misterd said:
First, Dawkin's is respected for his scientific research, but his militant atheism is not embraced by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists would take issue with science being used to make any theological judgements. Second, I'm fairly certain the Good Designer would not endorse the "by any means neccessary" method of spreading The Word. Third, ID proponents claim that ID is a scientific concept. If so, there are legitimate ways to introduce the idea and confront conventional orthodoxy. That's what I tried to illustrate in my post about Lynn Margulis. At the moment, the majority of the leaders of the ID movement are engaging in cheap hucksterism. If your goal is to put God into the science classroom, then be honest and admit it, or you are just as sinful as they are. |
I wasn't arguing that "the Word" per se should be spread through propaganda or "by any means neccessary". Just counter cheap jerks like Dawkins.
| The_vagabond7 said: I really hope that last post was a joke. Inferring that propaganda is a necessary tool against science. |
No. See above, his first sentence. And sometimes you need propaganda to counter propaganda. Dawkins is full of shit, making ridicule of the whole "first cause"/God concept, placing it side by side with Unicorns and the Spaghetti monster.
