Political Correctness is merely another religious manifestation of legalism.
Isn't that spaaashulll"
Posted on 03/01/2006 6:05:53 AM PST by xzins
“We Are Losing This Battle”— And “Knee-Jerk Atheism” Isn’t Helping Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Design
By J. Richard Pearcey
Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins “are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design.” So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement.
“We are losing this battle,” Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing more harm than good “in the fight against intelligent design”? Because, in his view, they are atheist reactionaries: “What we need is not knee-jerk atheism,” says Ruse, “but serious grappling with the issues.”
“Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas,” Ruse charges.
For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: “It is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims.” The reference is to “The Root of All Evil?”, a two-part television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, “The Virus of Faith,” Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child abuse: “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.”
Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. His latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Dawkins’ books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker.
Make no mistake about it, says Ruse, “we [evolutionists] are in a fight.” Drawing attention to the “two new Supreme Court justices,” Ruse predicts that they “are going to let [intelligent design] into the classrooms.” His book Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? was published in 2003.
Instead of launching offensive attacks on Christianity, Ruse says, Darwinists “need to make allies in the fight” and “not simply alienate everyone of good will.”
For more of this behind-the-scenes and sometimes coarse exchange (s---, f---) between leading advocates of evolutionary theory, see William Dembski’s blog here.
Daniel Dennett’s homepage is here.
Richard Dawkins’ work can be seen here.
The homepage of Michael Ruse is here.
For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: “It is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims.” The reference is to “The Root of All Evil?”, a two-part television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, “The Virus of Faith,” Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child abuse: “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.”
These people have certainly identified themselves as having something other than the advancement of science as their primary goal.
I certainly think you are right. It stopped being about science a long time ago.
Of course, that doesn't mean ID as advocated by Behe, Dembski, et al. manages to be science (anything based on a priori probability estimates never is). Yet, the argument that positing an intelligent cause cannot be a scientific explanation is also absurd.
I find it simply amazing the number of pro-evolution folks who have no more understanding of evidence than their pro-creation friends.
BTTT
I have warned serious Christians in the science disciplines many times already that they are making a big mistake by allowing atheists/secular humanists/ - and - Left-wing liberal "Christians" in science - to be their most out-spoken advocates - ie: the "face" of science to the public.
Semantics is involved, so people must clearly define their terms. There is more than one "theory of evolution", and in spite of the denials by some intellectually dishonest scientists, each of the theories has a philosophical underpinning.
The majority of Americans will _rightly_ reject all of the "..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 [because they] are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. .. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. .." ~ John Paul II - 1996
Note especially the key phrase, "..in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them..".
In this, Protestant and RCC alike, agree with what the previous pope said on the matter. [See more below]
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
Excerpts:
"...And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.
St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.
All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, 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. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. ...." [end excerpts] bttt
No more so than associating all evolutionists with Hitler and Stalin - which is far too frequently done by the Creation "scientists."
I find it fascinating that our resident evos, who profess to worship at the shrine of Free Inquiry, and who feel so very goosey and alarmed at the prospect of examining how evolution is taught in the classroom---made no remark at all when Sommers was forced out of the presidency of Harvard due to PC.
It's PC that provides the biggest threat to scientific research and education, not creationism.
And, given the scandal of SKorean stem-cell research--leading the state of CA to allocate $3Billion dollars which now is still allocated--how can scientists don the pretense of infallibility?
Fundamentalist athiesm--"knee-jerk athiests"--very pithy. It could grow on you.
Exactly.
Political Correctness is merely another religious manifestation of legalism.
Isn't that spaaashulll"
"I find it simply amazing the number of pro-evolution folks who have no more understanding of evidence than their pro-creation friends."
"...for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." - Luke 16
The guy at Harvard was a big lefty anyway. It was a debate over "flavors" of the left and that's usually not of much interest to Freepers.
Sorry, these are old people, who are discovering they were taught wrong and therefore have believed and taught a theory as absolute fact.
They were told and believed they were gods due to getting advanced degrees. Now, they look at old fools in their mirrors.
I hoped Summers could hang on--there were many on FR who also hoped he'd prevail--but I didn't see any of the usual frevos from the Temple of Science weighing in.
As for the embryonic stem-cell scandal--the same anti-religious rhetoric was used to promote the bogus research as is now used in the evo wars against those who have their doubts about the progress and history of our diverse life.
Or that Christianity "is simply a force for evil." I can see that Dawkins enjoys attracting attention to himself; but to use such statements to do so strikes me as an indication of a total lack of seriousness, very bad judgment, or maybe even an unsound mind.
Such silliness! He preens like a rock star, and has an enormous fan base. What does that tell us about ourselves as a culture/society?
I saw a distinction made between "evolution" and "evolutionism." It was a new discussion for me. As near as I can tell it, "evolutionism" is folk evolution.
I think there's a drive to have evolution defined as "that which the most up-to-date scholars say it is."
