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

Hi WK,There are a couple of things in Dr Bakker's argument that I don't exactly agree with: This gives the impression that this isn't what is being strived for in the science class room, or that the evil atheists have got hold of our children in an attempt to take them away from their faith. No wonder Faith and Randman seem to think they have found a new poster boy (despite the fact that Bakker clearly denounces ID as unscientific).Now, this may be different in the States, but as far as I'm aware Prof. Dawkins and friends aren't setting the science sylabus in our schools and neither are they choosing the programes broadcast on TV. The harderned Evo-atheists may be a very vocal minority but they are just that: a minority.Unless it's changed drastically in the last few years, the vast majority of evolution teaching (in class-rooms, TV and books) goes nowhere near the place for faith or lack of it. Science teachers are teaching Science (or History of Science as Dr. Bakker puts it). Just because some people have trouble reconciling their faith with it doesn't change that fact.The reaction against ID is because it's not science, not because it is percieved to be Christian in nature. To single out 'smug' atheists as enemies of science is to play into the hands of the anti-evolutionists and their "Teach the Controversy" hog-wash. The reality at the moment is that 'anti-science' (ID) is trying to crowbar itself into science classes (which are supported by people of all faiths). Any possible anti-theist lobby has no-where near the same political clout or inclination to affect teaching policy - I certainly haven't heard about it.I agree with what I see as the basic premise of Dr. Bakker's statement: that learning the history of scientific discovery is a great way to teach science and that proper (and open) investigation of religious beliefs is healthy for society. The tone of the statement however echoes the rhetoric of IDists and even YECs - 'Atheist excess' indeed!The other thing I'm not so sure of (I may not have got my history quite right): Mmmmm. Just because Galileo was un-diplomatic doesn't mean that the church wasn't supressing non-Biblical astronomy. IIRC the church still ruled that Copernican teaching was false and forbid Galileo from holding such views. Sounds like suppression of ideas because they conflicted with church teachings to me.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 11-08-2005 10:30 AMThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 11-08-2005 10:33 AM

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.