. I can’t think of any significant social shift without controversy. Polarization eventually moves the middle ground.
Thanks PvM for your deconstruction of my comments ! I agree with much of what you say, but there are some key points of emphasis for me:
Absolutely, but this was not acknowledged by Dawkins anywhere in the film and is generally treated dismissively by him elsewhere.
Yes it is a false choice. But not I think to Dawkins. It is really key to his atheism, so he didn’t challenge it when voiced by the children. I agree the questions he asked were good ones, and that he encouraged critical thinking, it was what he omitted to say that matters.
Right on ! So Christians had to see the creation story and its relationship with God in a different light. Darwin had a huge impact on their thinking but his science did not necessarily require that the Creator did not exist, rather that he wasn’t constantly creating new species by divine fiat. A natural, and for Christians God-created, process could be put in the place of literal interpretation of Genesis. For atheists, naturally enough, Darwin has different implications. Either way, there are limits to what science can say with authority. It sets constraints on belief, but cannot rule God out.
I don’t. It is wonderful and I am agnostic on God. Agnostic that is in an enquiring sense. I am sympathetic to the religious impulse, but critical of most doctrinal responses. But Darwin doesnt show that, as you’ve already said, he removes the need for divine tinkering, not divine existence, a distinction that Dawkins isn’t interested in.
Fair point, but Dawkins does rather invite that. It his authorship of the patchy but passionate GD, rather than say the brilliant Ancestors Tale, that got him this series in the first place. He was asked in a Radio 4 interview about his role as “Darwins’ Rottweiler”. From his reply it seemed that it was not just a question of style of communication. He sees promoting atheism in the face of militant fundamentalism as more important than simply correcting views about the science of evolution. (I better check this or you’ll rightly ask “what did he actually say?”). The GD is the reason for his recent fame and he is a man with a mission!
Well yes indeed, and I wish Dawkins would do the same with greater clarity, particularly when communicating with a partly creationist audience, which he beieves is bigger than we generally realise. You don’t help people to accept scientific findings by implying (or insisting in the case of the GD) that it contradicts all their beliefs, when it ain’t necessarily so.
Lots of people were affronted by some of the language used in the GD, but Dawkins now says in effect “lighten up, its really rather funny” (and anyway its only religious people who really objected and they don’t matter). Yes, some of the GD is comic, and some is naive. Well this is a case of the biter bit, Purves has put her finger on Dawkins bi-polar attitude to Darwin in a rather humorous way, but has been a bit unfair to his approach to the episode filmed in the process. It was more subtle than she suggested, and if he hadn’t written the GD, her piece would have been completely off-beam.
But read the whole piece for the context,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co[…]e4474112.ece
like many of us she is clearly a fan of Dawkins the scientist.
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for your invitation. I’ll try. As for Niles Eldredge, I believe he will be speaking at the British Museum when the Darwin exhibition arrives there. If he is, I most certainly recommend attending his talk and historian of science David Kohn’s too.
Appreciatively yours,
John
Funny. Other people seem to have seen the same stuff I did in the video. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/mai[…]tvpile09.xml
That’s a silly argument. But I guess, desperate times may ask for desperate measures. That’s too bad
Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Um, I see that there are some responses here that I should attend to. Hopefully later.
That would be a good strategy, if you were polarizing on either side of the center, that is the atheistic extreme and the religious fundamentalist extreme, but that isn’t what Dawkins is doing. He’s attacking the center. All believers lumped into the same basket. Doing that will generally send the center fleeing to the other side.
One has to be careful when making such claims about Dawkins without at least attempting to provide some relevant quotes and references. I believe that in this series Dawkins is actually quite reasonable in his comments. Any particular examples which you believe support your assertion that “He’s attacking the center. All believers lumped into the same basket. “
Ok. Some Dawkins quotes below. Don’t want to be a pest, but I’m curious as to why you’re misrepresenting Dawkins actions. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on your shoulders PVM to show that
- Dawkins doesn’t condemn equally all religious belief from Islamic jihadists to the most progressive Unitarian,
- Dawkins’ style of anti-religion crusade isn’t damaging to science education, at least in the US,
- and that Dawkins has a right to instruct high school students that their religious beliefs conflict with science (which seems unlikely given that they’re in England), and are therefore somehow worse than wrong.
The video was produced, shot, and edited for, and/or by, Dawkins. This isn’t a live “day in the life”, and it isn’t presented as one. It shows exactly what he wanted to show, as you would expect of any well made program. If Dawkins didn’t get what he wanted in one classroom he would presumably have gone to another, and maybe he did. Doesn’t matter. Its his show, showing what he wants to show, to make the points he wants to make, the very same points he’s been making for years. The inclusion of a couple corporate mandated words at the beginning changes nothing in the video. It is Dawkins, and no one else, who has made a program in which religion is portrayed as ignorant and in conflict with biological science in a society in which religious belief is much less evangelic and fundamentalist than in the US.
The points Dawkins makes in the video, both the implied and the carefully enunciated, are consistant with his own widely publicized words, a few of which are copied below. He condemns all of faith in a very simplestic and insulting fashion. Whether you agree with him, or not, isn’t my concern. My concern is pedagogy for the nation, because ultimately the population can’t be forced against their will to accept something by the courts. The burden of proof is on you to show how science can be effectively taught in the US by attacking religious belief.
“Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that.” “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” “It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. “ Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don’t know it. “ “1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn’t seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ‘faith.’ “ “Nevertheless, it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions. Instructions to genuflect, to bow towards Mecca, to nod one’s head rhythmically towards the wall, to shake like a maniac, to “speak in tongues” — the list of such arbitrary and pointless motor patterns offered by religion alone is extensive” “With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns.” “I have just discovered that without her father’s consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?” “Religions do make claims about the universe–the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they’re usually false.”
