I think Dawkins is a good thing.  It's about time this discussion was brought out into the open in a country that is so technologically advanced in some areas yet so backwards in others.

Atheisto - aren't you part of the choir?  :P

I'm all up for discussion, but if you don't take the time to "study" your opponent and converse with them, what use are you for your cause (whatever cause that may be)? All I'm saying is that the issue of evolutionary theory cannot obviously be rammed down American's (and many Canadians) throats because they just won't swallow the medicine. While I appreciate Dawkins' contributions to the field (and God, there are many - I think I own at least 6 of his books), it is much easier for me to recommend Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, or even Coyne or Carroll to my evangelical friends and family than Richard Dawkins.

It's a bit like saying the theory of gravity shouldn't be rammed down anyones throat or that the earth is spherical should not be rammed down people's throats.

Sensitivity be damned.  This isn't a case of a 50:50 decision that still remains to be proven.  There's not a single, credible scientist that disagrees with evolutionary theory.

Atheisto - I'm not saying that we present evolution side by side with ID. I'm not saying we "water-down" the theory (whatever that would look like). What I am saying, however, is that you are not going to take away someone's religious beliefs. Dawkins is not going to eradicate religion tomorrow. So why not focus on the thing that is scientifically provable: evolution.

Once again, I am not suggesting that atheists should just sit down and shut up. What is important is first to present evolution as fact, and then we can sit down and talk, discuss, debate, converse, etc. etc. etc., about the theological and philosophical ramifications. Maybe in your nonreligious utopia there is a different way and we can all shout at each other until one drowns out the other, but in my experience it doesn't seem to work. People will just dig in their heels and then we end up with backward Presidents, backward laws, and the rise of scientific illiteracy in [one of] the most powerful country in the world.

Actually....the illiteracy is fading. recent creationism court cases have been settled on the side of common sense (evolution).  I think this is actually more to do with a certain generation of people dying out rather than a massive push for scientific literacy but anyway.

Court cases are evidence of fading illiteracy?

Atheisto, my friend, check any of the recent surveys and they all suggest that the United States is still at the 40% mark for those who accept the theory. This is appalling and it is actually a backward trend since the Scopes Trial of 1925.

As for the generational gap - have you checked out what high school students are saying? It seems that they are either Jesus Freaks or they simply don't care. Passion for the sciences is not exactly obvious in the next generation. Just check out America's current record in the science tests compared with other nations.

We're still in a baby-boomer generation with rapidly diminishing family sizes so i'm not surprised about the 40% claim which I've read before.  My comment was more to do with the fact the the establishment is fighting back now against the ingrained religious ignorance that would previously have steamrollered these efforts to bring an education system into the modern age.

I'll agree with you there - it was definitely a sigh of relief to see a conservative Bush-appointed judge strike down the ID case. But my concern has never been with the "establishment"/government. They've done their job so far with keeping the nonsense out of public schools, but this has shown to be purely defensive. Kids aren't learning about evolution because half of science teachers either don't understand it or they don't believe in it.

Can we at least agree that we need to increase the level of education concern evolutionary theory? All I'm seeing is that Creationism continues to morph itself into something that religionists can hold on to. What I can't help thinking is that throwing atheism as a necessary conclusion to evolutionary theory is hampering the ability for us to communicate with the vast evangelical American population. No more wasting precious time and resources fighting court and school district battles - if evolutionists had the [almost] universal Christian support that heliocentrists have now, don't you agree that it would be much better for the scientific community?

I don't think Dawkins is promoting the notion that evolution = atheism. However, his outspoken approach has been picked up by the American media machine and through the creative artform that is "spin" - evolution is being mass marketed as a component of atheism.

Is it fair to hold Dawkins accountable for how his message is being spun in America? I for one, do not think so.

Frankly, Dawkin's is a wonderful author and thinker - and much of what he's written in his books helped to crystalize how I articulate my thoughts/feelings when it comes to discourse on such matters.

Brad - I will agree that the very "barbed" approach with which Dawkins argues and debates makes reception among the literalist fundies nigh impossible. To that however, I say who cares? They do not represent the majority. Moderates or the apathetic appear to be the real targets - attempting to engage them, challenge them, and force a reinvention of the social fabric appears to be the real objective of his approach.

Dawkins is an ass.

