Dawkins makes it very clear that christians that accept evolution are deluded. He says it again and again.
Yeah. What if he’s right?
Of the creationist and ID talks I've sat through Dawkins is quoted way more than any biblical figure. His comments about deluded evolutionary christians are their biggest recruiting tool.
How does this work, do you think? Or, why
does it work? If it really does.
The very last issue the BCSE was involved in, last week, was in a faith school. Would Dawkins really have been able to deal with that without raising other issues.
He has done, in the past. But whether he would or wouldn’t isn’t a point that particularly interests me. I’m interested in the wider point of what neutrality means for an organisation like the BCSE.
If you want to know why I'm angry go take a look at the Jerry Coyne blog about this. There is no obvious argument that I can see just a lot of personal abuse, mainly directed at Roger. As for the new atheists, they haven't really been criticised here to my knowledge.
They have now!
I don't understand what you or they mean by religious neutrality-other than don't ever mention religion.
I thought I’d been tolerably clear what I meant, at least. And it’s not “don’t mention religion”. Creationism, after all, is usually a religious position. You can’t avoid the question.
My view is that “neutrality” means that you shouldn’t take sides between atheists and theists.
“Pro-evolution” theists will usually nevertheless insist on a creative force involved either to get evolution going or to direct it, or both. Evolutionary theists may even use evolutionary science as evidence of the glory of their God. Atheists will obviously think all of that is completely mistaken and, perhaps, delusory. In the absence of a clear knock-down argument, either position may be rational and legitimate.
I simply say that, given this is all arguable, it shouldn’t be the BCSE’s role to say “these atheists are utterly wrong.” Why are those atheists more wrong than evolutionary theists?
In my opinion knowledge is power and if i've picked up from here how some christian or other has dealt with evolution and i'm faced with some fundie saying Dawkins says you can't accept it I can actually jump in and correct it.
“Correct it”? How on earth do you “correct” it? Presumably you just disagree with him.
Might a better response to Christians who tell people, “Dawkins says you can’t be an evolutionist and a Christian” is to say, “Yes, that’s his view. Other people have other views. You should think for yourself. Here’s what the science says. Again.”
Come on: whether fundamentalists say “the Bible says you can’t be an evolutionist” or they say “Richard Dawkins says you can’t be an evolutionist” it’s all the same fallacious argument from authority. Why not point that out instead of wading into theology?
And I have done so to protect a confused friend who wants to stay religious and wants to accept evolution but if pushed will choose religion.
I don’t have a problem with your priority being to win acceptance of evolution. I can respect that. I'm not sure if it's what I would do, since I've not been in that situation. But I wouldn't attack you for it in the abstract or without knowing the details of the cricumstances.
If the 'new atheists' tear the BCSE apart which is I suspect their aim than it is my kids that will be left unprotected!!!!
It’s not in their power to tear the BCSE apart, I wouldn’t have thought, since it appears they’ve not had much involvement anyway. All that would happen is that they won’t support you, or, if you like, will continue not to support you. Oh, and they’ll probably continue sniping. Given all the burned bridges, I think you’re going to have to live with that.
Because as far as I can see as new atheists they haven't actually achieved anything but pages of vitriolic rantings. And nothing gets achieved by that.
I don’t happen to agree with the characterisation, or with the implication, either way. But again, whether the new atheists have achieved anything, or indeed are completely counter-productive, is neither here nor there to the issue of what neutrality means.