No Respect: ‘Darwin’s Pit Bull’ Doesn’t Get It

BreakPointwith Charles Colson ^ | March 25, 2004 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science philosopher, once stated, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” For that and other similar comments, Dawkins has earned the nickname “Darwin’s pit bull.”

Dawkins’s latest book, A Devil’s Chaplain, touches on themes dear to his heart, especially his belief in evolution and his contempt for religion. In his eyes, people of faith are simply trying to avoid the facts that science teaches—namely, that there is no God and no life after death.

Dawkins sees himself, on the other hand, as someone who has taken a stand for absolute truth and will brook no opposition. He won’t even debate creationists or intelligent design theorists, since that might “lend . . . respectability” to what he calls their “nonsense.”

To give Dawkins his due, he’s a witty, engaging, and intelligent writer and lecturer—so much so that I wonder how many of his readers and listeners realize how dangerous his ideas are. For instance, he writes, “Society, for no reason that I can discern, accepts that parents have an automatic right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions.”

To Dawkins’s mind, that’s a completely unreasonable thing to believe. For him, if the scientific facts back up his atheistic worldview, then to teach religion to children is deceitful, and it’s wrong to lie to children.

Now, I won’t get into the intelligent design debate and proofs for God’s existence. I’ve discussed these many times on this program, and you can read about them on our BreakPoint website (www.breakpoint.org). The point that really interests me is how Dawkins’s dislike of religious freedom and lack of respect for religious people are related to his worldview of scientific absolutism.

Because he can see religion only as a source of lies, Dawkins complains, “Why do we have to respect [religious opinions], simply because they are religious?”

Dissenters from Darwinism don’t even deserve mention. Parents should not have the right to raise their children with religion. Religious opinions need not be respected. This, you see, is the totalitarian impulse in Dawkins’ scientific secularism and the great danger of the movement he represents. If there really is no source of truth higher than human beings (or, as Dawkins would put it, higher than human beings and their fellow animals), then it makes sense to see Dawkins and his scientific colleagues as guardians of all the truth that we can know about the universe. Religion, then, is a silly superstition, and it makes perfect sense to put down religious people who try to hide and distort absolute truth.

Christians also believe in absolute truth. All truth—even the truth we discover through science—comes from God. The difference is that, unlike Dawkins, we also believe that God gives humans the dignity of freedom, even if they would use that freedom to deny His very existence. We are told to speak the truth to unbelievers lovingly, not coerce or deride them. Christian absolute truth, you see, includes a universal respect for others.

Darwin’s pit bull gets points for tenacity, but his view of the world and the way he would implement that view are tragically flawed and dangerous.

[Mr. Silverback]

Dawkin's latest article for The Gaurdian is called "The future looks bright." Perhaps that's because he's headed someplace with lots of fire in it...

The source doc contains many links to Dawkins' work and comments on it.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Agnes Heep]

I don't "believe" in evolution. I believe in the Almighty. But I find evolutionary theory to be very credible, and it doesn't scandalize me in any religious sense that life within God's creation works that way.

[sauropod]

Dawkins is dangerous. Anybody that rests his understanding of how we came to be in a book titled "the blind watchmaker" has serious comprehension problems. To say nothing of a Devonian sized chip on his shoulder.

[sauropod]

That's pretty much where I fall in. I have collected fossils and minerals since I was three (i'm now 45 - spare me the walker ;-), and it is folly to assume catastrophism as the sole mechanism for understanding the fossil record: Capital T, Capital F, Capital R.

[martin_fierro]

Ping.

<|:)~

[js1138]

Exactly how big is a Devonian? Is it smaller or larger than a Silurian?

[gg188]

“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane..."

“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in ___[fill in blank from list below]___, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane..."

a. evolution
b. global warming
c. global climate change
d. global freezing
e. capitalism is evil
f. society is responsible for criminals' actions
g. the USA is responsible for all wars
h. Islam is the Religion of Peace
i. etc.

[sauropod]

As big as Gondwanaland ;-).

