I saw that Richard Dawkins wrote
a response to Rick Perry on evolution in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the good points are preceded by typical leftist nonsense, which will cause the entire column to be dismissed out of hand by anyone who needs to read it. But today there is
a far better article in the same "On Faith" section by Paula Kirby. Here are a couple of excerpts.
Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.
Remember that 'ignorance' is not an insult, but merely a term for 'lack of knowledge'. Many of the people who protest so vociferously against the teaching of evolution do not understand how overwhelmingly strong the evidence for it is; and many of those who proclaim “But it's only a theory” do not understand that the scientific and everyday usages of the word 'theory' are very different.
She zeros in on why evolution is such a problem for many Christians.
a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.
I have heard similar explanations from Christians I've asked why it isn't possible to accommodate their beliefs to scientific reality. To them that reality destroys their beliefs, therefore it can't be real. Instead of rejecting their system of myths, they prefer to reject scientific reality. The whole article is well-worth reading.
Wise Christians accept creation stories as non-literal and can accommodate evolution into their world views.
ReplyDeleteI just read Dawkins article and I am practically bleeding from my freakin' eyes. God, Dawkins should take a page from Carl Sagan's play book. Sagan consistently molded his message so that people who did not automatically agree with him would possibly take the time and listen. Dawkins seems intent on mauling his message by rambling on about how stupid Republicans are. How does this sound to an independent voter who is ignorant about evolution, but could be receptive to the idea if the writer didn't come off like a lefty wanker? One can only recall Dawkin's last snafu during the elevator mishigas when he told a writer to more or less grow the f*ck up.
ReplyDeleteThe man needs a nanny and an editor.
"Wise Christians accept creation stories as non-literal and can accommodate evolution into their world views. "
ReplyDeleteFor some yes, including the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic church. But plenty insist that evolution is incompatible.
"How does this sound to an independent voter who is ignorant about evolution, but could be receptive to the idea if the writer didn't come off like a lefty wanker?"
He is great at explaining evolution, but often comes off as an arrogant jerk. He could be a real force for educating people, but his attitude is going to turn off anyone who isn't already receptive.
No one damned the world and no one saved it.
ReplyDeleteIt's like being in the Bill Murray "Ground Hog Day" movie. No matter how antiquated the snot-nosed atheist arguments are, they get trotted out again & again as 'Politically Correct Science'.
ReplyDeleteTeilhard de Chardin united the two magisteria in his 1955 book (actually written in the 1930's). "The Human Experience".
A lifelong evolutionist scholar, Teilhard saw humans as evolved out of dirt, evolving toward becoming God, but only halfway there.
He successfully predicted the Gaian, Greenist, & mobile communication movements, and layed to rest all the talking head scripted kabuki bullshit that passes these days as Creationist/Evolutionist rant.
If you posit the potential of a great moral attractor as "God"... not existing yet, but struggling to become in some future, arising by evolution out of the human race... then you've united the two streams in hope, and in science.
Have a nice permanent adolescence, kiddies.
Harry Springer
Teilhard de Chardin (Jesuit Priest) was suspected to be involved with the Piltwon Man hoax so his credibility within modern science is tarnished. Also he piss off the Vatican as well (This was before Vatican II) - his credibility with the religious is tarnished in some religious circles since he advocated not taking Genesis literally either.
ReplyDeleteHarry, please define God and what you mean by "being half way there"? If you think evolution has some "greater purpose" or "end game", then you don't understand evolution.
Kirby is deluded. Christianity is not threatened by Evolution, any more than it is threatened by Plate Tectonics or Heliocentrism. Millions of Christians celebrate science and Christianity at the same time.
ReplyDeleteIn the same time well-bred people who attend colleges or even academic institutions find it problematic sometimes to complete a difficult assignment on a suggested subject. For those students who want to become sophisticated ones, our writing service suggests a cheap assistance on essay writing help by http://papersmart.net/essay-writing-help.html on time. We make well-organized materials for anyone who needs an immediate and professional aid with lots of reasonable ideas.
ReplyDelete