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

WK, Granted. I appreciate that his audience at the time were expecting comments on Dawkins. But my problems with the tone of the statement still stand, and are really two fold:1. He's still blowing up the 'anti-theist' enemy out of all proportion and giving credence to the view held by creationists of all creeds that the teaching of evolution is an atheist agenda. Despite obviously being pro-evolution and anti-ID he gives them ammunition when he says things like this: Can anyone from the States present evidence that public money has been used to promote atheism in schools? The second statement is particularly annoying and echoes arguments we've seen around here about the social 'Evils' of Darwinism.And he misses the point completely when he asserts that: As if armies of Atheists all over the states are pushing to have stickers "this book contains theories that show that the only honest philosphy is atheism" put on science books. I would argue that the opposite is true: the 'smug' comments of some die-hard atheists are a direct reaction to the 'righteous' actions of some Christian fundamentalists.2. He doesn't stress the correctness of evolutionary theory enough. Yes, he obviously accepts it - but for all of his attacks on Dawkin's smugness, not once does he tackle the actual arguments. This may be a result of editing to keep the story succinct, or the fact that it is just a cut and paste thing. It still effects the tone of the piece.Apologies if this is preaching to the choir.

Is Robert related to Jim and Tammy Faye? Not that there`s anything wrong with that-------------

Hi RAZDThanks for your thoughtful reply and your kind welcome. I did actually delurk a couple of weeks ago by starting a thread in the biological evolution forum here about the species definition. Thanks also for your link to 'Project Steve', but as I mentioned in the thread referred to above, I've 'been there, done it, got the T-shirt' (literally). I am also the proud 'co-author', along with Stephen Hawking and a couple of Nobel Prize laureates, of a paper entitled The Morphology of Steve. Great fun!Concerning your two Dawkins quotations, I'm afraid to say that I agree wholeheartedly with him. The first just reiterates the problem many people (including, I know from experience, some Christians) have with reconciling the concept of a loving, caring God with the abject misery caused by such things as the recent Tsunami catastrophe. Some of my religious friends told me that they had a big problem with this one and basically had to fall back on the 'ours is not to question the ways of the Lord' excuse. The second quotation suggests that '...a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils..'. I can see how that might be an affront to those who are religious, but from my point of view, I think that 'a case' can indeed be made. It's difficult to deny that some of the 'evil' in this world (i.e death, suffering, murder, war etc) stems from faith and it's also undeniable that many people derive a lot of comfort and happiness from their faith. I would contend, however, that although losing one's faith could bring misery, it is quite possible to be happy and content if one never had it in the first place. I could make a semi-serious and flippant analogy to tobacco addiction: smokers who try to quit are quite miserable, but those that never smoked in the first place are quite happy without cigarettes. The end result of faith, compared to a world where faith never existed in the first place, might therefore indeed be negative. Anyway, to get back to the main point, I don't see how these quotes from Dawkins constitute cases of '.... comments that are not justified by the facts', but this might be just my rose-tinted spectacles at work.I must disagree with two of your other comments. The first because I consider the only logically valid position given the absence of evidence (and yes, I know that this does not constitute evidence of absence) for God is to assume that he/she/it does not exist. I similarly 'reject' the existence of fairies, ghosts, telekenesis etc. However, if strong evidence of God's existence came to light, I would accept it. In other words, I don't 'believe that God is impossible', I just don't think that there is any evidence for the God Hypothesis. I doubt very much that you are agnostic with regard to Invisible Pink Unicorns (may Her hooves never be shod) or Flying Spaghetti Monsters — am I right? Again, I must beg to differ. I think that our perception of how the universe works should be based on evidence (plus logic etc.). We don't actually know how likely it is that life will arise under any given conditions (I suspect that it is very common in the universe), but as you say, it has happened at least once, showing it to be some degree of likelihood and not impossible. This one occurrence has not been demonstrated for God, though, which in my mind relegates Him to the realm of Invisible Pink Unicorns (not impossible but very unlikely). If, by agnostic, you mean that science should not totally reject something as being impossible without proof that it is indeed impossible, then I would agree wholeheartedly (and I am a scientist, by the way). If, however, you mean that all hypotheses not proven to be false should be treated equally seriously, then I must strongly and vehemently disagree. There is a spectrum of possible explanations for most phenomena ranging from 'almost certainly true' (e.g. evolution) to 'patently ridiculous' (e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some ideas do not merit serious consideration, even if there is no direct proof that they are false. I personally rank God along with the FSM in terms of 'likelihood of being true' and you apparently have a different ranking system, which is fine. I personally think that your approach is not very reasonable, but I'm happy to 'agree to differ'. After all, I am a Dawkins-like militant atheist .Thanks again for your feedback. This is all most enjoyable, I must say!CheersSteveN

