Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

No it wouldn't because they wouldn't know anything more about the natural world.

Is there something stopping them investigating the natural world by scientific means?
Assuming there isn't your statement is broken.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Is there something stopping them investigating the natural world by scientific means?

Yes that is the whole point, they have already accept things about the natural world from a supernatural source.

There is nothing stopping them investigating other areas of the natural world that are not covered by the declaration from the supernatural source, but as I said that is just a fudge.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

There is nothing stopping them investigating other areas of the natural world that are not covered by the declaration from the supernatural source, but as I said that is just a fudge.

So, if these 'other areas' were the entirety of the natural world, I take it then that believing in such a God wouldn't then affect one's views of it, which is in contradiction with your statement that this would be impossible.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

No wonder thinking people who believe such nonsense sink into despair.

Except, of course, that most don't "sink into despair".

I'll grant an unsettled feeling lasting perhaps five seconds, but one which is quickly overtaken by the sincerely awe-inspiring thought that one is related to every living thing on this earth in an unbroken chain of life stretching back something like three and a half billion years.

And in terms of grandeur, that idea certainly puts into perspective the feeble creationist view of a trivial universe significantly younger than some of the trees that grow in it.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

So, if these 'other areas' were the entirety of the natural world, I take it then that believing in such a God wouldn't then affect one's views of it, which is in contradiction with your statement that this would be impossible.

Well yes, but if the "other areas" were the entirety of the natural world then someone wouldn't be using the supernatural would they? One wouldn't even be aware of the supernatural. A person cannot be aware of the supernatural unless at some point they believe the supernatural has fluxed the natural world.

You are contradicting my statement by removing the supernatural from the issue, which doesn't make sense.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes

Well, looks like we're finally getting somewhere...

Wicknight wrote: »

but if the "other areas" were the entirety of the natural world then someone wouldn't be using the supernatural would they? One wouldn't even be aware of the supernatural. A person cannot be aware of the supernatural unless at some point they believe the supernatural has fluxed the natural world.

None of this has any relevance.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are contradicting my statement by removing the supernatural from the issue, which doesn't make sense.

Yes, contradicting your incorrect statement was the idea alright. My argument showed one of your statements to contradict another one of your statements. Saying that "doesn't make sense" well, doesn't make sense.

Oh, and btw, the link between the natural and the supernatural was clearly outlined.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

None of this has any relevance.

Of course it has relevance.

My original statement was that if someone focuses on supernatural explanations for the world around them this hinders their ability to learn about the natural world around them. The example used was Newton's obsession with alchemy, which provided a pleasing supernatural view of materials that was also completely wrong, and it was this view that hindered Newton from actually learning about the materials he was working with.

After all that your response is basically that isn't true if the person ignores supernatural explanations.

I agree 100% with you on that

It is as soon as someone brings in supernatural explanations that problems arise. If they ignore it with relation to all areas of natural world there isn't a problem. Looking to the supernatural hinders someone's ability to learn about how the natural world actually is.

thebaldsoprano

Hmmm, maybe not on reading your post again.

Yeah, I don't doubt for a moment that the supernatural can cause problems, just that believing in supernatural things doesn't necessarily impair your understanding of the natural world.

I guess if one looks for a supernatural explanations for natural phenonema, that's definitely a bad thing, but it's also perfectly possible to keep physical matters physical and spiritual matters spiritual, with very minor, if any overlap between them.

Maybe Newton was just blowing off some steam in those furnaces

santing

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Firstly, Newton wasn't a chemist. I suspect his views on the area of chemistry in general were on par with his contemporaries at the time.

Einstein not a chemist ? ... He has defined a law for photochemistry.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5216/is_2004/ai_n19132664

thebaldsoprano

santing wrote: »

Einstein not a chemist ? ... He has defined a law for photochemistry.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5216/is_2004/ai_n19132664

No, Dawkins wasn't a chemist

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difficulty for kelly1 is that the RCC also specifies that Adam was not subject to bodily suffering and death. That would certainly be difficult to sustain in any understanding of the evolutionary process - unless one said evolution stopped when Adam was formed.

I'll leave that for the RCC to figure out.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assume that also poses problems for the common understanding of evolution since the rise of man?

Why would it?

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe not on reading your post again.

Yeah, I don't doubt for a moment that the supernatural can cause problems, just that believing in supernatural things doesn't necessarily impair your understanding of the natural world.

