Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Darwin, Alone, Is Not Enough Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/darwin_alone_is_not_enough#25492 Post contents: Mr. Piatek, you've incorporated many tropes here about atheism and "Darwinism" and it appears you are not fully versed in atheists' views, including Myers' and Dawkins' views. For starters, it would help if you knew how they came about being interviewed in the film. <i>And there is no doubt that what Dawkins and Myers are peddling is an alternative religion.</i> Do you expect to be taken seriously by saying they are peddling an alternative religion? There's no religion in their views. It's a lazy comment, don't you think? The mistake is in thinking that anyone, including atheists, are just about science or "believe" in science. This just isn't the way it is. Science is a process and a tool; it may inform one's views, but it's hardly necessary in rejecting religion. <i>Public reluctance to believe in “nothing but Darwinism” is also understandable. </i> Biologists don't look at the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" as if Darwin is all there is about evolution. The public isn't asked to believe in "nothing but Darwinism"; at this point Darwin isn't needed to understand evolution. Please replace "Darwinism" with the theory of evolution. Since the Scopes Trial, especially, people associate Darwin with our sharing a common ancestor with apes. (Contrary to the poster above who falsely says that theory has been debunked while offering no evidence of that.) People don't like this common ancestor business. They benefit from all the research of evolution in their daily lives yet want to discount how WE evolved. People tend to have this misinformed view of Darwin and the most significant aspect of his theories: natural selection. Dawkins' and Myers (as well as most atheists I know), do not discount religion's past role in culture a la Bach, et al, both for good and ill. <i>It is very easy to see how people who embrace nihilism end up advocating violence, and there probably is no more controversial section of Stein’s movie than the portion focusing on Nazism. </i> Religion played a significant role in Hitler's rise to power, no less supported by the Catholic church and Germans' pre-Hitler dislike of Jews. Does it need to be pointed out how religion has promoted violence throughout the ages (and still today)? In the Bible no less? Does it need to be pointed out that Stalin, Mao, et al. had ideological and economic goals as well as Hitler? It is very easy to see how people who embrace religion end up advocating violence...geesh. <i>The American public is not willing to believe in Darwin alone, and Darwin alone can lead to a dangerous nihilism. </i> Again, "Darwin alone" is not what biologists or atheists promote or think. And atheism isn't nihilism. There is no "Darwin alone" with me. It's a bit of a silly statement. If you're equating Darwin with science that would be incorrect too. What the public needs to understand is what is and what is not science. Intelligent Design Creationism is not science, therefore it doesn't belong in biology classes. Too, you may want to consider and ask why atheists seem angry. There's no indication that you understand why. Also, the problem with Stein's propaganda piece is that it's chock full of lies. Bad history, bad science, including eliciting Myers' and Dawkin's interviews under false pretenses. You also credit Pat Buchanan who is a known racist! Eddie T said: The one side (pro-Darwinism) has decided the way to win the argument is to vilify the opposition and suppress any contrary views. * Scientists do science. Contrary views have to fall under the rigors and demands of science and the scientific method. When contrary views, such as Intelligent Design, do not even meet that criteria, they are rightly vilified. Their views haven't been suppressed, they've been argued against and views such as Intelligent Design are not science. If someone comes up with a better theory than evolution - great - but it has to pass the rigors of science. Hasn't happened yet. This same method of winning the argument has now spread to other areas such as global warming. If those on the coasts want to know why we are bitter in Ohio, it is not that we necessary agree that Darwin was wrong, but we do not like being told by the liberal elite what to think and that the debate is over. * So, what do you say about conservatives who agree that global warming is a problem? The "liberal elite"? Isn't that becoming a tired phrase? Now we shall have the "conservative elite" of which many are, and as in the case with Ben Stein, many are not scientists. Sent at: 2008 07 24