Sometimes it's good to toss an ass in with the sheep.

That depends on how one looks at evolution.

I read Dawkins, "The God Delusion," and found it quaint if not mind numbingly boring. I found the same rehashed aguments retold in a more elegant maner. Dawkins trying to explain theology and God in a credible maner is like me trying to explain quantum mechanics.

And no. I don't believe that evolution equals atheism. There are many Christians that believe evolution to be true. Dr. Francis Collins and our very own sighsnootles comes to mind. Mutually exclusive views are what the issue is. I believe that science and religion can co-exist quite nicely with each other. There are those who feel otherwise and try to push their agenda. If a person says that science and religion can not co-exist with each other, what does that say about that person?

Isn't it remarkable that so many are offended by the forceful and even fundamentalist attitude of a few atheists, but see nothing wrong with the same aggressive promotion of their faith?  Cramming it down their throats, we hear; shoving it in our faces: the same words atheists have been saying for centuries about christians.  All I can really say is I have never had an atheist knock on my door trying to push his or her views on me nor been accosted by one on the subway, bus or sidewalk passing out his or her literature, encouraging me to attend meetings, retreats, prayer groups or services.  Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, meet pot.

But if an atheist wishes to do that, it is well within their right to do so. I WISH and PRAY that an atheist would come knocking at my door. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE. I would actually enourage atheists to go door knocking.

Citizens of Canada, meet freedom of religion.

FTR. i am not a JW or mormon, so do not expect a knock from me anytime soon.  If you find a gospel tract in a phone booth or on a park bench, it's probably from me. If you get talking to some big dude who is crazy about Jesus, it's probably me. If you however wish not to engage in said discussion, no offence taken. I am NOT the crazy guy chasing down people in the street with my Bible.........yet

I am glad you feel that way.  I don't equate intelligent design to being a christian way of thinking.  I think ID is the answer of a few of literalists because they know the story of creation doesn't have a lot of merrit, but won't admit it. 

Also, Dawkins is not an expert on religion, and he tends to take a radical view towards religion.   He is brilliant man, and I think he should try to package his arguments a little better.  Like in his documentary "The Root of All Evil", he meets with Ted Haggard after a sunday church service that Dawkins had just watched.  One of the first things out of Dawkins' mouth was how he found the sunday service very remaniscent of the nazi rallies in nazi germany.  More than just members of Haggard's church would find that offensive I think.

I think Dawkins' main mistake, and the erroneous basis for this thread, is to give credibility to the connection between evolution and religion. The sad reality is that many beleive that if you agree with evolution, then you can't be a Christian, but the debate is really a scientific one, and a bit of a stupid one at that - no one can unequivocally prove or disprove evolution.

Scientifically, evolution is the most likely way in which the earth came into existence. I am an evangelical Christian, but that doesn't mean I don't beleive in God or the Bible. The two (science and faith) are very separate in my opinion but, as mentioned in a post above, can co-exist very nicely.

The irony is that evolution is still a theory, and can never be proven, so it takes "faith" to agree with it... ; )

Gravity is still theoretical since you can't bottle it but you can observe it but I have a lot more than faith that if I let you go from a tall building that you will fall.

Dawkins does not give credibility to the coexistance of evolution and religion.  I don't think he even approaches that subject.  He simply states that a literal adherence to the bible in these matters is nonsense and then asks well, if this is then metaphor, what is actually in the bible that we can take as truth?

That might be changing, WayOutThere...

Here is the link for a documentary by the UK journalist Rob Liddle that RonVB posted on a different thread:

Check what Wikipedia has to say about Liddle before you dive in, just to be confident of his credentials en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle). 

The evolution you can observe is not equal to the gravity you can observe. I'm not debating evolution as ACCEPTED science, I'm saying it cannot be absolutely proven. Yes it can be observed to a small degree, but what we can observe in a few hundred years of scientific method has little relevance on the billions of years of evolution.

I never stated that Dawkins cives credibility to the co-existence of science and religion. I said that Dawkins give credibility to the proposed CONNECTION between evolution and religion. In my opinion there is as much connection there as there is between photo-synthesis and the Great Pumpkin.

Sorry, but yes it is. Evolution is as much a scientific fact as is gravity. There is overwhelming, substantive and objecitve evidence for both, with no credible alternative. While I can appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable in your description, you are still mischaracterizing the science.

