Richard Dawkins - The Very Model of Restraint

Mariano,Just saw your response when I checked in on your most recent entry. As this is a huge issue, I will just speak to a few points I feel are important."Stating that life began when lightning striking a swamp is a slightly hyperbolic statement that represent what I, and I am sure that you, were taught in science class. Go to the library, pick up any book on science, or biology in particular, and it will present the primordial soup concept.Urey and Miller sent electrical charges into their chemical mixture based on this concept."First, I have never been taught lightning striking a swamp is the origin of life, and I would like to see the text book you used that made the statement. I have, however, seen this imagery used in a variety of creationist/ID videos, as a way to try and cast scientists as foolish, therefore allowing people to disregard other things they say as well. Second, I am very aware of the Miller-Urey experiment. It is one very interesting experiement among many, showing that amino acids can be created in solutions when electricity in introduced. Experiments conducted have supported a variety of hypothesis. Complex carbon formations have been created in impact studies, giving us insight into how amino acids may have formed during comet or asteroid impacts. Tests on the survival of amino acids and carbon structures in space conditions have suggested that panspermia can't be ruled out. Darwin's suggestion on a "warm pool" is irrelevant in your discussion of current scientific study. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He was a misogynist and a racist. He wrote 150 years ago, and his proposals had problems. His idea of Natural Selection, however, is more than just a few statements, and has survived the test of time. Evolution isn't taught because people run around with a copy of Origin of Species and say that it is fact. Evolution persists because it is supported over and over and over by facts. And every time we learn more about biology, anthropology and geology, the theory is proved and made stronger and stronger.Your suggestion that children are being taught life came into being when lightning struck a swamp is more than a "slightly hyperbolic statement", it is a gross misstatement. This is not to say that children are not being taught the idea of abiogenesis and why it is valid. Good science education in school will include ideas that have been supported by testing. As we learn more and more, those ideas are refined, adapted, or cast aside, depending on the information we have."If you actually view the video of Dawkins lecturing children entitled "Growing up in the universe" you will readily see that he mixes scientific observations with his personal atheistic assertions."I've seen "Growing Up In the Universe", and saw no atheistic assertions. I saw lots of scientific assertions, and assertions that science does in fact have a place in the discussions of origins. I can readily parse the two as well. If you have some examples you would like to present, that would be more valid than just a blank assertion."Christianity have produces some of the top minds in history (scientists, lawyers, historians, businessmen, linguists, scholars, doctors, etc., etc., etc.)."This is part of your response to my suggestion that religion shuts down peoples reasoning skills. The idea that Christianity, Judaism or Islam "produced" great minds is often propositioned, but has no validity. Many great people were religious, there is no doubt. Great art was produced for the church. Muslim scholars made huge advancements in math. These things were done by religious people, but not due to their religion. Man is curious and has the ability to grow their knowledge. Study of the Bible will not give you insight into the orbit of planets. Study of the Torah will not develop medicine. Study of Koran will not reveal calculus. These things all happen by curiosity and without religion.To say that knowledge is should be destroyed, to persecute people for "witchcraft" (ungodly knowledge), to stone women who are raped, to consider mental illness demonic possession, to assert that condoms are evil, to ignore fact and science because it conflicts with what the creator the universe has told you through a book; that takes religion. This is how religion shuts off rational thought. It makes it a virtue to accept a god or gods with no evidence. It allows people to say that some things are unquestionable. It allows people to say that God is the only answer. It allows good people to accept atrocities. Learning and Science is not a result of religion. It has developed despite of religion. Reason and science has brought religion kicking and screaming from darkness into the light, and only when it becomes so undeniable that people begin to turn their back on a belief does religion finally absorb it.My goal is for people to think clearly, and base their decisions and opinions on solid logic. The article you wrote has logical fallacies, and false assertions. I am not suggesting your arguments are wrong, even though I disagree with you, but in its current form it is not a strong argument against Dawkins.

"Meanwhile they busy themselves teaching children truly enlightened science: Nothing made everything out of nothing. Life came into being when lightning struck a swamp.You are a glorified animals."To start with, you are discussing Dawkins in this article, and he deals with evolutionary biology. The first two points you make address abiogenesis, not the evolution of life. Evolution does not have any opinion on how life started, and while evolutionary biologists may have opinions on the matter, it is not what is addressed by evolution. Also, I challenge you to provide evidence of any peer-reviewed study or a publication by a scientist that says life started as lightning striking a swamp."- Find a fossil- Somehow conclude that it is "tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old"Science does just make fun guesses at how old things are, and then just get everyone to join in. Dating of fossils is a well documented process that has been supported by reliable testing over and over and over, primarily using geology and radiometric dating. There are people who will challenge dating of a fossil, and they are free to show, using evidence, why they feel something in wrong. These challenges help ensure that our knowledge is as accurate as possible. No one just "somehow conclude(s)" anything."However, Prof. Dawkins already had a child indoctrination session as recorded in 'Growing up in the Universe'"This is a variation of the apologist argument, "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be religious." The statement you made indicates that science is just another form of indoctrination, no different that religion, where the only way to make people believe it is to teach 'em young. Absolute tripe. Science (and Dawkins himself) encourages children to view the world realistically, based on what is actually known. The scientific method allows for ideas to be refined, adapted, changed, or tossed out entirely if new evidence makes it clear that we were previously wrong.Teaching children critical thinking and current scientific thought is the opposite of religious indoctrination, which makes it a virtue to not question and to shut off your mind and accept things with no evidence."Besides, since there are countless examples of fossils and prettification occurring quickly, fossilization and prettification seem to be more about circumstance than about time."Any actual evidence to support this statement? The most widely known example was provided by Kent Hovind (a bone in a boot), but this is a well known fraud. If you have some other evidence that calls fossilization into question, please list it.Your opinion of Dawkins is one shared by many. He is aggressive in sharing his thoughts with others, and doesn't feel that religion is due any more respect than a belief in Bigfoot. But your personal opinion on Dawkins tactics has nothing to do with the facts at the core. Your attempt to cast doubt upon evolution is ham-handed at best. Use critical thought to challenge evolution. Otherwise, stick to statements of religious conviction, which do not require evidence or reason.