Posted on 08/11/2009 1:05:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The so-called New Atheists are attacking the mantra of science and faith being compatible. Others in the science community question the value of confrontation.
This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins -- most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, "The God Delusion" -- returns to writing about science. Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will inform and regale us with the stunning "evidence for evolution," as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it's also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?
Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.
Dawkins will, however, be championed by many scientists, especially the most secular -- those who were galvanized by "The God Delusion" and inspired by it to take a newly confrontational approach toward America's religious majority. They will help ensure Dawkins another literary success. It's certainly valuable to have the case for evolution articulated prominently and often, but what this unending polarization around evolution and religion does for the standing of science in the U.S. is a very different matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
When somebody is passionately for or against something, we should always ask “why.” It is because of the implications of the argument. I am passionately against Obama’s socialism because I see the bad implications of his ideas.
When people are passionately against Christianity, it shows that there is an emotional component and they don’t like the implications of Christianity. Usually they don’t like how Christianity says that some behaviors are immoral. It is rarely really about intellectual issues.
When I was in college,I was indifferent towards Christianity. I had rejected it because I thought that it had no basis for it. I was not vehemently against it. I just didn’t care one way or another. It was only later that I was challenged to consider the historical evidences for the resurrection and became convinced that it was true. But it took over 6 months of weekly conversations. You’re right to be skeptical of people who “protest too much.”
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. I think something very similar has been posted before, but the main reason is, this topic will probably become a Bloodbath, if it hasn't already (I didn't bother to check). To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Maybe that's why the Catholic Church accepts evolution as the way God did it.
Nick, this is the oldest story God gave His people. There are two trees, the humble fruit of Life and the shiny, tempting apple of knowledge of good n evil- to be like God. People have an overwhelming desire to purge God, so they can pursue their own interests, like Euthanasia and Abortion. I love science, am humbled by the complexity and order. Loving God and science are not mutually exclusive events, but both of these require a lot of faith. Due to our own limitations of detecting and explaining scientific theories, I would hafta say they require much more faith than belief in God. Esp when you consider science as revealed outside of the human realm, we cannot even detect nor comprehend this aspect, but it influences what we can and do detect.
Yes. In fact, the great mathematician Leonhard Euler considered atheists to be 'among the most pernicious enemies of mankind'.
That is an extremely interesting point, and, yes, the phenomenon you describe has an eerie, un-ignorable, cumulative convincing power also on believers who frequently encounter these rabid types.
It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that every human being (not just Adam and Eve) involves a supernatural act of creation on the part of God. Is that what the theory of evolution says?
There’s a difference between Mendel and Darwin.
Accepting the work that Mendel did, which Darwin apparently never heard of, is different than accepting what the present day evos claim the Catholic Church believes concerning the ToE as it stands today.
He did some work on the statistics of chicken-pecking. He also discovered memes, which are invisible genes that do not exist. That must count for something. Here's a Dawkins interview: Richard Dawkins goes insane.
In the sense that every human being has a soul, and every soul represents a supernatural act of creation. The body is another matter.
Is that what the theory of evolution says?
The theory of evolution does not address the soul.
You forgot to add the "heavily edited for humorous effect" part.
It is our duty to do even more than we have done to make the antireligious movement, not only in the USSR, but in the capitalist countries as well, a movement of vast millions. We are entering the sixteenth year of the proletarian revolution with great gains to our account in the field of atheism. But these gains are insufficient; our work must be improved, consolidated, expanded, deepened. The banner of militant atheism must be raised still higher. Propaganda in favor of militant atheism must be carried on more widely, must become deeper and more serious. The ranks of the militant atheists must be increased to include millions. Remember that the struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism!
If so, then it is not a theory of human origins.
It is not a theory that addresses the origin of any supernatural aspect of humans. It does not pretend to be. It's not a criticism of evolution to point that out, and it's not a weakness of evolution that it doesn't do souls.
“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Pope Benedict XVI
Dawkins is pathetic. His motivation and belief in Evolution is not scientific, it is simply a bad case of God hatred. Listen to his interviews and anyone could see his blind hatred for God. Mr. Dawkins, why don’t you write a book about the dinosaur fossils that were found by a Professor at NC State that had tissue still in tact and observable? I’m sure you can explain that away can’t you Mr. Dawkins? Sure you can, you’ll just not use science just like you do with the rest of your books.
Probably not the atheistic soul-denying evolution that allmendream wants everyone to believe.
"theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." [John Paul II]
So then, according to this, it cannot be a theory of human origins, because a human being is both body and soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.