Well that is kind of a "You are just too thin skinned; don't be so defensive" approach. While it is true that some people are too thin skinned and defensive when their positions are contradicted, labels and stereotyping are generally not helpful in promoting healthy debate. Obviously it is necessary to have SOME way of distinguishing the various positions of people - but it can be done in a respectful manner. Anyway the point is to focus on the argument, not individuals or groups of individuals. If we find ourselves generalizing about whole groups of people or trying to fit someone into a particular group, we are probably going to offend someone. And that will limit rather than enhance debate.

Truly, I don't take "evo" or "creo" to be insults, just shorthand, and I even accept "fundy" as shorthand to describe my own beliefs. But IIRC (I'll have to check) I was also being sarcastic in the post you criticized or offensive in some other way, and I accept the criticism for that. Also, if it really is true that people find the shorthand words offensive, I'm happy to stop them also.

I think there is a big difference between a "label" that is shorthand and one that is {derisive\divisive\derogatory}evo and creo are shorthand, and bear no further burden than the words they stand for. otherwise {evolutionists} and {creationist} are equally insulting.fundie can be a little touchy in this regard, as it has acquired an overtone of {ignorant bible thumper} as opposed to being a pure shorthand for {fundamentalist}, and yet this tone is equally applicable to {fundamentalist}, and is based on the experience, which is what I meant when I said "if they are distasteful they are distasteful because of associations with certain positions that come with the categories (the baggage that comes along) and not because the term was originally intended to be insulting.""flat-earther" is normally seen as an insult these days, while YECist is not, and yet there is just as much evidence that the earth is millions of years old as there is that it orbits the sun (and it is more accessible to the average person).I think a bigger problem (on both sides) is misrepresenting someone's argument and then saying "you {insert label here} are all alike" when the problem is not the label but the false argument.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I keep waiting for a Steve N. Stevens, but that is just me. Therefore you have proof that every faith is always evil? Or does this only apply to some faiths? If it only applies to some then it is overstated.Can you point to actual acts of evil that come from the teachings of each and every religion? We can agree that some acts of evil have resulted from some religious views. We can also agree that some acts of evil have resulted from some secular views. Does faith really distinguish one from the other? Or is the fault that of people blindly following the lead of {others\leaders\interpretations} without applying logic and reason? Here he falsely attributes his perceptions to those of faith, and portrays them inaccurately. Again, can you show that this applies to all religions and faiths? It is really enlightening to see someone demonizing the views of others.I could have chosen other quotes, but thought that these two were sufficient. I have already said before that I choose to not believe in such easily fabricated concepts, but that this does not mean that they cannot exist. The difference is in knowing what you choose to believe and distinguishing that from what you know.It seems you are equivocating on the {god\atheism} issue: This position is fine with me: it acknowledges that it is an assumed belief and not based on facts. That is not different from my position. Basing any probability calculation on a set of (1) is pointless regardless of the concept behind the calculation. No? How can you demonstrate the total lack of any hand of any god? It seems to me that you are using the assumption of a lack as evidence of a lack. How do you know that the one known (to us) instance of life in the universe is not the result? I specifically meant about