Richard Dawkins re evolution and today's religion

[Malva Zebrina]

Being that we have a lot of people here who are believers and a lot who are not, but both are horrified and disgusted with the current infiltration of the extremist religious right into the area of education and politics in America today. I think there are issues here by which both can reach some common ground.

Richard Dawkins on evolution and on religion

On Salon--may have to put up with watching the ad in order to read the entire article



Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?
It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.
My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America. Unfortunately, at present, it's slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in.
But the broad direction of history is toward enlightenment, and so I think that what America is going through at the moment will prove to be a temporary reverse. I think there is great hope for the future. My advice would be, Don't despair, these things pass.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. I would contend that Dawkins is overly optimistic.

He does not fully understand the factual situation we have.

[Malva Zebrina]

2. I do think that eventually it will reverse itself

historically, at least, that has been the trend.

We no longer burn witches at the stake, for instance, and etc.

It may take a hundred years though. :-) But, there will be, as far as this overly optimistic person is concerned, a significant backlash, especially in this country of the mix of a significant religious diversity who , I think, will not tolerate it.

We will take three steps forward, and two steps backwards, but eventually will go forward.

Won't probably happen in my lifetime though.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Certainly, the overall journey of mankind has been forward

I don't disagree with you there. However, the current phenomena of religious fundamentalism is something that has been in the making for at least decades, and a strong argument could be made that it goes back for more than a hundred years.

My point with Dawkins is; he acts like this is just a blip on the radar screen, I contend it is not, and while you are correct, it will reverse itself, we could still be talking about 30 or 40 years.

[AndyTiedye]

4. The Dark Ages Passed Too. It Took 1000 Years

The only reason the Dark Ages ever ended
is because almost all the fanatics
went off on the Crusades
and never came back.

THAT is why we must never allow them to institute the draft!
Make the Xtian Soldiers fight their own Crusade.

Make George II lead the troops into battle.
(That will end it REAL FAST).

[thebaghwan]

5. Yes, a 1,000 years of darkness. Can any one name 5 inventions that came

out of western Europe from the time of the fall of Constantinople to the rise of the Renaissance?

[wtmusic]

6. Actually quite a few

Soap, horseshoes, moveable type, glass mirrors, windmills, etc.

What we lost were the arts, philosophy, mathematics.

[alarimer]

7. I really like this guy

He pulls no punches for the fundie/creationist ignoramuses. I have read the book The Ancestor's Tale. It is vrey good and easy to read if you have some knowledge of evolution and genetics. Since Gould and Sagan have passed away, Dawkins may be the one who can explain these things better than anyone else. He had disagreements with punctuated equilibrium (Gould's theory) but points out that just because scientists disagree on some aspects of evolution, it does not mean it isn't true. In his book, he made some very pointed slams at Bush and Cheney. I am not sure it was exactly relevent to his subject but it was nice to see.