Dr. Richard Dawkins : Wolf With False Teeth

Also, towards the end of the letter, the author implies that perhaps religion is a consequence of wrong traditional beliefs (Dawkins 247). He says that millions of people practice religion and believe in God only because they were told to do so when they were young and there is no evidence to support these beliefs. This bias adversely affects the credibility and effectiveness of the article. If the bias is so obviously visible, the reader will not be convinced by the arguments but instead will lose interest in the article and hesitate to believe anything the writer says. Thus, the writer should have been more professional and neutral in his writing and should have dealt with the opposition’s point of view more fairly. He should have given the opposition’s point of view some standing instead of rejecting it completely and given proper reasons for rejecting it instead of just discarding it due to bias. This would have made the article more effective in terms of getting the writer’s message across. Therefore, bias is a major flaw in this letter.

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

And so, as a conclusive demonstration, Drummond places the Bible and Darwin side-by-side, a symbol of the internal search for truth. His half-shrug and half-smile signal an acceptance of his own ignorance (Lawrence and Lee 2.2.79). Through Drummond’s actions, Inherit the Wind proves that a skeptical nature is far more valuable than mere

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

Dawkins proponent of Darwinism, claims that the world appears to be as if the world had a designer. He states that many Americans believe this illusion. Dawkin argues that when people see something that appears to be design they think it is evidence for design. He asserts that is the error creationist make. He argues that highly improbable thing exist in the world. He argues that people don’t understand such nonrandom cumulative ratcheting. They think natural selection is a theory of chance. He refutes the argument that there are gaps in fossil record indicating a gap in Darwinian account, stating such reasoning is no science. He claims some animals just don’t fossilize. He admits there are other hardships to accepting Darwinism such as the

What Richard Dawkins is trying to say in this piece of superb rhetoric is that if you’ve read the Old Testament that god is a horrendous monster. He regards the god of the Old Testament as the “worst character in all fiction” and when he says fiction it is an statement to show that he himself does not believe in a god. Dawkins says this as a way of introducing the point that he will be attacking the god of the Old Testament. If you look back in the bible God is directly responsible for many mass-murders. God orders the killing of innocent people like in the story of Noah’s ark even after the Ten Commandments says “Thou shall not kill”. Christians today are quick

In my opinion, his entire career represents an opportunity missed. Richard Dawkins is perfect science communicator in an era when one is sorely needed. Biological evolution is one of the most misunderstood ideas in our world. I think that opponents fail to understand it, but even those who are glad to say they believe it still do not really understand aspects of how it works. Moreover, it is seen as flawed by people when the flaws they have pounced on are errors in their own brain and not in the science they're criticizing.

Jonathan Kozol, one of the most zealous advocates of the idea, wrote a series of books, which depict below the critical school, where children from poor, mostly belonging to national minorities families, teaching staff consists of an inexperienced youth, and indifferent to their cause losers who care only about maintaining discipline, stimulating the imagination of children are neglected. Kozol points out that

Faith can present an opportunity to disregard continuing to grow in knowledge about the intellectual side of a religion, which has a negative effect if believers in faith actively participate in this. Plenty of information can be discussed about Christianity, but if faith and believing in God is the only argument a religion can make, that religion will not have any way to defend itself intellectually and factually. Dawkins states that "People lean on their faith as a crutch", which can be a correct statement in certain religious situations. The idea of faith should not be overused in conversations with stubborn atheists for instance, like Richard Dawkins, who will deny faith and ask what proof there is for the God and religious beliefs that faith is applied to. In replacement of faith and religion, Dawkins believes in "an initial stroke of luck" that created the universe, as stated in the book "True

Opposing claims have to be addressed in any argument so that the amount of questions on the argument are minimized. In the Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins is forced to address a variety of creationist critiques of evolution. The author presents opposing claims in two ways. He does it either directly or indirectly. Directly meaning he says it out right and indirectly meaning it is up to the reader to infer the subclaim he is arguing against. The author also never concedes an opposing claim. The way he addresses them is either by clarifying a concept or actually arguing against it. Analyzing the book, one can see how the author introduces and addresses opposing claims.

Therefore, Christians are conflicted about how to live in a secular culture. Pearcey asserts that truths found in the bible should have a huge influence on us, and we have a duty to follow them. Her main thesis is that today we view science as binding, while faith is not, and that God can be whatever we want him to be. However, Pearcey aims to prove that the total and absolute truth of reality is Christianity, hence the title of her book, and there is no reality that disproves Christianity.

The stupidity of people amazes me. This is not to say that I am the smartest person or anything but it still seems like adults, some having obtained several college degrees, would stop to think before they opened their mouths. That these ‘geniuses’ would put down their own personal views and beliefs long enough to see the clear and logical answer. Instead, they are clouded by their ingrained thought and thus cannot give an unbiased opinion. Julius R. Oppenheimer is a perfect example. This exemplary theoretical physicist and scholar was man was quoted by theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer as saying: “Christianity is just a person’s personal belief, while modern science is a fact. Christians should not press their beliefs upon their society.” I cannot begin to state how much this statement boggles my mind. He not only states that his personal beliefs or lack thereof, are proof against Christianity but that the unproven scientific theories that he holds are fact. The argument here is not against his beliefs but against his unwaveringness towards those of others.

Lennox is a true Christian who believes in a creator, but he doesn’t see God just as a massive force, but as a person. He believes that we are created in his image. Lennox believes the opposite of Dawkins, stating that evolution is a guided process and that atheists like Dawkins tries to deny that by telling us that we have evolution (a perfect mechanism) which works fine without guidance (God). Lennox thus believes that God and science shouldn’t be separated, but that they are relative to one another. One of his main arguments is that he cannot believe that the mind and consciousness came to be without the design of a creator. He questions Dawkins on his morale behaviour and what kind of justice their thus is in this world. He therefor states that life serves no purpose without religion or God. He also states that he believes in Christ even when his resurrection defies the laws of mathematics and science.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want