Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan  I pointed out Dawkins' 'scientific fundamentalism' (in my opinion) above.
But, if the 'devil' himself says something true, does that make it a lie? |
No, but ...let's just say Dawkins treats science like a fanatic religion rather than science.
:;
Then, fanatics are not interested in bringing reason, perspective, evidence or common sense into arguments. They seek out hysterical extremes in order to “prove” their case.
Dawkins also revealed his own biological ignorance. He referred to the unborn as an “embryo”. The conceptus is only an embryo up to eight weeks’ gestation: after that it is called a foetus. Surgical abortions very seldom take place before eight weeks – it is technically more difficult to carry out the operation that early – so a termination of pregnancy seldom involves an “embryo”.
But like all fanatics, he uses language not in an objective sense: but as it suits him.
He twists politics and history to suit his polemic, too. Repeatedly he cited Northern Ireland as an example of a society driven by religious hatred. But no objective historian would offer such a superficial analysis. The problems in Northern Ireland were rooted in struggles over land: one group of people displaced another group of people – and religion was one of the signifying markers of difference among these groups. It could just as easily have been language, race, colour, ethnicity. Mary Kenny - Features - a small selection of some of Mary's journalism. Dawkins The Influential Fanatic Dawkins has spoken of a conversion experience when he realized the power of Darwinism. His conversion experience, his total devotion to Darwinism, his insistence that evolution answers all questions and other views of creation answer none, sounds an awful lot like ... a religion.
Such is certainly the suspicion of the noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, who has labeled Dawkins and certain other current evolutionists "Darwinian Fundamentalists," likening the fanaticism of their cause to the Biblical literalists who opposed the teaching of evolution and who precipitated the Scopes' "monkey trial" in 1925. Of course, Gould has his own axes to grind, from his own Darwin-amending theory of "punctuated equilibria" -- evolution by leaps and bounds -- to his notion that science and religion occupy different domains and thus logically cannot come into conflict. But perhaps, for all that, he has a point. Double-Dealing in Darwin by Michael Ruse evolution Dawkins natural selection religion faith religious -- Beliefnet.com
two small examples why i don't take him, or his followers seriously - I have seen them repeatedly cloud reality - - like implying 'islam' is behind the conflicts in the middle east... ignoring the millions killed by atheists/anti-religious fanatics (communists, french revolution)