Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Dawkins the blasphemer against his own religion of scientism

A group of 30 leading academics, including Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough, have signed a statement calling for legal action to prevent creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. The statement, and the attitude of Dawkins new book, raises concerns about the future of science. The statement on the website http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/ [1] reads as follows.

'Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

The current government guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science should be made statutory and enforceable. It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.
But this is not enough. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.'

This campaign is supported by the British Humanist Association and a group calling itself Ekklesia, masquerading as a Christian think tank.

This is blasphemy. Dawkins habitually uses the phrase ‘teaching creationism’ when he means ‘questioning evolutionism’. He is nowhere near as clever as he likes to portray himself, but he is clever enough to realise that a deadly new attack is gaining ground against his beloved Darwin mythos. He simply cannot allow this. But for him to come out and say ‘The Darwinian evolutionism is a settled scientific consensus which may not be questioned, however much new evidence there is against it’ is, as he well knows, blasphemy against his religion of scientistic materialism.

For example, when challenged to debate with Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell and an Oxbridge science PhD just the same as Dawkins, when both men were in book tours in the US recently, he refused. He said this was because Meyer was a creationist. Bollocks. Meyer is not a creationist and his book deals with mathematical arguments against the belief that DNA could have created itself. Dawkins cannot counter Meyer’s scientific arguments, so he transforms them (in his rhetorical imagination) into ‘creationism’ so they can be dispensed with without any intellectual effort. Eugenie Scott is quoted by Meyer in the above book using exactly the same trick to avoid answering (or rather, failing to be able to answer) inconvenient questions. Effectively, she says ‘You are a Christian therefore any argument you make against Darwinism is BY DEFINITION religious and therefore need not be considered.’ The idea that the reverse might be true, that Darwinism receives special status and freedom from questioning since it is foundational to atheist belief, is not put.

So, by trying to use the power of the law to silence dissent on a matter of science, and refusing to acknowledge scientific arguments which he cannot answer, Dawkins proves himself an inquisitor, obscurantist, dogmatic, intolerant and FRIGHTENED hypocrite. No wonder he refuses debates unless he has carefully selected the ground and the terms.

Think about it. Dawkins, in the name of science, is trying to use the power of the law to silence free enquiry and prevent something that is called a scientific theory from being tested. Why is this not creating a scandal?
When the day comes for him to give account before a just Creator God, I believe Jesus will rightly say on that day

'I will condemn you out of your own mouth.'

1 comment:

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.