You can only refer to microevolution as scientific fact. It follows the scientific method in that in can be observed in repeatable experiments. This accounts for genetic mutation, recombination and natural selection etc...

Macroevolution, or changes in anatomic design, speciation, and appearance of new flora or fauna, cannot be observed in repeatable experiements due to the time it would take for this to happen. It is not scientific fact.

Therefore, gravity, which can be observed in its entirety, is fully accepted as scientific fact, while evolution cannot be fully proven. To say that evolution is fully accepted is mischaracterizing scientific method.

I think that when it comes to the atheistic movement, Dawkins is too aggressive to be able to convince the religious fundamentalists of anything. When it comes to evolution though, he is very good at explaining it, as he should be since he is an evolutionary biologist. To not be convinced of atheism because of Dawkins is one thing but to not be convinced of evolution because of him is just plain foolishness. That shows that the person can't look past the preacher and actually judge the idea for what it is, which is not very admirable.

If one is to look at the actual evidence for the current theory of evolution that is based on Darwin's theory, one should see that it's pretty obvious that evolution is a fact.

Wonderingg, macroevolution is just microevolution over millions of years. Yes, the changes are slight and slow but millions of years of tiny incremental changes will ultimately form something completely different than what exised long ago. Why are there no bird fossils from the times of the dinosaurs?

Unfortunately you don't really understand evolution, or science. What you are quoting here is a Hovindism. It does not accurately reflect what evolution is.

Despite what the Creationists would have you think, evolution is a fact. There is no macro/micro evolution: if you knew what evolution was, you would know why.

And the "theory" of evolution jumps from microevolution to macroevolution. That is the very nature of the ideaology - it proposes to tell us why microevolution (which can be observed) logically leads to macroevolution. (which cannot be proven, but is the most logical conclusion based on the science of microevolution)

A better question to pose is not why there are no bird fossils from the time of dinosaurs, but rather, why bird fossils suddenly appear with no intermediate species in between.

Aside from the fact that every species is technically an intermediate species...

There are thousands of fossil species which fit the criteria that Creationists commonly give for "transitional species". Creationists simply ignore the fact that they have been informed of this time and again. If they acknowledged the existence of these 'transitional" fossils, they wouldn't be able to fool people like you with snazzy sounding slogans... Hovindisms.

Again, you are only quoting Hovindisms. You don't understand the concept, and so you don't realize how ridiculous your assertions are.

Witch:
Let's see is we can find some common ground here. While Mr. Hovind does use the terms micro and macroevolution (erroneously I might add)  he did not coin the terms nor the ideas. Macroevolution is widely accepted by the scientific community.

The modern definition of evolution is as follows:
Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool which are inherited from one generation to the next.
 

Agreed?

Scientific method:
A repeatable method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence subject to scientific principles of reasoning.

Agreed?

How then do we jump from simple gene mutation and recombination to entirely new species?

Quite a good film.  I've seen it before on The Discovery Channel, I believe.  It certainly illustrates that there are those that take their atheism seriously, very seriously and I have to admit I guess I do too.  But, while one guy featured in the film took to waving signs and handing out literature, they are rare.  I'm not interested in convincing everyone to believe what I believe and I don't think most atheists do: we simply don't care one way or the other.  At least, the vast majority of my atheist friends don't anyway.  I don't know of any atheist organizations, temples, meeting halls or clubs that get together every week, try to reaffirm our nonbelief or attempt to recruit new nonbelievers and even if I did, I wouldn't join one.  It simply doesn't matter to me if someone believes in god or fairies or unicorns or not.  As self-absorbed as it might sound, it only matters to me what I believe.

Atheists, like christians who, regardless of what denomination they subscribe to, are united by a common belief in god, don't all agree on everything.  These forums are evidence that christians of all stripes are not all on the same page.  Atheists are the same way.  For the most part though, atheists are not interested in converting believers into nonbelievers whereas christians are: it is integral to the survival of their church.  To atheists, I think, it has never mattered whether 'organized' atheism exists or not, considering it has survived for thousands of years without any formal structure.

Some, throughout history, took their atheism very seriously, others not as much, but throughout, it has endured and grown.  I suspect many 'believers' who attend church now, particularly in very religious countries, are actually atheists and only go through the motions of believing due to social and political expectations, maybe the fear of persecution and death, maybe simply because they don't want to appear different.

