Outstanding Article on Evolution and Why it Threatens Christianity

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.

Much Ado About Nothing - Atheist Elevator Edition

Since I read assorted atheist blogs I couldn't help but notice a big controversy in the atheist blogosphere. Here's a brief summary of what touched it off. Rebecca Watson of Skepchick posted about an experience that bothered her. She was at an event and some guy propositioned her in an elevator late at night. She turned him down, and he went away. But she complained that what he did was inappropriate. Ok, no big deal so far. Then PZ Myers posted about it at Pharyngula. Commenter opinion was split as to whether she made good points or was a hypersensitive whiner. But then Richard Dawkins himself showed up, and ridiculed Watson in his patented sneering, over-the-top fashion, comparing her complaint to the horrible life and death issues faced by other women. Since then various atheists have weighed-in, and assorted perpetually outraged feminists have lined up to attack Dawkins and anyone who dares criticize Watson. Watson herself has apparently bought into the brain-poison of feminist ideology as exemplified by her post, "The Privilege Delusion." For example,

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

This is what happens to logical reasoning when your subscribe to the religious-like dogma of feminism. To someone not afflicted by its poison, Dawkins' wealth, sexuality and race are completely unnecessary to understand what he was saying. His comment had nothing to do with "privilege," the meaning of which has been disitorted by feminist ideology, which employs it as a type of ad-hominem against those who disagree. Even his gender is irrelevant. It is quite possible that a poor, young lesbian black woman could have said exactly the same thing. Anyone could think that a woman complaining about a harmless advance was being too sensitive. That position doesn't require you to be a rich, white, heterosexual male.

Whether or not Watson's complaint about being hit on was reasonable given the circumstances, or overly sensitive whining is simply a matter of opinion. Dawkin's response makes him a jerk because of the extreme way he went about it. But that's really all there is to it. The fact that Dawkins behaved like a jerk and launched an over-the-top attack on Watson says nothing at all about anything beyond his particular actions in this case.

Richard Dawkins Offends Muslims

As a particularly outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins regularly offends Christians. But this time he managed to offend Muslims. I know, that's real difficult to do. His great offense? Expressing his true feelings about the burkha, feelings that are probably shared by the vast majority of non-Muslims, and no doubt even many Muslims.

The 69-year-old author and Oxford academic said he is filled with “visceral revulsion” when he sees women wearing the traditional Islamic covering.

Who isn't, other than people who like seeing the subjugation of women? He also compared it to a trash bin liner. I never though of that, but now that he mentions it, there is some similarity. Naturally these comments were just so offensive to those claiming to represent Muslims in Britain.

He has sparked fury among Muslim groups, who have accused him of being “ignorant” and “Islamophobic”.

If disliking the sight of a burkha equals "Islamophobia," then it's a good thing and should be promoted. And it's pretty funny that people who think women can't be allowed to go out in public without wearing a shapeless sack covering their body are calling others "ignorant."

Seyyed Ferjani, of the Muslim Association of Britain, accused Professor Dawkins of “Islamophobia” ... "“It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burka, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing?”

It matters because you are a blatant liar. There is definitely a minority of women stupid or brainwashed enough to voluntarily choose to wear a burkha. But many do not have that choice. Dawkins is speaking out against a symbol of widespread oppression & backwardness.

Dawkins is pretty far on the left, and I disagree with him on many issues, including some regarding atheism and the best way to critique religion. But I applaud him for having the guts to speak out on this issue, knowing that even his mild comments -- he explicitly rejected banning the burkha -- would produce shrieks of outrage and attempts to label him as an "Islamophobe."