faith. Science is based on facts, faith is based on beliefs. They are not the same. One deals with how life happens, the other with why life happens. Understanding how does not answer the question of why.Science, virtually by definition, cannot evaluate the {existence\non-existence} of supernatural {beings\actions}, absent overt demonstration of godhead (which I personally doubt), it cannot determine {why} ... and as such logically has to be and remain agnostic.Science is normally skeptical of all unvalidated concepts, basically holding a {wait until the evidence is in before judging} position. Being agnostic is no different in that regard. That would be ridiculous. There is a big difference between not ruling out unproven theories and giving each idea ever conceived equal weight. Ideas like pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are obviously designed to be disbelieved and are not put forward as any explanation of any part of existence but to ridicule a position of others. As such they are strawman arguments, unworthy of much thought. But your position noted above apparently belies that. It appears you are choosing an atheistic belief, knowing it is belief and not fact.I choose a Deist belief, that includes a belief that understanding the universe as it is and as it behaves by the natural rules is the best way to understand the {how} of "life, the universe, and (oh) everything" (Douglas Adams).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi RAZDThanks again for your thoughtful reply. I see now what your point of view is. I was making the same mistake that Dawkins is apparently making in using the term 'faith' to refer to religions such as Christianity and Islam. I'm afraid my knowledge of Zen and Buddhism (looking at your sig) is virtually zero so yes, the statement may be a little overstated. However, he doesn't say (and neither do I) that faith is always evil or that those with faith are evil people - because the vast majority are certainly the opposite of evil. It's the fact that faith can drive people to do evil or to justify evil that he is referring to. I do agree, however, that he could have worded it in a more precise fashion. I don't think that's really a fair interpretation of what he wrote. He says 'I thought believers might be disillusioned...', i.e. from his (logical) point of view, he would expect believers in an omnipotent and benevolent God to be troubled by the implications of the Tsunami catastrophe. This was certainly true for a number of my religious friends, so I don't see this as an inaccurate portrayal.From the rest of your post, some of which I agree with and some with which I am going to have to agree to disagree, I have the impression that you may misunderstand the basis of my atheism. I did not actively choose to disbelieve in one or more of the many Gods that Mankind has worshipped throught the ages. I just don't see any reason for believing in any of them. I agree that the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are deliberate parodies of religious belief, but I could have just as easily substituted Odin, Zeus, Ra {snip list of over 1000 Gods} and made the same point. 'Absence of belief' is not the same as 'belief in absence' and so I do disagree quite strongly with your perception that atheism is just another belief system with no better basis than religion. You might be falling into the same trap that you accuse Dawkins of falling into: of falsely attributing your perceptions to those without faith Anyway, I enjoyed hearing your point of view and I have learned from it. I don't actually think that you have demonstrated Dawkins to have made 'comments not justified by the facts' but I agree that he could be a little more precise in making his points. Our viewpoints (I really don't like the word 'belief') don't appear to be so very different: I'm quite happy in a universe without Gods, you prefer one started by a non-interacting creator - which in practical terms amounts to the same thing, I think.Cheers!SteveN{Edited to correct typos}This message has been edited by SteveN, Sun, 14-08-2005 12:22 PM