The difference that might matter most though is that even the most serious of atheists cannot be absolute atheists, because there remains, however unlikely, even the remotest possibility that god does exist, but there are absolute christians, muslims, etc. who believe with every fibre of their being that their god does exist and there is no possibility that he does not.

New evidence from China has just made your statement above completely wrong.

There is now a lot of fossil evidence of  'dinosaurs with feathers' that show intermediaries in the forms between dinosaurs and birds. They were likely gliders.

Unfortunately it's difficult to explain this to someone who doesn't understand the concept, or won't.

As I've pointed out before to others, ad nauseum, I don't understand why people like you, who wouldn't think to argue with a nuclear physicist about how much cadmium goes into a good fuel rod, somehow think themselves qualified to argue biology with biologists, even though biology is at least as complex a subject as is nuclear physics.

But I'll try to explain as succinctly as I can. Alelles determine traits. The only difference between species, families, orders, phylums etc, is the difference in traits.

If you change one allele, you get blonde or brunette.

If you change a few more alleles, you get oriental or caucasion.

If you change a few more alleles, you get Homo Sapiens or Homo Neanderthalis (genome recently mapped, yes they are a different species)

If you change a few more alleles, you get human or chimpanzee.

If you change a few more alleles, you get mammal or reptile.

If you change a few more alleles, you get chordate or annelid.

If you change a few more alleles, you get animal or protist.

Do you see where this is going? Change a few allels you chaange traits. Change enough trioats you change the animal. Given a few changes per millenia, all it takes is enough millenia aand you get.... well you get everything you see.

I also want to point out that in your quote of a definition of science, what consitutes "observable" is not what you want it to be. One does not have to see with one's eyes to observe. One can observe things that happend before one was born. Scientists have observed evolution, both prehistorically, and yes, even in our own timee we have observed the emergence of new species distinct from their ancestors. Of course the Creationsists also "forget: to mention that as well.

I do hope my limited explanation has helped you see the error in the Hovindism you chose to believe about micro/macro evolution. Unfortunatly, even this simple an explanation takes a long time and much effort to address, which is half the problem with Creationsist fallacies.

Creationsists are good at coming up with fancy, scientificish, one or two line "solgans" that the gullible and uneducated happily sslurp up and regurgitate on queue. properly dealing with thes Hovindisms take a lot of effort, and in the end, the next Creationsit sheep will only sspout the same thing. This is because Creationsist followers don't bother to take the time to do their own research. Research is hard... slogans are easy. So we keep finding ourselves going over the same old crap, time and again, ad nauseum, with peoplee wwho are unqualified to even begin to understand the basic concepts of Biology. I don't suppose you bothered to look through even the threads here on this board to find out how many tiems we've deaalt with this crap even here? No, I didn't think so. I guarantee in another month another Creationsist will come in here all proud and chest puffy, eager to bless us all with proof of how Biology is aall wrong.

So no, I am unwilling to go to all the trouble to give you an education in biology, so that you are at least marginally qualified to discuss the merits of evolutionary theory. If that is your goal, I suggest you get an education in biology first, and then we'll see. Until then, you might want to consider sticking to subjects you understand, and leave the science to biologist and nuclear physicists...

... unless, of course, you do feel qualified to build nuclear fuel control rods?

No?

Allllllllllrighty then.

Again, recent genetic evidence shows that evolution is not limited to gene mutation and recombination. Horizontal gene transfer between species (likely by viruses) means that speciation can occur much faster than was previously thought.

Gotta keep up with the news there, Wonderring,  if you want to make scientific arguments.

And as an evangelical, Wonderingg, which do you have more 'faith' in; the theory of evolution? or the biblical explanation?

Witch, you are right I didn't read the previous threads about this topic, but neither did you read my previous posts in this thread where I clearly explained that I am not a creationist. You seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions, like the fact that I don't understand anything about science, that I am a creationist, and I beleive you also called me a fool. Observable science I guess.

I understand very well the evolutionary theory and I'm not going to debate with you any more about it. The difference between you and I is that I am not arrogant enough to beleive that "scientific fact" is 100% true.  We are constantly re-examining proven science. I am not fragile enough for holes in a theory to shake my confidence, just like my acceptance of evolution doesn't shake my faith in God. Holes in a theory doesn't make it wrong it only means we don't know everything about it yet.