If you expect me to do your homework then at least let me know. Why should I have to show supporting evidence for your claims?
Really…
Nice introduction, but I was asking for evidence. And why should Dawkins apologize for religion looking bad because they preferred a religious explanation over a scientific explanation? In case of Darwin, religion was mostly in conflict with the biological science. As a Christian, I have to accept these facts. But does this support your claims about Dawkins? We shall see.. More later
My disagreement with you lies exactly here: While Dawkins does attack religious beliefs in some of his books, I find him to be quite reasonable when discussing issues of science. So I disagree with your portrayal of Dawkins. In fact you would have to show ‘the points Dawkins makes’ in the video in question and show not only that they are consistent with his other writings (after all consistency seems a strength not a weakness) but also that he, in this video, condemns all of faith.
I do understand now why you want me to do your homework, as I expected the video in question does not support your original claims. I have run afoul of this in the past as well so I appreciate the position you have now to defend or abandon.
Its fascinating that Dawkins would deny prostyletizing under the guise of teaching biology when he is so clearly doing just that. PVM, I’d love to be able to copy and paste from a transcript of the program for you (doing your homework for you?), and parse and debate every word and interpretation of what he “really” said, but since a transcript doesn’t exist, and I’m not making one, the copy and pasting of Dawkins’ quotes I’ve already done will have to do. He sticks to the same themes, and the same straw men, in the program. Every review of the program I can google finds the same irony I do, and I really don’t think we’re hearing voices. I honestly don’t see where the obfuscation you’re throwing out is helping anyone.
Dawkins’ defensive reaction, which he had awhile to prepare since this thing’s been in the can for awhile, seems to be drawing a distinction between the “critical analysis” he directs the students in between biology and the straw man of theology he presents them, which the kids aren’t knowledgable enough to object to - a distinction between that and … something. I don’t know. Maybe a talking head video where he doesn’t mention biology much, treats the Bible as though it was supposed to be a science/history text, laughs at all the things that don’t make sense, and commands us that we must not believe in God? He doesn’t really say.
This is important. Look at this. Its the antithesis of how we should be working to have biology taught. He’s using the same propaganda tactics used by the anti-evolution movement.
Insist that there is only one truth, without admitting any nuances to what “truth” is? Check.
Present a straw man of the thing you’re trying to discredit? Check.
Present arguments against the thing you’re trying to discredit to school children who don’t have the knowledge and experience to evaluate them? Check.
Ask leading questions that presume the answer and guide the discussion? Check.
Present an attitude of barely controlled disdain for the thing you’re discrediting? Check.
Have a paper trail of published work that can be read by the interested student in case they weren’t certain of the subtext? Check.
Vehemently deny trying to twist the minds of the little dears and insist you’re just trying to get them to think? Check.
Insist that the apple must fight the orange with no prisoners taken? Check.
I can see where this program of Dawkins will be used as defense against criticism of the “evidence against evolution/critical analysis” compromise in biology instruction that is sweeping the US right now, continuing Dawkins apparent campaign to help the anti-evolution movement. Please, for the love of … whatever, please do not emulate this in the US. Science instruction can not be effectively defended by attacking religion, even if only by “critical analysis”.
And yet, when asked you refuse/are unable to ‘cut and paste’ from his own words and instead quote mine statements from other sources. This is not obfuscation but rather challenging those who tend to ‘read between the lines’ to actually attempt to listen to what Dawkins is saying.
So far you and others who accuse Dawkins in this instance have been noticably unable to support these claims with actual quotes from the series. At best one can point to Dawkins’ statement that Darwin’s work provided scientific support for Dawkins position of atheism, but that may be at best be a personal statement not a universal truth. Yes, Dawkins, in some of his arguments about the existence of a God has made stronger claims but we should be careful not to mix and match these when listening to this episode.
That claim is just foolish, and if you get this from Dawkins then you may be driven more by preconception than by facts and reason
You’ve apparently forgotten this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2[…]urves#225765
On the contrary, I posted both my response and Dawkins’ response to this foolish statement. If you now want to blame a third party for your foolish claims then fine. I prefer to defend my own ideas and assertions.
In the mean time on UcD Denyse continues to embarrass herself with her mindless claims. If ID is winning then Denyse surely seems desperate to show it vacuity. Of course, the simple fact is that per DI Senior Fellow (soon to be another embarrassment to ID) Michael Medved, ID is not really a theory.
Nuff said.
Denyse reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, now.
Life intervened, but finally and FWIW returning to old threads:
That wasn’t my claim. As the surveys establish, the majority of scientists are atheists.
To add to the confusion of portraying or describing science with defending it, we can now add a confusion between discussing and promoting atheism, which is in evidence, with un-evidenced ‘proselytizing’. [Yay! The spell checker claims my preferred spelling was correct.]
As regards “a rising tide of atheism coming to our rescue”, I refer to my previous comment elaborating on the actual interests and actions of scientists.
Yes, IIRC you can derive that as well from these surveys. There is a migration with theists to desist, deists to agnostics, and agnostics to atheists, as the facts of the world makes themselves clear.
It’s quite all right. Tip: quoting is generated by clicking “Reply”.
But as it is a readily verified argument, it can be seen as an application of science, along with similar ad hoc models. We can analyze a hammer to understand (and perfect) its construction and mechanism, but it isn’t science. The same goes for analyzing ideas of creator agents.
Again, I refer to TGD and its empirical and testable approach as regards creator agents.