Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

I think arach was wondering whether this particular poster is really the famous paleontologist or just some clown who chose the name of the world famous paleontologist.None of the admins have expressed skepticism; is this an indication that they have reason to believe this new member is who he claims he is?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 10-Aug-2005 03:51 PM

Thanks, Faith and jar. I confess that I haven't been reading the moderation thread since it became a forum for members to complain about other members.And I will add to the chorus of people exclaiming how happy we are that such an eminent person would drop in here.Now for the post itself.First, let me remind people that I used to be a fundamentalist, and not only that but I occassionally read the AiG website. Nothing that Dawkins says about Christians is very different than what some Christians, even prominent Christians, say about evolutionists or atheists. This, of course, isn't a defense of Dawkins -- two wrongs rarely make a right -- but I think it does help put things into perspective. Another thing is to remember that there is a small sect of Christians who wish to legislate their morality and religious expressions onto other people -- it is entirely understandable that this would lead to a backlash, as regrettable as it is. Again, this isn't a defense of Dawkins since he is British and only remotely affected by this almost uniquely American phenomenon.That said, I do find it regrettable that Dawkins seems to have contempt for people who have an explicit set of spiritual beliefs. (By the way, I am only going on quotes that other people have posted -- I haven't read much of Dawkins' work myself, and I haven't read anything directly that indicates that he has this contempt. If this view of Dawkins is inaccurate, then I apologize and will state that I am speaking of the type of person that is being represented here.)On the other hand, there are certain type of beliefs that I have trouble feeling any respect for. One is when a person is so committed to any particular belief or set of beliefs that they simply will not or cannot learn anything new. In the worst possible case, this type of person is unable to even read anything without distorting it in their mind, and so not be able to even understand what the point is.The other type is when a person allows another person or institution to be the final authority on what is allowed belief. That a fallible human or human institution can possible be said to be the final word on the divine seems incredible to me.But this should lead to a blanket condemnation of all Christianity, or even all modes of spiritual belief.

quote:

---

And did you mean to say the following or did you leave out a "not?"

​

But this should lead to a blanket condemnation of all Christianity, or even all modes of spiritual belief.

---

Oops. Yep, you caught it before I could correct it, heh. And "or even" should really be "and certainly not" (since Christianity is a proper subset of all modes of spiritual belief).

quote:

---

We athiests can provide provide evidence that strongly supports evolution and the fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

---

Yes, we atheists can. So can those Christians. In fact, the evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution describes the history of life on earth is independent of the beliefs held by the person. That is why so many Christians accept the theory of evolution.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)