Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski

From: MikeBGene@aol.com
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 11:35:06 EST

  • Next message: Huxter4441@aol.com: "ARN board..."

    In a message dated 3/19/00 3:22:02 AM Dateline Standard Time,
    tich@primex.co.uk writes:

    << Dembski writes:
    >Daniel Dennett even recommends
    >"quarantining" parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism
    >(see the end of his *Darwin's Dangerous Idea*).
     
     Dembski has here conflated ideas from two paragraphs, and created a meaning
     which is expressed by neither of them. So you can judge for yourselves, here
     are the two consecutive paragraphs in full:
     
     "We should not expect this variety of respect [for religions] to be
     satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with our
     attentive--but not worshipful--scholarship. On the contrary, many of them
     will view anything other than enthusiastic conversion to their own views as
     a threat, even an intolerable threat. We must not underestimate the
     suffering such confrontations cause. To watch, to have to participate in,
     the contraction or evaporation of beloved features of one's heritage is a
     pain only our species can experience, and surely few pains could be more
     terrible. But we have no reasonable alternative, and those whose visions
     dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have
     to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage, trying always
     to open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable.
     
     "If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had
     better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand
     firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no special glory, no intrinisic and
     inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods--that
     the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural
     selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who
     have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the
     spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your
     children at the earliest opportunity. Our future well-being--the well-being
     of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of out descendants.">>

    I must confess that I fail to see how this was a mis-quote. Dennetts words
    drip
    with know-it-all arrogance, to the point where he does assert that we should
    quarantine, the best we can, those who "cannot peacefully coexist" with his
    personal metaphysics. Imagine if a Christian wrote those very paragraphs and
    was
    talking about members of another religion. He then plans to use "free
    speech" to
    demonstrate (through education) to the children of religious people their
    "falsehoods" (which from his perspctive, includes the belief "God exists").
    This can easily be interpreted as part of the quarantine plan.

    I suppose you could interpret these paragraphs such that Dembski misquotes
    Dennett, but then it's all a matter of interpretation.

    The really interesting thing is that Dennett is so convinced by his own biases
    and philosophy that he actually thinks the evolution of Man *by natural
    selection*
    is a fact. Too bad Dennett wasn't posting here, as I'd like him to provide
    the
    evidence that it was indeed natural selection that evolved the rather long
    series of biological features that led to human beings. If he couldn't do
    this (and he
    wouldn't be able to), I'd like him to explain why his education is not in
    fact indoctrination.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 11:35:43 EST