Such a definition allows a bit of security.
Good post. I'd read JPII's comments a while back.
Or like claiming that religion is a virus responsible for terrorism....
"Never judge a philosophy by its abuse" (St. Augustine). The central proposition of evolution - whether speciation occurs - stands or falls independently of how it was used by certain people like Stalin or Hitler, just as the claims of Christianity - that Jesus Christ is God incarnate who died for our sins and rose again - stands or falls on the truth of its claims, regardless of what individuals throughout history have done under his name.
This is the argumentum ad Hitleram logical fallacy.
As Betty pointed out, the claim of Dawkins that "Christianity is a force for evil" is simply not supportable unless one wishes to play games with the meaning of "is." It's disengenuous.
If these men said these things, then they are off base. There is no aspect of Christianity that automatically leads to evil or child abuse.
On the other hand, the amorality of mechanistic evolution CAN lead to moralities of license, despair, greed, etc.
This requires the inference that "mechanistic" evolution, because it does not require a deity to explain the origin of the species, is automatically amoral, if not atheistic. That assumption is not necessarily valid.
I really don't care which position you hold about evolution. Whichever position you take, however, defend it with solid arguments, and not the ad hominems that the Creation "Scientists" use. They're worse than Dawkins et. al., because they claim to be doing it for the Almighty. God doesn't need us to lie to help him.
I suppose you can show some posts on this forum where the "Creation Scientists" have associated all evolutionists with Hitler or Stalin?
While I've got your attention, tell me Jude, what do you believe about creation? Was man created in the image and likeness of God or was he a product of natural evolution. Are we descended from animals or were we a separate creation?
Are those who see evidence of "intelligent design" just a bunch of ignorant fundamentalist hicks? Do you not see evidence of "intelligent design" in the creation?
Was Jesus misquoted when he spoke of Noah and the flood? Did the flood really happen, was Jesus a liar, was he mistaken?
Once you fall into this "Christian evolutionist" trap, where does it end?
"Never take St. Augustine's words as scripture" (St. Rufus the doofus)
"Or like claiming that religion is a virus responsible for terrorism...."
No, a comparable statement by our side to that would be something like: "Science leads to totalitarianism" - which is far too reaching. The statement that "Islam is a virus responsible for terrorism." is perfectly acceptable - and historically true.
"The central proposition of evolution - whether speciation occurs - stands or falls independently of how it was used by certain people"
You seem to be forgetting the spiritual component of this equasion. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" Doctrine is teaching. Some ideas have Hell as their source. The bloody results of those ideas show this to be the case.
You shall know a tree by it's fruit.
" This is the argumentum ad Hitleram logical fallacy."
IIRC, the rule of posting is the first one to bring up Hitler to prove their point, looses the argument. I didn't bring him up! :)
It has long been recognized that atheism can go in any direction when it comes to morality...might as well be one thing as be another. Might as well be Hitler as Mother Theresa.
Evolution is the cosmology most liked by atheists because it does (was intended?) offer a mechanistic explanation for "all that there is."
Sure. Look at any Crevo thread.
While I've got your attention, tell me Jude, what do you believe about creation?
I believe that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, that he created man in his own image, and that creation was initially very good. I also have no problem believing that a God who could create the world could have done so in six literal days only a few thousand years ago. But, this is not apparent. If St. Augustine could read the text of Genesis, and walk away unconvinced that it was literal, who am I to think I have all my ducks in a row?
Was Jesus misquoted when he spoke of Noah and the flood? Did the flood really happen, was Jesus a liar, was he mistaken?
Fallacious argument - excluded middle. He spoke of Noah as a metaphor to be compared to his generation. That is not a blanket endorsement that it actually happened - though I certainly believe it did.
Are those who see evidence of "intelligent design" just a bunch of ignorant fundamentalist hicks? Do you not see evidence of "intelligent design" in the creation?
"Intelligent Design" is not science. It's an assumption, bourne from religious conviction, and not deduced from the evidence. It dictates the conclusions and is not falsifiable. And, after the outright perjury in the Dover case, I don't think intelligent design is the product of ignorance - I think it is a scam perpetuated upon the pious.
Once you fall into this "Christian evolutionist" trap, where does it end?
Ask St. Augustine. I don't need to take a position.
Not in this context. We're talking about ad hominem attacks, and I countered that the Creation "scientist" scammers have hands just as dirty as Dawkins on that front, and gave examples that I have actually heard.
Evolution is not a "cosmology." It's a biological theory, that species change over time and that these changes can be observed. What philosophers - or more usually, those playing at philosophy - do with that is not the PhD Biologist's fault.
I know an adult who thinks that having kids believe in Santa is abusive. To be fair, he is a very lonely and bitter guy with no wife or kids himself.
