Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski

From: Richard Wein (tich@primex.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 19:18:08 EST

  • Next message: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski"

    From: MikeBGene@aol.com <MikeBGene@aol.com>

    >In a message dated 3/19/00 3:22:02 AM Dateline Standard Time,
    >tich@primex.co.uk writes:
    >
    ><< Dembski writes:
    > >Daniel Dennett even recommends
    > >"quarantining" parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism
    > >(see the end of his *Darwin's Dangerous Idea*).
    >
    > Dembski has here conflated ideas from two paragraphs, and created a
    meaning
    > which is expressed by neither of them. So you can judge for yourselves,
    here
    > are the two consecutive paragraphs in full:
    >
    > "We should not expect this variety of respect [for religions] to be
    > satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with
    our
    > attentive--but not worshipful--scholarship. On the contrary, many of them
    > will view anything other than enthusiastic conversion to their own views
    as
    > a threat, even an intolerable threat. We must not underestimate the
    > suffering such confrontations cause. To watch, to have to participate in,
    > the contraction or evaporation of beloved features of one's heritage is a
    > pain only our species can experience, and surely few pains could be more
    > terrible. But we have no reasonable alternative, and those whose visions
    > dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will
    have
    > to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage, trying
    always
    > to open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable.
    >
    > "If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you
    had
    > better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand
    > firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no special glory, no intrinisic
    and
    > inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children
    falsehoods--that
    > the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural
    > selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who
    > have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the
    > spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your
    > children at the earliest opportunity. Our future well-being--the
    well-being
    > of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of out
    descendants.">>
    >
    >I must confess that I fail to see how this was a mis-quote. Dennetts words
    >drip
    >with know-it-all arrogance, to the point where he does assert that we
    should
    >quarantine, the best we can, those who "cannot peacefully coexist" with his
    >personal metaphysics.

    But Dennett does not equate those who "cannot peacefully coexist with the
    rest of us" with those who teach their children falsehoods.

    >Imagine if a Christian wrote those very paragraphs and
    >was
    >talking about members of another religion. He then plans to use "free
    >speech" to
    >demonstrate (through education) to the children of religious people their
    >"falsehoods" (which from his perspctive, includes the belief "God exists").
    >This can easily be interpreted as part of the quarantine plan.

    You may guess it to be part of the quarantine "plan". Dennett doesn't say
    that it is.

    >I suppose you could interpret these paragraphs such that Dembski misquotes
    >Dennett, but then it's all a matter of interpretation.

    No, it's a matter of what Dennett actually says, as opposed to what Dembski
    thinks he says.

    Dembski should exercise more caution when paraphrasing. Misrepresentation is
    death to reasoned debate.

    >The really interesting thing is that Dennett is so convinced by his own
    biases
    >and philosophy that he actually thinks the evolution of Man *by natural
    >selection*
    >is a fact. Too bad Dennett wasn't posting here, as I'd like him to provide
    >the
    >evidence that it was indeed natural selection that evolved the rather long
    >series of biological features that led to human beings. If he couldn't do
    >this (and he
    >wouldn't be able to), I'd like him to explain why his education is not in
    >fact indoctrination.

    By the way, I agree that Dennett is arrogant (so am I sometimes). I also
    think that he's a very good writer.

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 19:23:04 EST