To the Thousands on the Fence
Richard Dawkins is still at it, currently absent from teaching at Oxford and on a world tour presenting an apologetic for Darwinism. This morning he was on WFAE's Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins promoting his new book The Greatest Show on Earth, an explanation of Darwinian evolution that promotes it as scientific fact and addresses some of its criticisms. During the interview, Collins mentioned that there are creationists who will never change their minds and evolutionists who will never change their minds, and then asked Dawkins who the intended audience of his new book is. After making some baseless and degrading remarks about creationists, Dawkins answered that his book is for the "thousands on the fence." I do not pretend that theses thousands read this blog. It has not been updated in more than a year. I guess I'm keeping it with the hopes that it might one day serve a purpose, about the time I finish school and get back to a relatively normal life. Still, whether one of the thousands happens to read this or if it only lasts to serve as a reminder of what I hope to develop later on, I would like to add some advice to the "thousands on the fence".
I have taken and tutored a logic course, and have had enough philosophy as a philosophy major to know that an argument against a person is not an argument against his or her claims. But before anyone considers listening exclusively to Mr. Dawkins, I would like to point out Mr. Dawkins' reluctance to follow his own prescription of critical thought. During the interview I heard this morning, Dawkins labeled religious rearing of children as a "form of child abuse". He claimed that children should have the opportunity to learn of the marvelous and beautiful fact of the evolutionary process that accounts for our very existence instead of being "brain washed" by "idiots" spreading the myths of "dogmatic scripture". Dawkins further asserts that all evidence points in the direction of the evolutionary account of existence and that there is no serious evidence for creationism. A lot of generalizations were used liberally by Dawkins, and he well illustrated his apparent ignorance of creationist beliefs, leading me to wonder if he has considered the evidence that refutes his claims.
Each November, Southern Evangelical Seminary hosts the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte. Last year the conference ended with a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God, and this year D'Souza will be debating the topic with "new atheist" Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, debate organizers from SES tried to arrange a debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, an invitation to which I am told Dawkins responded by saying he didn't know who Mr. Craig was and that he was not willing to travel to some "hick town" to debate a bunch of "flat-earthers". Yet, Mr. Dawkins apparently has no trouble traveling to said "hick town" to promote his own views without confrontation. So much for critical thought, which entails viewing all sides of an argument. If Dawkins were a religious leader, he would be slandered as a hypocrite. Not a delightful title for an Oxford biologist.
So, to the thousands: I more than admit that this is not by any means a refutation of Darwinism, nor do I intend it to be. It's not even a developed argument against Dawkins' views, but simply an accusation that Dawkins is encouraging the very thing he rails against - non-critical thought. If you are inclined to read Dawkins' book, read it. I would if I had the time. Just don't accept it as the truth until you have considered its refutations. I know, Dawkins claims to have handled evolution's critics in his book, but I highly doubt he has considered anything of much significance. Else he would likely know who Mr. Craig is. William Dembski and Michael Behe have fully developed arguments likely ignored by Dawkins, and within a relatively short period of time there will be full critiques of Dawkins' new book. Like a jury in a court case, consider the best of both arguments. Brain washed is a terrible state, but especially so if one is brain washed with error.
I have taken and tutored a logic course, and have had enough philosophy as a philosophy major to know that an argument against a person is not an argument against his or her claims. But before anyone considers listening exclusively to Mr. Dawkins, I would like to point out Mr. Dawkins' reluctance to follow his own prescription of critical thought. During the interview I heard this morning, Dawkins labeled religious rearing of children as a "form of child abuse". He claimed that children should have the opportunity to learn of the marvelous and beautiful fact of the evolutionary process that accounts for our very existence instead of being "brain washed" by "idiots" spreading the myths of "dogmatic scripture". Dawkins further asserts that all evidence points in the direction of the evolutionary account of existence and that there is no serious evidence for creationism. A lot of generalizations were used liberally by Dawkins, and he well illustrated his apparent ignorance of creationist beliefs, leading me to wonder if he has considered the evidence that refutes his claims.
Each November, Southern Evangelical Seminary hosts the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte. Last year the conference ended with a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God, and this year D'Souza will be debating the topic with "new atheist" Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, debate organizers from SES tried to arrange a debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, an invitation to which I am told Dawkins responded by saying he didn't know who Mr. Craig was and that he was not willing to travel to some "hick town" to debate a bunch of "flat-earthers". Yet, Mr. Dawkins apparently has no trouble traveling to said "hick town" to promote his own views without confrontation. So much for critical thought, which entails viewing all sides of an argument. If Dawkins were a religious leader, he would be slandered as a hypocrite. Not a delightful title for an Oxford biologist.
So, to the thousands: I more than admit that this is not by any means a refutation of Darwinism, nor do I intend it to be. It's not even a developed argument against Dawkins' views, but simply an accusation that Dawkins is encouraging the very thing he rails against - non-critical thought. If you are inclined to read Dawkins' book, read it. I would if I had the time. Just don't accept it as the truth until you have considered its refutations. I know, Dawkins claims to have handled evolution's critics in his book, but I highly doubt he has considered anything of much significance. Else he would likely know who Mr. Craig is. William Dembski and Michael Behe have fully developed arguments likely ignored by Dawkins, and within a relatively short period of time there will be full critiques of Dawkins' new book. Like a jury in a court case, consider the best of both arguments. Brain washed is a terrible state, but especially so if one is brain washed with error.
posted by Jonathan Branch at 2:27 PM
0 comments
