Did you know that so-called "new atheists" are to blame for how many people in America refuse to accept evolution and other scientific conclusions? Funny how this hasn't happened elsewhere that new atheists exist. It's also funny how the rates of acceptance of evolution, global warming, and other science was just as low if not lower before new atheists appeared.
So what's the connection, exactly? Who knows -- it appears to exist no where but in the fevered imagination of William Reville, associate professor in Biochemistry at University College Cork. He doesn't appear to know anything about religion and politics in America, but that doesn't stop him from giving advice to those who do.
Creationism undoubtedly contributes to the high fraction of the population that does not believe in evolution. However, the situation is also exacerbated by the extremely aggressive campaign against religion being waged by the New Atheists, led by Richard Dawkins. This movement is the flip-side of the fundamentalist coin to creationism.
Source: Irish Times
Creationism merely "contributes" to Evolution Denial in America? That's an unambiguous demonstration that William Reville hasn't the slightest idea of what's going on in America or the history of evolution in America. It wouldn't be too hard to learn, but apparently it was too much work for Reville to do before writing on the subject.
If the so-called "new atheists" really were responsible for the problems, or even "exacerbating" the situation, then there would be a clear decline in acceptance of evolution in the years since new atheists started publishing and speaking. Is that what we find? No, if anything we find just the opposite: that acceptance of natural evolution is getting better and large numbers of Americans say that it's possible to believe in God and evolution.
So William Reville is unable to offer any actual facts to support his claims (not that he bothers trying) while a review of facts reveals that at best the data is neutral, but likely contracts Reville's position. This suggests very strongly that Reville is completely uninterested in facts or reality -- that he's just a crass ideologue who is pushing an personal agenda, no matter what the facts say.
Sadly, the rest of his essay reinforces that conclusion:
It aims to get rid of all forms of religion, no matter how moderate or diffident they are, and, in the words of Mooney and Kirshenbaum, "publicly eviscerates believers, calling them delusional and irrational".
There is no aim to "get rid of all forms of religion." That's just a lie, but you can't expect someone uninterested in acts to tell the truth can you? If anyone is called delusional and irrational, it's people who adopt empirical positions and conclusions without regard to facts, evidence, and reality.
You know, people like William Reville.
The paradox is that New Atheism must prevent many people, who sincerely believe in God as a core value, from also believing in evolution because one of the world's keenest scientific minds (Dawkins) persistently preaches that the theory of evolution makes God redundant.
Notice William Reville's language here: new atheism "must" prevent "many" people. Must? Many? I think it's clear that Reville knows he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his accusations, but he insists that it "must" be true. Because he has no evidence, he certainly has no numbers to offer, so the numbers have to be "many". I don't object to using careful language when you are unsure, but these are just weasel words that are employed when you're afraid of being challenged.
If there is any danger to science, it's people like William Reville who have abandoned the foundations of science -- evidence, facts, logic, and reality -- in order to push a personal ideology. I can't imagine what sort of damage is done to people who find themselves in a class taught by him.
No comments:
Post a Comment