As I suggested earlier, Newton might have asked more questions of the universe had he not simply decided that the underlying cause of the gravity and motion laws he had elucidated was simply the will of God. That was a mistake. The task was taken up by less gifted minds.

santing

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

No, Dawkins wasn't a chemist

Oops

Well about Newton:

Newton wrote and transcribed about a million words on the subject of alchemy, of which only a tiny fraction has today been published. Newton's alchemical manuscripts include a rich and diverse set of document types, including laboratory notebooks, indices of alchemical substances, and Newton's transcriptions from other sources.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I suggested earlier, Newton might have asked more questions of the universe had he not simply decided that the underlying cause of the gravity and motion laws he had elucidated was simply the will of God. That was a mistake. The task was taken up by less gifted minds.

Oh come on, we all know God is responsible for gravity/mass/whatever

Yeah true, minds as gifted as Newton's are a rarity, but I'm not sure he'd have nailed it given the technology/literature available at time.

But then again, who knows...

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Adam Kuper, Professor of Anthropology at Brunel University: http://newhumanist.org.uk/974

Kuper writes "So let us agree that memes exist[...]", so I think it's fairly safe to assume that Kuper does not assert that memetic theory is pseudo-science.

PDN wrote: »

Scott Atran, Research Director in Anthropology at the Jean Nicod Institute of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique and author of "The trouble with memes".

That paper is available as a download from here and while his exquisitely painful post-modernist prose does note some of the areas where debate is ongoing, he does not discard the idea (in fact, towards the end, he suggests memetics may be useful). He certainly doesn't refer to memetics as "pseudo-science".

PDN wrote: »

Maurice Bloch, Professor of Anthropology at LSE and author of "A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes." in Robert Aunger's Darwinizing Culture (2000).

Neither of whom seem to refer to memes as pseudo-science either (see here for example).

PDN wrote: »

I understand he is representative of many other anthropologists who find the comparison between genes and memes to be frustrating and unproductive, particularly the idea of them being self-replicating.

I suspect that three things are going on here:

• Biologists, being familiar with biology and genetics, seeing an opportunity to apply the same ideas elsewhere.
• Anthropologists, being unfamiliar with biology and genetics, not really quite understanding what's going on and getting upset that biologists are invading what's traditionally been their territory.
• Memetics are new -- only thirty years or so old -- and there is a lot of thinking being done, and still to be done, on the topic.

From reading the above links, and other stuff previously, it seems to me that some anthropologists seem to be unnecessarily defensive of prior theories of cultural transmission and occasionally unreceptive towards some pretty interesting ideas which are coming over the fence from their friends in biology.

I rather suspect that the greatest degree of accuracy lies at some point between, and probably closer to the general position of biologists, than that of any of the anthropologists you've quoted above (none of whom have referred to memetics as "pseudo-science" in anything that I can find).

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The difficulty for kelly1 is that the RCC also specifies that Adam was not subject to bodily suffering and death. That would certainly be difficult to sustain in any understanding of the evolutionary process - unless one said evolution stopped when Adam was formed.
I'll leave that for the RCC to figure out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I assume that also poses problems for the common understanding of evolution since the rise of man?
Why would it?

You think man is not evolving??

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Except, of course, that most don't "sink into despair".

I'll grant an unsettled feeling lasting perhaps five seconds, but one which is quickly overtaken by the sincerely awe-inspiring thought that one is related to every living thing on this earth in an unbroken chain of life stretching back something like three and a half billion years.

And in terms of grandeur, that idea certainly puts into perspective the feeble creationist view of a trivial universe significantly younger than some of the trees that grow in it.

I'll stick with being the centre of interest in the universe, that it will be replaced to give us an eternal home, that all things were created for our service. I'll leave you to being brother to the bacteria.

santing

wolfsbane wrote: »

You think man is not evolving??

Well, looking at the last 500 years ... science has progressed, but mankind has degenerated.

For instance, when Vondel (16th century Dutch author) wanted to write a play on Amsterdam, he read the Latin Aeneas a few time, "to get in the right mood." Name someone who would read the Aeneas today for leisure (in Latin!)

Speaking about the Aeneas, the Iliad and many other greek plays where memorised by travelling poets and "quoted" on demand. That's a lot of learning to do! When we need to 5 and 2 together we need a calculator.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll stick with being the centre of interest in the universe

I suppose that's the appeal of creationism really.

robindch

santing wrote: »

Well, looking at the last 500 years ... science has progressed, but mankind has degenerated.