Me, I always stick up for Santa. He has always done right be me! ;-)
Holy cow. Metaphor? The flood is one of the principle events for scoffers in the last days. Peter stated outright that in the last days there would be scoffers and pointed to the flood both as an example of the scoffing that occurred in Noah's time and the scoffing that would occur in the last days.
Peter is quite specific about Noah and the flood in both his epistles. Frankly jude, Jesus leaves no room for a metaphorical interpretation of that event. He names names, his genealogy is tied directly to Noah. The very pedigree which establishes Jesus as the heir to the throne of David goes through Noah all the way to Adam. So if you are going to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you MUST believe in a literal Adam and a literal Noah. If you want to believe that Jesus was a good teacher, then that is another thing. You don't have to even believe he was born of a virgin to admire him for being a good teacher. But if you are going to believe in the REAL Jesus, you must believe in a REAL Adam and a REAL Noah. It is not optional.
You are giving people a false hope that they can believe in a false Jesus and still have a real salvation.
You do need to rethink this position.
There is no doubting that design does exist all around us.
Every other indication of design does indicate a designer, but for some reason, the apparent design of creation...plants, animals, humans, etc.....is not permitted to mean the existence of a designer.
Seems odd to me.
Darwinian meltdown marker
I would argue that evolution is a cosmology.
It's used to explain everything that is.
Always looking for the moral equivalency angle, eh?
Hmmm, you claim to be Protestant and yet defend Catholicism and now you claim to be Christian and yet defend the Atheists.
Are you training to be a defense lawyer?
I believe if you read Dennett you will find he was speaking of radical Islam and religious ideologies that justify killing in the name of God.
Asid from that minor discrepency you may have it right. Do you disagree with him about radical Islam?
It is a world view forced on the citizens of the world. If you dare to dissent, you are "crazy", a wacko, and you will be marginalied into oblivion.
You are giving people a false hope that they can believe in a false Jesus and still have a real salvation.My hat's off to you, sir, for saying in a sentence what usually takes me a page or two to get around to.
You are giving people a false hope that they can believe in a false Jesus and still have a real salvation.
You are giving people a false hope that they can believe in a false Jesus and still have a real salvation.
You are giving people a false hope that they can believe in a false Jesus and still have a real salvation.
It is part and parcel to believing in Jesus that you believe what he believed. He believed in Adam. He believed in Noah. He believed in the creation. He was there. We weren't. He should know. We don't. We have to take him at his word.
If we can't do that, then we can't say that we believe in Jesus. That's the bottom line. We ought not to give false hope to people that they can believe in a Jesus of their own creation and obtain salvation from the Jesus who created them.
Noah and the Ark story is the metaphor, not Noah. And just because it is used as a metaphor, does not imply that there is not truth behind it. The cave at Machpelah, wherein 8 people were lain, to rest for example,is also a metaphor, while still being the burial place of the patriarchs.
Precisely. It adds or detracts nothing from the story's credibility.
I hold my own to the highest standard. Always have, always will.
Are you training to be a defense lawyer?
Not if I can help it.
This doesn't come up unless someone claims there is such evidence.
It's much wiser to take your approach.
IMHO, I would agree with the stance to not get too worked up about it, however, the counter is that whenever man seeks to think in a fashion that is independent from God, i.e. without faith in Him, that thinking simply scars the soul from how He originally had intended for man to think.
For the unbeliever, the evolutionist perspective probably simply appears to be a theory, and with a more recently logically justifiable basis than what he perceives creationism to present.
For the believer, the element of truth at the very foundation of creationism, isn't eroded by science.
One aspect of the debate that hasn't been further discussed is perhaps how believers might actually error by playing the middle ground. In other words, we accept creationism and have been educated to accept science as a worthwhile endeavor. With scarred thinking from when we were unbelievers, to what extend does our thinking processes actually influence 'science'.
It is interesting to note that early science, chemistry, metallurgy, had overlapping studies into the crafts and Gnosticism. Though I consider such things to be occultic and mistaken, not everything that has been abandoned in those traces were false.
Some extremes of studies in faith assert our reality is influenced by faith. One perspective of science, then, is that once an idea has been brought forward and laid bare simultaneously with all others, a balance plays out resulting in a consistent reality. One might claim that the reason for science to be so successful is the majority of thinkers who have placed their faith in science to prevail. The counter to this is when an other force of faith prevails and controls the physical domain.
The Cartesian approach, I think, therefore I am, is then shown to be a much more foundationally counterfeit belief structure than one who first places their faith in God through Christ.
I was not claiming to have any physical evidence and yet it came up. The ONLY evidence I pointed to was the evidence of Christ's words. Yet there were those who call themselves Christians who were more than willing to challenge THAT evidence. Yet they call themselves "believers". Believers in what?
I don't know. I don't judge others.
I do judge the veracity of what people say, whether they be alive or dead, ancient or modern.
Jesus was a "people". He said some things about Noah and Jonah. He said that people who don't believe in him are condemned.
Do you believe him?
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.