by God_Delusion 67 Replies latest watchtower bible
PSacramento, you make a good point. Many creationists will still (intentionally or otherwise) confuse evolution with "first cause", whether that is god, abiogenesis, freakin' aliens, or whatever.
Evolution is an observed fact. Evolutionary theory explains and describes that fact, using the available data. "First cause" has never been a part of evolutionary biology, but many still don't realize that...and the WTS is only too happy to take advantage of, and perpetuate, that ignorance.
Zoiks,
Indeed, I have seen it first hand, they take the common misconceptions and exterme viewpoints that some have about Evolution and use them to twist people's beliefs.
In many ways, guys like Dawkins are the worse enemies of evolution because their extreme viewpoints and harsh, arrogant views play right into the hands of fundamentalists like the JW's.
make the topic honesty in journalism
Absolutely! Take them to task for their logical fallacies, hidden premises, and misleading quotes. Don't presume to tell people what to think, but give them the tools to think for themselves. Just stick to the facts and avoid emotional and subjective reasoning. You know you're better than the WTS, so prove it. Be direct and to the point like a hot knife through butter.
Dawkins are the worse enemies of evolution because their extreme viewpoints
PSacramento,
Could you give an example of this extremism?
Well, the use of the term "brights" for example.
The acceptence of theories that have NO PROOF such as "parallel universes" and such but the whole outright denial of ANY possibility for "God" because there is NO PROOF.
The arrogance and condesending attitude that mirrors those of fundamentalists.
Well, the use of the term "brights" for example.
The acceptence of theories that have NO PROOF such as "parallel universes" and such but the whole outright denial of ANY possibility for "God" because there is NO PROOF.
The arrogance and condesending attitude that mirrors those of fundamentalists.
That constitutes "extremism"? Wow!
Well, if a christian fundmentalist had the same approach - insulting, beligerant, riduculing, closed minded and dismissive, what would you call him?
I wouldn't call Dawkins and Hutchins, to name two of the more vocal and know here, moderate darwinists or evolutionists, would you?
The acceptence of theories that have NO PROOF such as "parallel universes" and such but the whole outright denial of ANY possibility for "God" because there is NO PROOF.
I suggest you look up the good professor's own definition of his atheism. He cannot state he is 100% sure because he cannot disprove the existance of god and I imagine his alleged certainty of the existance of parallel universes would be even less since it is only a hypothesis and one that could be disproven any day now.
Wow, that is one dogmatic dude. "I'm not absolutely sure I am right because I cannot prove it" Obviously I am paraphrasing but religion could do with a lot more of that sort of extremism.
Let's have a look at that use of the word "bright" Obviously it is amazing that such a horrible word is uttered in polite company but nevertheless I shall perservere and see what the professor means when he uses such a word.
From http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html
The same questions had been asked by Gallup in 1978, and there are revealing differences. In 1978, only 26 percent of the American electorate would contemplate voting for a homosexual. Is it possible that the word gay, and the gay pride movement that came with it, has been partly responsible for the improvement to 59 percent by 1999? If so, all the more reason for the despised 29 million to seek their own "gay."
Notice from these examples that the word is a noun, not an adjective. We brights are not claiming to be bright (meaning clever, intelligent), any
more than gays claim to be gay (meaning joyful, carefree). Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is
a matter for research.
Fanatical stuff indeed!
Well, if a christian fundmentalist had the same approach - insulting, beligerant, riduculing, closed minded and dismissive, what would you call him?
Even if you could describe Dawkins with any of those words, and I disagree that you could, it doesn't establish him as an extremist. Any more than a belligerent christian should be labelled as being an extremist just for being arrogant.
I wouldn't call Dawkins and Hutchins, to name two of the more vocal and know here, moderate darwinists or evolutionists, would you?
Yes, I would. I doubt either will be killing anyone or urging people to fly planes into buildings any time soon. Interesting that we are suddenly including "Hutchins" (sic) in this debate, why is that?
Evolution is "simply a theory" in the same sense that gravity is "simply a theory". But, for some odd reason, WT writers have no problem accepting that one!