Not in the slightest -- humans are living longer, learning more, having fewer children who are themselves living, doing less manual labour, travelling more, being in much more secure health, and in almost ever dimension I can think of, having a better and more fulfilling life.

Am I right in thinking that you would like to take up life as an average Joe in 1508?

AtomicHorror

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Well if you take the line that abiogenesis resulted in lifeless materials becoming simple life which then evolved into man then that allows you to claim both to be true. "Muck to Man" evolution as J C would say.

Since abiogenesis is a theory up for grabs, you can speculatively insert God :pac:

Originally Posted by Wolfsbane
The difficulty for kelly1 is that the RCC also specifies that Adam was not subject to bodily suffering and death. That would certainly be difficult to sustain in any understanding of the evolutionary process - unless one said evolution stopped when Adam was formed. I assume that also poses problems for the common understanding of evolution since the rise of man?

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
Why would it?

Originally Posted by Wolfsbane
You think man is not evolving??

Ah, sorry. I wasn't following you there. Man is still evolving, there's plenty of good data on that and absolutely no reason to assume otherwise that we have observed yet.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I know should have well picked this up by now, but just what is creationism?
Does it differ from Intelligent Design? Haven't been paying that much attention to this side of things cos they both sound like nonsense...

They're both nonsense.

Oh all right then. Creationism is the belief in the literal truth of genesis. 6 Days of Creation in which each animal is created according to it's Kind. Man is created as Adam and his ribgirlfriend Eve. And so it follows. Evolution does not occur except within the created Kinds. No species may become sufficiently different within it's Kind to be considered a new Kind. The Earth is somewhere between 6000-10000 years old (in young-earth creationism) and the fossil records, geology, cosmic data, genetic analyses and so forth have all been misinterpreted by scientists. Creationism calls itself a science, scientists disagree as they are proceeding from non-testable hypotheses which contain a number of concepts which display circular logic. Eg, a requirement laid out by the for Evolution to be proven is evolution outside of the Kinds barrier. However Kinds are defined in such a manner as to be unbreakable and encompass as large a genetic diversity as the creationists see fit.

ID is an world-age non-specific and deity-nameless version of the above. Essentially set up to circumvent the principles of secular education for the purposes of getting some version, any version, of creationism into science classes. It introduces a few new ideas such as the concept of irreducible complexity. This has been debunked in all of examples cited by it's inventor, Michael Behe. The movement is backed by the Discovery Institute, a self-proclaimed secular think tank which has none the less been identified as a primarily Christian organization. Their primary project is to "Teach The Controversy" surrounding the theory of evolution. They maintain that a scientific controversy surrounds the debate. However they are not recognised as scientists for the same reasons as creationists, and the theory of evolution has an overwhelming majority support in the scientific community.

Both groups focus on attacking and undermining evolution, paleontology, archaeology, geology, genetics, cosmology, relativity and every other science which contradicts their core assumptions. This practice makes up the vast majority of their output. They produce a relatively small amount of original research, little if any of which has yet to pass peer-review.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Well, looking at the last 500 years ... science has progressed, but mankind has degenerated.

Only socially, and only in your opinion and those who share your morals.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

They're both nonsense.

Cheers for that.

Part of the reason I asked was it relates a bit to the point I made earlier that belief in the supernatural and investigating the natural needn't interfere with each other. The only two real areas of contention for most main faiths would be the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

Atheists might argue that the universe just is, Christians that God created it and Agnostics may be unsure on that matter

Similarly for the 'spark' that created the first life on Earth. Christians may need to review their beliefs on the matter should life be artificially synthesized, but most churches are fairly open to such matters these days.

Both of these are events that happened a long time ago and don't matter that much, if at all, on a day to day basis.

Once such nonsense as creationism and ID get thrown into the equation things start getting very complicated though. I don't see why any church furthering their cause on a rational basis would entertain such ideas.

Dave!

Well, looking at the last 500 years ... science has progressed, but mankind has degenerated.

What a ridiculous thing to say. I'd say it's more to do with ignorance of history than anything else that you would say that.

robindch

santing wrote: »

For instance, when Vondel (16th century Dutch author) wanted to write a play on Amsterdam, he read the Latin Aeneas a few time, "to get in the right mood." Name someone who would read the Aeneas today for leisure (in Latin!) Speaking about the Aeneas [...]

Now that I got past the first line of that earlier post...

"Aeneas" is the not the name of the book, but the name of the hero. The book is named The Aeneid.

<cough> :rolleyes:

sdep

robindch wrote: »

Now that I got past the first line of that earlier post...