[FlyVet]

He's witty, engaging, and intelligent...and everyone who disagrees with him is stupid and insane, ignorant and wicked.

Okie dokie.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads and occasionally other science topics. To spare you unwanted non-evo pings, I'm starting to use only the 1st half of the list for non-evo science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped, and specify if you're evo-only.]

[Redcoat LI]

My background is in History,but I did minor in Biology,for my B.A.

The theory of evolution is just that,a theory,it has not been proven to be a fact,therefore anybody can question it,on any grounds they see fit.

Disputing facts is ignorance,Disputing theories is a sign of intellectual curiosity.

[Unam Sanctam]

In his eyes, people of faith are simply trying to avoid the facts that science teaches—namely, that there is no God and no life after death.

Somehow I missed where the scientific proof of these "facts" were proclaimed.

[fourdeuce82d]

I did minor in Biology,for my B.A.

Might want to get your money back for that part- the term "theory" doesn't have, in this context, the connotation you're implying. With a minor in biology they should have made that clear(er).

Evolution may or may not be historical fact- but you are taking one definition- "abstract thought : SPECULATION" and conflating it with another- "the general or abstract principles of a science or an art "

Not slamming the disbelief in evolution- merely the misuse of the word in this context.

[Virginia-American]

The theory of evolution is just that,a theory,it has not been proven to be a fact,therefore anybody can question it,on any grounds they see fit.

No theory is ever "proven to be a fact". Theories provide the explanatory framework for understanding known facts and predicting new ones.

Theories can be falsified when they make incorrect predictions.

The theory of evolution has successfully made thousands of predictions and has never been falsified.

[Mr. Silverback]

Better late than never Colson/BreakPoint Ping!

[Zeko]

Mr. Dawkins calls people who disagree with him on evolution "ignorant, stupid, or insane . . . and possibly wicked . . ." (rough quote). On what basis could he call anyone wicked?

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

The theory of evolution has successfully made thousands of predictions and has never been falsified.

---

???

Darwin on Trial
by Phillip E. Johnson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830813241/qid=1080352307/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0754165-0672806


From Publishers Weekly
In his own era, Darwin's most formidable opponents were fossil experts, not clergymen. Even today, according to the author, the fossil record, far from conclusive, does not support the presumed existence of intermediate links between species. A law teacher at UC-Berkeley, Johnson deems unpersuasive the alleged proofs for Darwin's assertion that natural selection can produce new species. He also argues that recent molecular studies of DNA fail to confirm the existence of common ancestors for different species. Doubting the smooth line of transitional steps between apes and humans sketched by neo-Darwinists, he cites evidence for "rapid branching," i.e., mysterious leaps which presumably produced the human mind and spirit from animal materials. This evidence, to Johnson, suggests that "the putative hominid species" may not have contained our ancestors after all. This cogent, succinct inquiry cuts like a knife through neo-Darwinist assumptions.

From Library Journal
Dissecting the writings of Gould, Futuyama, Darwin, and Dawkins with a trenchant sword, law professor Johnson uses an attorney's reasoning to scrutinize the scientists' logic in defining the theory of evolution. Contending that science has distorted research rules to exclude Divine Creation in explaining the diversity of life, Johnson challenges the tenets of natural selection and the evolutionary evidence from fossils and genetic and molecular sources. In the closing chapters, he deals with Darwinism in education and in religion, stating that the evolutionary theory is protected for its "indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism." While the book presents a skewed view of the scientific process, occasionally losing all pretense of objectivity, it may be of value to lay readers seeking a creationist perspective on evolution.
- Frank Reiser, Nassau Community Coll., Garden City, N.Y.

Ingram
In clear, concise chapters, Johnson offers a casual, reasoned and scientifically sound evaluation of the support for Darwinism--from fossil records to molecular biology. In a new afterword, he responds to his critics and their arguments. "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read."--Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

[Mr. Silverback]

Interesting, but what does that have to do with the article? Dawkins beleives that people like you shouldn't be allowed to raise children, and all you have to say about it is, "I'm OK, you're OK, it's OK to believe in God and evolution"?

[Khurkris]

good one...thanks