Thanks again. yes, most anti-theistic statements seem to fixate on the more mainstream and vocal religions, particularly the more vocal elements within them (ie fundamentalists) in part because they make themselves easy targets. It's a fact that firmly held beliefs can drive people to do evil etcetera. -- this is not necessarily limited to only people of faith.Firmly held beliefs in the free-market system have resulted in evil acts: one need only look at some of the more nefarious actions of the US in foreign relations in certain countries to see that. Firmly held beliefs in the socialist system have also resulted in evil. Firmly held beliefs of despotic dictators in their personal right ... I think you get the picture. This is painting with a broad brush. There are many of the Christian faith even who believe in a naturalistic world where Tsunami are just one more effect of tectonic plate geology no different from an atheists view. Could you? Perhaps our understanding of God has grown with time and our own ability to understand the natural world, that these earlier "incarnations" were due to our frail human misunderstanding (and inability to understand), but that the essence behind all religious views remains the same. Only our meager perception has changed. Even the monolithic religions have evolved from pantheonistic ones. As our understanding evolves so too would the "image" we can "see." Cute. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either (I think you noted that earlier), so to go from an absence of evidence to a view that god is absent is making a conclusion based on belief: I took the first comments in each article that I felt applied, rather than make a "study" of them, as it seemed to me they made the case. Mea culpa. However I note you also said: "so yes, the statement may be a little overstated" and "I agree that he could be a little more precise in making his points" so I think you can see where I am coming from. I would be surprised otherwise.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ps -- found this article while looking up another topic:
SCIENCE AND RELIGION by Derek Bickerton: and that fits my {science must be agnostic} position. He also takes a dig at Dawkins: So it's not just me, eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No. I googled him and read some articles. He is a Pentacostal preacher and serious about it. As such, he's a fundamentalist in the broader sense of the word.I found it interesting that a fundie would be so influential within paleontology. He's not a YECer, but I haven't heard his reasons on the science side for why he isn't.

Looks more to me like since he wasn't challenging the ToE overall, they were willing to be open-minded enough to listen.

Maybe he's not an IDer. I said that based on what an evo said here on this board and the fact he is a fundamentalist preacher.In terms of the evidence, I could be convinced ToE is true. It's not for this thread so I won't go into detail, but just show me an equal percentage of transitional fossils for something like the land mammal to whale evolution or reptile to mammal than the percentage of current mammal families represented in the fossil record, or a good approximation based on statistical and other analyses, and I would probably accept ToE.Since I don't see it, and due to many overstatements, etc,...evos rely on, I don't accept ToE.

What you have here, whether you are seeing it or not, is a refutation of your pet hypothesis of a vast, evil, atheistic conspiracy to inflict evolution lies on people. The reason you are so {{{stunned}}} by an actual Pentacostal preacher being admitted into the dank halls of the evil prevaricating evolutionist scientists is because you were (falsely) certain those halls were closed to people of faith and only open to those who willingly, blindly falsified the information in order to support evolution.This is now obviously not true.Now you are looking for ways to equivocate around this fact by lessening his {perceived influence} so that he can be a "token creationist scientist" or some such nonsense. Make no bones about it (sorry), but Baker is a shaker () in theories of evolution, especially in such things as hot-blooded dinosaurs, that turned previous conceptions around and re-wrote whole chapters on the evolution of life on planet earth. "... Galloping Goalposts and I'll believe it, I'll believe the moon is made of cheese, I'll believe it, honest I will ...." (with apologies to Charlie Brown and Schultz)Hmmm, why not stop all your other posts and start this thread? It could be your most productive effort on this board. Then we can judge the truth of your statement by the evidence of actions.Enjoy.PS -- see Message 70 and read the whole article linked there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Uh,....wrong there buddy. Never said that evo was closed to people of faith and never believed that. There are prominent evos that bash people of faith though.No, what I believe and have said is that evolutionists treat ToE as a faith-based ideology, and as such are not open-minded towards those that reject their evolutionist faith.In terms of starting threads, I have done so. You are basically just lying about my character without any evidence, and that's basically part of the evolutionist faith.Evos generally don't believe an open-minded, intelligent and reasonable person could reject their evolutionist faith based on the evidence, which is why people like continually lie about why others reject ToE. It is inconceivable to you that others can view the evidence as being against ToE so you don't even give them a proper hearing, and as such, evolutionists are generally very close-minded people on this subject.This message has been edited by randman, 08-15-2005 01:11 AM