"Aeneas" is the not the name of the book, but the name of the hero. The book is named The Aeneid.

<cough> :rolleyes:

QED?

The Mad Hatter

santing wrote: »

Well, looking at the last 500 years ... science has progressed, but mankind has degenerated.

For instance, when Vondel (16th century Dutch author) wanted to write a play on Amsterdam, he read the Latin Aeneas a few time, "to get in the right mood." Name someone who would read the Aeneas today for leisure (in Latin!)

Speaking about the Aeneas, the Iliad and many other greek plays where memorised by travelling poets and "quoted" on demand. That's a lot of learning to do! When we need to 5 and 2 together we need a calculator.

No-one reads The Aeneid in Latin because education doesn't take place in Latin any more, so translations are generally considered preferable.

The pianist Glenn Gould would memorise by reading a piece of music before he ever sat down to play it (he died in 1981, by the way), and if you think that's any less of a feat of memory than memorising a Roman epic, then you've never read Bach's Art of the Fugue.

These feats of memory are still perfectly possible for those who know how to use their memory. For information, see the World Memory Championships.

And yes, some of us do still read Classics (in the ancient sense) for enjoyment.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity certainly has never done anything worthy of speaking out against, thats true :pac:


I don't think Dawkins is trying to "prove" evolution to himself, I think he understands it quite well and he has been at the for front of how modern evolutionary theory is conceived with works like "The Selfish Gene"

I think a lot of his work is a reaction to the rather surprising lack of understand that one finds in the general public as to what evolution is and what it says. Evolution is a very wondrous and amazing process, its like the biological version of something like the Giant's Causeway or the Grand Canon, one can't help have their breath slightly take away when they start to grasp the ins and outs of the process.

I think Dawkins is bemused that this theory is not being properly communicated to the general public (I think Dawkins some times has a lack of patience for people who don't understand something straight away) and has set out a mission for himself to educate as many people as possible about one of the most important scientific theories ever conceived.

For Dawkins science and the understanding of the how the natural world actually is and works isn't something that should be in the lofty towers of some university research lab, with the general public largely oblivious to the theories and research until it ends up producing a new car or TV or drug.

Dawkins wants everyone to learn and be educated and marvel at the universe around us.

Where his distaste for what he sees as the the superstition and ancient doctrines of religion fits in is that he sees religion as fundamentally the main obstacle to this, stopping people from truly understand the wonders and detail of the natural world around us, not just in relation to evolution but in relation to all science, and ultimately all areas of understanding and truth.

To Dawkins religion is the opium of the people, but unlike Marx to Dawkins it keeps people happy in their ignorance, happy in not knowing what the world around them is actually like, happy in a dream land of magic and superstition, angels, gods, witches and warlocks. It blinds people to truths and dulls their brains to learning and understanding.

And to be honest with you I can't help be agree with him a lot of the time.

I noticed on the last programme he was interviewing some science teachers about there teaching methods. Wheras the teachers were quite happy to simply teach their chosen subject, Dawkins wanted them to also enlighten these children to the fact that there is no God. These guys said they wouldn't do this and why should they? They are there to teach science and science only. Why does he feel they have to bring God into the science class.

My kids learn science in their science class and religion in their religion class, (and we pray at home too). They can then make up their own minds as to what to believe.
Why can't he (Dawkins) be happy with that? Or will he advocate taking away any English books which contain stories about myths and legends too to keep people out of their ignorance...

Dog Fan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No-one reads The Aeneid in Latin because education doesn't take place in Latin any more, so translations are generally considered preferable.

......

And yes, some of us do still read Classics (in the ancient sense) for enjoyment.

Not sure about that. I'm still traumatised by having to learn Book I of the Aeneid for my leaving cert 20 years ago.
Virumque Armo Cano

The Mad Hatter

Dog Fan wrote: »

Not sure about that. I'm still traumatised by having to learn Book I of the Aeneid for my leaving cert 20 years ago.
Virumque Armo Cano

Didn't say we were normal (Ok, so I admit I haven't got as far as the ancients yet...)

I think the education system may not have helped you there. I'm just glad it didn't ruin Shakespeare on me.

robindch

Dog Fan wrote: »

Not sure about that. I'm still traumatised by having to learn Book I of the Aeneid for my leaving cert 20 years ago.
Virumque Armo Cano

Er, that'll be Arma Virumque Cano

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

I noticed on the last programme he was interviewing some science teachers about there teaching methods. Wheras the teachers were quite happy to simply teach their chosen subject, Dawkins wanted them to also enlighten these children to the fact that there is no God. These guys said they wouldn't do this and why should they? They are there to teach science and science only. Why does he feel they have to bring God into the science class.

