Creationists and Dawkins Agree: Science Rules Religion

[rug]

January 11, 2012 12:14PM
Post by Paul Wallace

Odd as it sounds, opponents of evolution have often managed to make science the arbiter of belief. Case in point:

Just in time for yesterday’s New Hampshire primary some decidedly right-leaning legislation has been introduced, highlighted by Michael Zimmerman. Both bills are decidedly anti-science, but while the first is a standard piece of teach-the-controversy-it’s-only-a-theory legislation, the second is something else again. It would require science teachers to address scientists’ “political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.”

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Jerry Bergevin, explained:

I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented. It’s a worldview and it’s godless. Atheism has been tried in various societies, and they’ve been pretty criminal domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: they don’t respect human rights. As a general court we should be concerned with criminal ideas like this and how we are teaching it... Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution. That’s evidence right there.

Zimmerman does an admirable job pointing out the problems with Bergevin’s bizarre proposal, so I’ll merely suggest, as I noted above, that this thinking only makes sense if science is held up as the arbiter of all belief—including religious belief. Which is strange coming from one as ostensibly religious as Bergevin. But there it is.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/5560/creationists_and_dawkins_agree%3A_science_rules_religion/

[immoderate]

1. There will always be an assymmetry...

Debates, discussions, etc. are based on rational discourse. Lends itself nicely to the atheist (rational) point of view vs. the religious. It's not an even fight. The religious POV is left to account for phenomena that aren't there.

--imm

[AlbertCat]

2. Creationists and Dawkins Agree: Science Rules Religion

The headline is nonsense. What does it even mean? "rules religion"?

I doubt Dawkins would think science "rules" religion... especially since science requires empirical evidence, testing, replication of testing, and reason guiding all of that, and religion does not require any of it. How does any of that (empirical evidence, testing, replication of testing and reason) play into what is required by religion?

This is just stupid.

[rug]

3. It refers to the usual argument that religious claims cannot be demonstrated scientifically.

It posits that creationists are buying into that argument by claiming science, not just religious belief, demonstrates creationism.

Ergo, the final arbiter of both science and religion is the scientific method.

[deacon_sephiroth]

4. the scientific method.......

This was a wholely ridiculous article from start to finish.

The author doesn't seem to agree with the raving right-wing lunatic that's ONCE AGAIN trying to legislate his theocracy into schools to indoctrinate children against one of the most proven, reliable, demonstratable, and widely accepted theories ON THE PLANET... but he seems to disagree with him only because there's too much science in it??? science?

"Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution. That’s evidence right there."

EVIDENCE! SCIENCE! YEAH! (what a crock of shit)

Then the author cowardly sidesteps addressing what a fucknut Republican Jerry Bergevin is for spouting this disgusting, hateful, drivel.

and for his final act he'll pull a rabbit out a hat and put his head up his ass at the same time, by trying to be funny about a Dawknis quote, using hokey Sarah Palin talk and saying nothing at all... pathetic, I really wish I had my two minutes back.

[rug]

5. I agree applying the scientific method to religion is wholly ridiculous.