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

First of all Pim, you need to be more careful in how you cut and paste these
posts. You were careless in this one. Remember, this is a public forum.
Anyone not having read this entire thread, would read it like this: " On
4/2/07 Ted Davis wrote, " Pim, 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..." " Ted Davis did not say that, he was quoting Dawkins.
You know this, and I know this, but you unitnentionally attributed something
to Ted that he did not say. You might think that this is trivial, but it is
sloppy on your part and dangerous and confusing.

Regarding your last paragraph. Certainly there is some truth to this, but I
think you just proved Ted's point which is that Dawkins, et al, are not out
to rid the world of ID, but to rid the world of religion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

> On 4/2/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>> Pim,
>> 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)
>
> Have you ever read Johnson's arguments against Lamoureux who points
> out the many flaws in Johnson's 'arguments'?
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Bigotry seems a strong word in this instance. As to opposition to bad
> argument from ID, I brought this up when Dawkins aptly turned ID's
> arguments against itself. Undoubtably Dawkins does not limits his
> objections to just ID.
>
> So let me ask you a question: Who is doing more damage to religious
> faith? Dawkins or ID which argues that science has shown the existence
> of a Designer? By making such a statement ID has made design
> falsifiable, or so it claims, and thus anytime science closes a gap,
> God becomes less relevant.
> ID has been a gift to Dawkins and he has aptly turned it in a weapon
> against that which ID claims to defend. Perhaps ID was nothing more
> than a knee jerk reaction to Dawkins but their response has played
> into the hands of Dawkins rather than propose a serious alternative.
>
> ID is the gift that keeps on giving so to speak and as a scientist and
> a Christian I find ID utterly destructive or irrelevant.
> Scientifically speaking ID is a farce but worse, from a religious
> point of view ID has handed some powerful weapons to its greatest
> (perceived) enemies.
> Dawkins and others would not have enjoyed such a recent popularity
> were it not for ID giving them relevance.
> ID may have given atheists even more reason to be respectable or
> perhaps even worse, effective.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 3 05:58:03 2007