Oh, and as for nuclear control rods, if you're missing one, I think I might know where you stuck it...

Spockis:

Definitely the theory of evolution.

Good backpeddalling.

Wonderingg and others,

Please keep on topic. This thread was obviously for those moderate Christians and others who can except evolutionary theory. If you want to start a debate on the issue, please feel free to start another thread.

Not to be a pain in the butt, but I find this sort of debate tired and non-constructive. I've been in the shoes of an extreme creationist and I know that this discussion will go nowhere. Wonderingg, you are not going to convince anyone who has actually studied evolutionary theory nor are we going to convince you of anything. If you are actually interested in what proponents of evolutionary theory are saying I would recommend the following books in the following order:

1. The Language of God by Francis Collins (an evangelical)

2. Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (a Roman Catholic)

3. Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne

Aww. :(  I found "The Blind Watchmaker" to be an incredible book - well written and you can almost feel the man's joy and appreciation for the natural world. Certainly not the product of an ass.

I think you misunderstood me. Dawkins is an ass, but that's a good thing.

By throwing an ass in amongst the fundie sheep, some of them might actually begin to think for themselves. besides, why should all the good asses be in the fundie camp?

Back to the topic...

Do you think Dawkins is hurting the chances of scientific literacy in the USofA?

People will continuing smoking, despite the evidence that it is harmful. But there are a lot fewer smokers now.  It's a matter of consistent messaging and time. Dawkins provides the messaging; time provides the time.

As Spock has already mentioned, we have found the intermediate fossil.

It has the skeleton of a dinosaur and the sand that was compressed around it into a fossil was so fine that it was able to preserve the impressions of feathers. We know that dinosaurs evolved into birds because of this data, and much much more.

PBS Nova did a pretty good doc based on the new evidence last week. It was specifically about feathered dinosaurs.

Absence of evidence is rarely evidence of absence.

I'm going back to my original thought (sorry I got off track)

I think he is hurting scientific literacy in the USA compared to the good he could do because he is linking evolution with religion. With his penchant for God-bashing, he is going to turn a lot of moderate Christians against evolution because they'll feel they have to take a stand against him, and ergo, evolution.

He's going to force them to take up smoking, then?

That makes perfect sense. How did I miss that?  Maybe he hates waffles too. Time to buy stock in Eggo?

Well that is a good possibility. You do catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Dawkins can be a little tart sometimes.

Its funny, I never had a problem with science and religion.  As far back as I can remember, I studied about evolution.  I was fascinated by the dinosaurs, by cavemen, Neanderthal people, etc. as well as astronomy and the study of planets and stars, from elementary school onwards.  And I was also interested in my spiritual journey.  I never realized that I couldn't believe both until the last few years when Athiesto and a few others on this thread told me so.  I remember teaching evolution to 6 to 8 year olds in Sunday School with the approved UCC curriculum of the time:  Little drops of water, little grains of sand, make a mighty ocean and a pleasant land.  I brought in shells, feathers, twigs and other things from nature for the wonder table and talked about how the world developed.  This was back in the 1960s. 

Ummmm...  I can't keep my fingers still on this one.....  for anyone who does not know who "Dr." Kent Hovind is, go to http://www.drdino.com

This man was fired from being a school science teacher because of the foolishness he tried to pass off as science.  This man is an utter nutbag and is now in jail for tax evasion or fraud.....  something like that.

But I LIKE vinegar on my fries!  Sometime the 'truth' is simply the 'truth' and sugarcoating it is nothing but a temporary deception.

I think Dawkins is simply being honest. It's up to the moderates to decide what is more important to them, especially in the face of future political decisions.

I would like to point out with this documentary...  it points out that radical atheism takes the same traits as any radical religious beliefs.  The bold headed, narrow-sighted, think your an expert on the others beliefs because you are more "enlightened" way of thinking.

(if for some reason you see only html code below instead of a youtube video go to

You would have to be a complete twat to not believe in a scientific theory because you don't like one of the people who supports it. I would like to think that moderate Christians (and I guess people in general) are for the most part intelligent enough to know better than to judge an objective theory based on its supporters.