Dawkins Rage Test

Oh, to think that we may evolve into that type of mindset… into a species that denies evolution.

She presents an inferior case professionally, and may be naturally convincing to children, and most people instinctively inclined towards religion.

Dawkins seems to be interviewing the modern creationist, by setting up each question with scientific perspectives. (Oops, spoke too soon! He just did that Dawkins thing attacking the beholder of creationist thought.)

This is one of the problems I have with Dawkins. Evolution isn't about berating the character of people that disagree on wild ideas they cannot get beyond, it's about the hypothesis, evidence, and proof tested verification letting modern humans see the record of our genetic past, and our future.

For her part, she definitely fit the bill of a person with what we would call a deficit; an inherent inability to see what is natural for us to see. And in part this makes her a representative of a phenomena, a repetitive thought process in a remarkably large portion of our society that is worth investigating.

Do they represent some danger to science, a barrier that alters the evidence? Not really. Science bears no philosophical slant, just ethical application. If someone following scientific observation comes to evidence providing for evolutionary theory, it is not the regular course of action for them to hide or destroy that evidence. They hypothesize on it's origin to understand what it is, and test it to make promote or defeat that theory.

Just as there should be no litmus test on religion or atheist positioning on the perspective member of the scientific community, there should be none on members of the public, laymen and untrained amateurs on any topic, much less evolution that involves molecular and even subatomic observations that influence mutations, the source of evolution.

-=T=-

I have no issue with members of the public who don't believe in Evolution — unless they wish to do things like “teach the controversy” in science classes. I think that it is more important for this woman to learn that a belief in Evolution is not incompatible with a lack of respect for all humanity than it is for her to learn about Evolution.

She may believe that a respect for others STEMS from the fact that each of us is a unique creation of God, but she needs to learn that respect can come from other sources. (She reminds me – in a way – of those who believe that morality is impossible without a belief in God.)

I'm sorry to say but she's eloquent and expresses her opinion clearly. Forget for a minute that what she's saying is bullshit – treat it as “new material”. She uses language and rhetoric much better than Dawkins. If someone who's “on the fence” listens to this, I won't be surprised if they lean toward creationism now.

I'd expect a writer to be a bit more eloquent and to prepare better. Examples, metaphors etc. I say Dawkins was owned in this one.

– Arik