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

Pim,

We definitely agree on this:
I think we can all agree that Dawkins' literary style can be somewhat
arrogant. And as Ted points out Dawkins 'hates' religion but that does
not mean that he hates those who adhere to religion.

But there's a lot more. There's a general tone emanating from his work,
and that counts for a great deal in these matters. Perhaps you would agree,
Pim, that the *tone* of ID is part of the problem, a big part of the
problem, with ID. Despite the fact that some IDs clearly accept human
evolution (which is the last thing that Dembski or Johnson or Wells would
accept), one does get the overall impression that UCD (universal common
descent) is something that ID simply does not accept. And one easily gets
the message, that theistic evolution is not acceptable, even though Behe and
Robin Collins and some others accept it. Tone counts for a lot.

Thus, when Dawkins said as you accurately have it:

So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the
people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any
people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with
too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about
Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just)
possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to.
No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact
that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time
for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to
claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or,
as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex
education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say
that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not
consider that).

I see this as more than arrogant, way over the top. Johnson is neither
ignorant, nor stupid, nor wicked. He's as well informed as you or I
(perhaps more so, even on matters of evolution), he certainly isn't stupid
(stupid people don't get hired to clerk for the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court), and he isn't any more wicked than you or me. (which is to say, yes,
he's wicked, but that isn't what Dawkins meant)

Johnson knows a lot about evolution; he doesn't agree with it--that is, he
doesn't find the inference sufficiently forceful to overcome his moral
objections about what evolution means to many (such as Pinker) in our
culture. Let me paraphrase Dawkins: if you object to evolution for
religious reasons, you have to be a dodo or the kind of immoral person that
religion is supposed to be trying to eradicate. No wonder that many IDs say
equally unhelpful things about evolution.

Dawkins' overall attitude is best seen by his response to the chair about
science and religion that Oxford started a few years ago. My friend John
Hedley Brooke was its first occupant, a man who does not attack science and
does not attack religion, but who just does good objective history of
science and religion. Dawkins made a big fuss about the university allowing
this new chair, on the grounds that theology has nothing to contribute to
higher education. It's a similar view to that of Pinker, who led the way in
opposing the proposal that Harvard undergrads take one course in religion.
One course. One course too many, according to Pinker. This type of bigotry
is far more than opposition to bad arguments from ID, Pim.

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 13:05:43 2007