Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

Wayne,

I apologise if the use of "strong language" offended you. However, it
wasn't my own but a direct quotation from P Z Myers.

I was merely trying to correct the impression that Dawkins and (by
association) Myers are reasonable people who are free of bigotry. As people
are aware, I attempt to have reasoned and gentlemanly dialogue with various
YEC friends that I have, and I was pointing out the absurdity of using
Myers's recommended approach to people in my own housegroup, for example.

As it happens, an atheist colleague of mine asked me what I thought of
Dawkins the other day. I was at a considerable advantage, because he has
not read Dawkins and I have (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and
River out of Eden). What I said to this colleague was that I thought
Dawkins was an excellent writer - that I had no problem with the science
that he describes, but I did, however think that he allowed himself to get
distracted by his long-term crusade against religion. I also pointed out
that even some prominent evolutionary biologists had thought he was going
too far in the last book - H. Allen Orr's review of The God Delusion in the
NY review of books is about as derogatory as you can get.

Again - apologies for quoting the strong language.
Iain

On 4/7/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Being a Christian myself, I cannot deny that it is
> difficult to evaluate Dawkins' views objectively. After
> all, I have a vested interest here that I cannot deny.
> I think there is more to life the material,
> and therefore, I think Dawkins is wrong (or at least
> an impoverished view of the fruitfulness of nature),
> but in the end, I cannot prove it, as I can only test things
> that represent material. It is finally a matter between
> Dawkins and God.
>
> But I think there is a bit more to say here. Have we
> (Christians) contributed our share to making Dawkins
> even more strident and to speaking in such derogatory
> terms of Christians? How many public denouncements
> have been issued at him by powerful Christians? How
> does this affect any person? And, that evolution seems
> to be the best answer to the scientific data, Christians
> attacking Dawkins on that do not speak a good witness
> to the message of scripture about truth. That we do not
> agree with him is clear, but I think we need to spend more
> on understanding why we are Christians, and far less
> on denouncing Dawkins.
>
> As we come to this time of Easter where Christ
> was crucified for our sins, it seems a good moment
> to reflect on what drove people to say of the son
> of God "crucify him!". What is it in us that makes
> us join a mob to do such kinds of evil? This is
> what we are.
>
> We are all corrupt and easily corruptible. It is only
> by Grace that we can see that cross and understand
> that salvation lies in following our Lord. When
> we finally understood this, and humbled ourselves
> and began to pour contempt on all our pride, then
> we were made useful for his purpose. From there,
> maybe we could say the word that needs to be said
> in a tough moment. From there, maybe we will do what
> must be done when everyone else has gone astray.
> That is why we want to follow Jesus isn't it?
> To do what is right --- and "right" in that deeply
> Eternal sense of the word.
>
> Dawkins & co may be lowering the bar more and more.
> I do find that part of concern. But I'm also concerned
> that we are all adding our own contribution to this.
> So, whereas I also share these emotions about this, let's
> all try to tone down the strong language. Dawkins may
> truly despise us, but let's be careful about returning that
> favor.
>
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.