No, that isn't what Dawkins wanted them to do (where did you get that from?)

Dawkins wanted them to say that the religious (Creationist) explanation for how life developed on Earth taught to them by their parents and in opposition to biological evolution, was wrong.

The teachers were saying that they would not do that. They would present the scientific theories of life but they would not comment on the stuff the children were being told by their parents even if that meant the children rejected the science off hand.

Dog Fan

robindch wrote: »

Er, that'll be Arma Virumque Cano

Damn, Damn, Damn, Damn.
I never said I was good at latin!:o

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions. Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

....pretty much like Evolution then???!!!:pac::):D

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

Apart from his incredible arrogance, this is what bugs me most about him. This man for all intents and purposes is an anti-christ. I'll bet he's ruined the last shred of faith for hundreds of people. I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

...........I have read 'The Selfish Gene'......and it was one of the reasons that I became a Creation Scientist!!!!:)

Dave!

Then I think you misread it J C........

J C

Dave wrote:

Then I think you misread it J C........

.....God can work in mysterious ways!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I suspect that many will refer to him as such in time. I'm not sure I'd call him a genius, but he's admirable to me for standing on the front line of the cause of science.

......Dawkins main focus is on religious belief....and within that, his main focus is on Christianity. In the last programme that I watched, nearly every reference to religion was supported with film footage of Christian imagery and activity.....with hardly a mention of ANY of the other main World Religions......and of course, he didn't mention the Religions of Atheism / Agnosticism at all.:D

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church is open to evolution. What is not up for debate is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul. God might have created Adam from clay but evolution seems more likely. But who knows?

....OK so lets see what the Word of God says about it......
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

....so IF the clear Word of God (that He directly created Man from the dust of the gound)......is up for debate
.....why is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul.....or even whether Adam ever actually existed, not equally up for debate.

......I think that they are ALL up for debate within wide sections of Christianity.....and the conclusion being reached by many people is that they are ALL a myth....
........and as a result the Mainstream Churches are being abandoned by their laiety at an even faster rate than their clergy numbers are declining !!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, I think Dawkins would be over joyed if most people understood scientific theories such as Darwinian Evolution, yet argued different positions in relation to it. Dawkins has had long and (by his own admission) enjoyable debates and rivalries with people like Gould.

What appears to annoy him is not difference of opinion on these matters, but whole hearted ignorance.

......I'm sure that Prof. Dawkins would be overjoyed if somebody.....anybody....could come up with a coherent explanation for Materialistic Evolution, including the origin of life!!!!

Indeed the situation is so desperate that a prize of $1 million is being offered to anybody who can come up with a plausible mechanism for a materialistic origin of life......and all budding Evolutionists can claim the $1million by applying here :-
http://www.us.net/life/index.htm

Zombrex

...oh....look .... JC .... has ... found ..... a ..... new ..... thread ..... to ..... play .......in ......how ......wonder .....full :pac:

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He's gone on record several times to say he won't debate, under official rules, with any creationist as that gives their side some credibility as if there are two sides to the story. He'll only do the cut - thrust arguing he currently does.


Hitchens is even more obnoxious and arrogant than Dawkins. Oscar Wilde said the best debaters could argue their opponents side better than them. Hitchens and Dawkins fail abysmally in this regard. They make funny, dramatic tv but don't really convince anyone to change their mind imo.

.......being a former Evolutionist, I guess I fit Oscar Wilde's definition of a good debater!!!!

......I can see Prof. Dawkins dilemma ......debate with Creation Scientists and risk the demolition of Evolution.......
or have your own TV programme......with nobody questioning you, except yourself!!!!
....no contest really!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

And when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I invoke the name of a well-known mid-Eastern deity. Doesn't mean that I think he's up there watching me.

.....every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord......including Atheists......with sore thumbs, apparently!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll stick with being the centre of interest in the universe

robindch
I suppose that's the appeal of creationism really.

.....that....and the fact that Creation is true!!!!:pac::pac::):D

J C

Splendour wrote: »

I noticed on the last programme he was interviewing some science teachers about there teaching methods. Wheras the teachers were quite happy to simply teach their chosen subject, Dawkins wanted them to also enlighten these children to the fact that there is no God. These guys said they wouldn't do this and why should they? They are there to teach science and science only. Why does he feel they have to bring God into the science class.

