Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

For Pim and others,

I can only echo David's comments about Dawkins, who came across in the
interview as a much kinder, gentler person than he does in many of his books
and articles. Dawkins simply hates religion, and does think that religious
people are either stupid or wicked, if not both. And he has company in
this.

I recommend to all, the chapter on the "Council of Despair," in Karl
Giberson & Donald Yerxa, "SPecies of Origins." It's a splendid overview of
scientific atheism in the past couple of decades. For anyone who doubts
that this view really exists and is influential, take a look at "Wired"
magazine for Nov 2006, with its cover story on "The New Atheism: No Heaven.
No Hell. Just Science."

Also, Pim, I esp recommend that you step away a bit from PT (which is not
much more objective than Dembski's blog, when it comes right down to it) and
realize something very, very important about ID. Philip Johnson was
responding to two specific influences, when he wrote "Darwin on Trial."
One, to be sure, was Denton's book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," but the
other one was Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." If there were no Dawkins and
company, I have little doubt, there would be no Johnson and company as a
direct, highly vocal response.

This is something about which the scientific establishment is still
somewhat ambivalent, IMO. Some do see what Dawkins is doing in the name of
science to be a completely inappropriate extrapolation of science that goes
well beyond the sphere and authority of science. But others do not--people
like Steven Weinberg, the late Isaac Asimov, the late Carl Sagan, Sam
Harris, or Steven Pinker. These are highly influential people, Pim, and it
is not surprising to me if they provoke a response in the form of ID. What
ID is going goes well beyond science, of course--and they admit this,
despite their continued insistence that ID is nevertheless scientific. But
Dawkins and company believe in the religion of science (as Dawkins himself
as called it), so why not have a science of religion (ID) in response to it?
 Dawkins' work goes so far beyond merely debunking ID--which itself is just
a big way of debunking his own work. He wants to demonstrate the
intellectual bankruptcy of all traditional religions, using science as his
club. The sooner this is understood, and the sooner its link with ID is
recognized, the sooner the conversation about science education can move
forward.

My best,

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 2 08:57:35 2007