Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[...]
> Dawkins is an extraordinary arrogant man,
I agree that he is arrogant (a.k.a. doesn't suffer fools gladly -- good on him!), but I don't see what is so extraordinary about him -- there are many, many people who express similar opinions in similar ways; they just don't get as much media exposure.
> People should be encouraged to look at both sides
> of any argument or view, not rudely told that
> there view is wrong.
Nonsense. If something is wrong, it is wrong. People should not be encouraged to give any credence to, or waste any time considering, an argument that is patently obviously wrong. It doesn't have to be rude (although it gets difficult for some of us to remain polite with adults who repeatedly choose to ignore evidence and reason), but if something is wrong, the best approaches are either (a) to tell someone
that it is wrong and
why it is wrong, or (b) use a Socratic approach to enable him to establish it for himself; it is disrespectful of another human being to waste his time with the "all views deserve equal consideration" inanity. A possible exception is when one is examining a erroneous position in order to understand how erroneous positions are so prevalent.
> He manages to put the
> public off before he's hardly said anything.
I don't understand -- precisely how are you proposing that he manages to do it
before he speaks)?
>
> I consistently fail to see why it has to be
> Evolution or Creationism. Nothing in Life is black
> and white; it's all a great swirling sea of
> multitudinous shades of grey.
Nonsense. Many, many things are "black or white"; it is fallacious to pretend that, just because
some things cannot be absolute that
all things cannot be absolute.
> So why does the explanation of the origin of Life
> have to be so black or white, so Creation or
> Evolution?
> Surely there can be a theoretical middle ground?
No, there can not. There is exactly zero evidence for creationism, so there is exactly zero reason to give it any credence. By debating with creationists, one dignifies their logically and morally bankrupt arguments. The scientists mentioned in the OP were exactly right with their approach.
>
> And let's not forget that the world of Science,
> too, has its equivalent of 'fundamentalists'
> (well, there's Dawkins, for a start...).
It is very revealing that every comment you have made about Dawkins in this thread has been
argumentum ad hominem (i.e. you have concentrated on what you appear to consider to be his negative personal traits) and that you have conspicuously failed to take even one of his arguments or statements and attempted to demonstrate any flaw in it. You have also failed to give a single reason why creationism should be given any credence. Given that, can you give any reason why anyone should assume that you are interested in reasoned debate and not merely in character assassination and promulgation of blatant nonsense?
--
Stephen