My kids learn science in their science class and religion in their religion class, (and we pray at home too). They can then make up their own minds as to what to believe.
Why can't he (Dawkins) be happy with that? Or will he advocate taking away any English books which contain stories about myths and legends too to keep people out of their ignorance...

.....of course there are areas of religious importance in Science class.....but Materialists want people to believe that God has no place in Science class.......
........the benefit of establishing this idea is that materialistic origins ideas (which undermine children's inborn faith in God) can then be delivered unopposed in science class !!
......this strategy has been quite successful......with up to 90% of young people from nominally Christian homes not going to church by the age of 20 at present!!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No, that isn't what Dawkins wanted them to do (where did you get that from?)

Dawkins wanted them to say that the religious (Creationist) explanation for how life developed on Earth taught to them by their parents and in opposition to biological evolution, was wrong.

The teachers were saying that they would not do that. They would present the scientific theories of life but they would not comment on the stuff the children were being told by their parents even if that meant the children rejected the science off hand.

.....whatever!!!!
.....it is pretty much Splendour's basic point!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....God can work in mysterious ways!!!:D


......Dawkins main focus is on religious belief....and within that, his main focus is on Christianity. In the last programme that I watched, nearly every reference to religion was supported with film footage of Christian imagery and activity.....with hardly a mention of ANY of the other main World Religions......and of course, he didn't mention the Religions of Atheism / Agnosticism at all.:D

Dawkins is British. Christianity is his main target because it is the prevailing religion in the western world. Atheism is not a religion by any measure. It has no hierarchy of authority, no system of rules, and no central dogma other than the rejection of faith itself.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....of course God IS in Science class.....the Atheists want people to believe that God has no place in Science class.......
........while they use science class to undermine children's inborn faith in God!!
......and they are succeeding very well......with up to 90% of young people from nominally Christian homes not going to church by the age of 20!!!!!

Science is nothing more than observation. Science does not deny God, it has simply failed to observe Him. We can't see God and so, if asked, we say that we can't see Him. If that undermines "inborn faith" then that faith is fragile indeed. Last I checked, your version of faith was meant to exist in the absence of proof.

What are you afraid of?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Science is nothing more than observation. Science does not deny God, it has simply failed to observe Him. We can't see God and so, if asked, we say that we can't see Him. If that undermines "inborn faith" then that faith is fragile indeed. Last I checked, your version of faith was meant to exist in the absence of proof.

What are you afraid of?

.....if faith is meant to exist in the absence of proof then belief in Evolution should survive very nicely indeed!!!:D

.....so why are you afraid of Creation Science being taught in school????

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Dawkins is British. Christianity is his main target because it is the prevailing religion in the western world. Atheism is not a religion by any measure. It has no hierarchy of authority, no system of rules, and no central dogma other than the rejection of faith itself.

.....the fact that practicing Muslims now outnumber practicing Christians in Britain would seem to deny your assertions in relation to the prevalence of Christianity!!!
....in any event it is very interesting that Prof Dawkins' primary focus is on Christianity with little mention of the other World Religions.

I take your point that Atheism isn't a religion.......it's more of a FAITH actually!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....if faith is meant to exist in the absence of proof then belief in Evolution should survive very nicely indeed!!!:D

.....so why are you afraid of Creation Science being taught in school????

Because it is untrue. Children can't be expected to assess things based upon reason. They tend to accept information based on authority. Critical thinking does not come easily until much later. We have an obligation to teach them only the best-established facts.

J C wrote: »

.....the fact that practicing Muslims now outnumber practicing Christians in Britain would seem to deny your assertions in relation to the prevalence of Christianity!!!

The episode I saw featured primarily Muslim students, so I don't think he's ignoring them. As to his focus on Christianity, Christians would have been in the vast majority when Dawkins was growing up. The predominance of Islam is relatively recent.

J C wrote: »

....in any event it is VERY INTERESTING that Prof Dawkins' primary focus is on Christianity with practically no mention of ANY of the other World Religions.

Did you not see his show about attacking unreason (last year, I think it was)? He's pretty broad in terms of the irrational practices he attacks. If he focuses on the major religions, that'd be because they are the most notable examples of irrational behavior.

J C wrote: »

I take your point that Atheism isn't a religion.......it's more of a FAITH actually!!!:D

My point was that it opposes the concept of faith. If you take my point then why claim it's a faith? That doesn't make any sense at all. Read my posts please.