Heartland

7anthea7 wrote:

stufarq wrote:He's encouraged a culture where it's acceptable to call people deluded just because they don't believe the same things as you. Apparently there is only One True Belief and it is His...Dawkins can believe what he likes. Except that everyone else should believe it too.

Yup. Britain has always been perceived as a tolerant society - even for whackjobs like him. Unfortunately, he's gone over the top with it, making tolerance look like weakness, and lumping rational atheists in with raving loonies. And it hasn't helped with the anti-intellectual sentiment in this country any, although I don't know if that's the case on your side.

It troubles me that people are so prepared to have a go at Dawkins when no-one has mentioned the insidious control that the pope has over catholics in this country whilst stating that condom use encourages the spread of HIV and refusing to accept a womans right to choose. If I was forced to take sides then I'd be right behind Dawkins in challenging these creationist whackjobs attempting to influence political policy in this country.

silentNate wrote:It troubles me that people are so prepared to have a go at Dawkins when no-one has mentioned the insidious control that the pope has over catholics in this country whilst stating that condom use encourages the spread of HIV and refusing to accept a womans right to choose. If I was forced to take sides then I'd be right behind Dawkins in challenging these creationist whackjobs attempting to influence political policy in this country.

If I were forced to make that choice, I'd have to throw my lot in with Dawkins as well. I think the point is that he insists upon there being only two choices: his brand of morally-and-intellectually-superior atheism, and everything else. And I suspect his arrogance and self-importance have done a lot of damage to the common perception of atheism, whereas Benedict XVI, whatever kind of medieval throwback you may consider him (and I know I certainly do) probably hasn't won over a lot of converts with his attitudes.

On the one hand, you have a perfect example of why you'd never want to embrace Catholicism. On the other, you have someone who most atheists are probably fervently wishing would stop trying to do them any favours.

Mmm & Wow! ... Interesting how this topic has developed - I'd never even thought about the Pope, but if Dawkins is in there, then he deserves it too ...

Intolerance - That's the one! ...

Thanks Folks, this is what I respect about HL: Constructive Intelligent Adult Debate?! (even a laugh sometimes too?!)

Reagan - Yes, yes, yes - Shrub too?

WH? - I sort of liked his guitar effects which I've been known to feebly try and imitate (NO - Don't etc. I hear you cry?!) ... But he was/is a bit of a plonker though ...

Alan McGee? - Aye! - Jimmy Savile is in the book ...

p.s. I nearly forgot - Dawkins thought James Lovelock was a loony - Who's right now?!

This is worrying too:~

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 74630.html

(what has Dawkins to say about that?)

p.p.s. I'm surprised that no-one has commented on 'Webonymous' - Something we all know all about, eh? Something to be ashamed of too I reckon - My real name is the same as a ginger haired multi-millionaire once married to Billie Piper ... Perhaps he deserves a mention too?! - Comments on Webonymous & him too, PP?!

Edward 1st, Henry VIII.

(for what they did to Wales)

Fair enough ... H8 for the way he treated women too, eh? ...

Next:~ Lionel Grundy (one of Thatcher's uniformed Bully Boys, in charge of Wiltshire Plod - see Battle of the Beanfield 1985)

The list is in no particular order:

1 Jeffrey Archer
2 Richard Beeching
3 Howard Schultz
4 James Callaghan
5 Diana
6 Greg Dyke
7 Charles Saatchi
8 Graham Kelly
9 Anthony Crosland
10 John McEnroe
11 Stephen Marks
12 John Prescott
13 Frank Blackmore
14 Sir Jimmy Saville
15 Edward Heath
16 Janet Street-Porter
17 Margaret Thatcher
18 Alan Titchmarsh
19 Topsy and Tim
20 Tim Westwood
21 Tony Blair
22 Richard Brunstrom
23 Paul Burrell
24 Sir Alex Ferguson
25 Kenneth Baker
26 The Very Rev. Ronald Jasper
27 Sir Denys Lasdun
28 Helen Willetts
29 Dame Suzi Leather
30 Richard Dawkins
31 Geoffrey Rippon
32 Julia Smith
33 'Webonymous'
34 Michael Martin
35 Harold Wilson
36 John Birt
37 Ed Balls
38 John Scarlett
39 Graham Kendrick
40 Gordon Brown
41 Tony Greig
42 Maurice 'Maus' Gatsonides
43 David Blunkett
44 Peter Bazalgette
45 Alastair Campbell
46 Harold Walker
47 Rupert Murdoch
48 Nicholas Ridley
49 Rhodes Boyson
50 Alun Michael

(copied from another site )

Shame no Chris Moyles mentioned though I guess that fool Westwood will do

Re Dawkins:

7anthea7 wrote: I think the point is that he insists upon there being only two choices: his brand of morally-and-intellectually-superior atheism, and everything else. And I suspect his arrogance and self-importance have done a lot of damage to the common perception of atheism,

What? I think you've been reading too much of Dawkins's critics and not enough of the man himself.

It is -- or at least was -- his job to promote science and rationalism (he's now retired from his post as Professor for Public Understanding of Science) so of course he's going to be in the public eye.

Also, as far as I understand it, his argument about god-belief is that moderate religionists act as enablers for the more hard-line. For example, Benny the Rat comes out with his nonsense about "condoms make the HIV problem worse" where are all the moderate catholics rushing out to condemn him? I hear plenty of condemnation from scientists, AIDS workers, and so on.

(To give him his dues Tony Blair is about the only notable Catholic I've heard speaking up on this issue, only to be told by the church, in effect, "sit down, shut up, not your place to criticise the Pope")

And another thing

Let's take homeopathy as an example. All properly controlled scientific studies have shown that homeopathic medicine is no better than placebo. Yet someone like Prince Charles (and can I add him to my nomination for "people who ruined Britain" please? ) can get on his pulpit and demand that the NHS fund homeopathic medicine.

Is it intolerant to turn round and say "well actually, homeopathy is nonsense, look at the scientific evidence"? Is it intolerant to say that people who believe, despite the facts, in homeopathy are delusional? Is it intolerant to turn round and say "well, actually, I'm quite angry that my tax money is being spent on treatments that do not work"?

The plain fact is that most religious beliefs are incompatible with the scientific evidence; the universe was not created in 6 days in 4004BC, the whole word was never flooded at once a la Noah, Moses never led the Israelites out of Egypt, etc. etc. etc. Why is it intolerant to point this out? The situation is precisely comparable.

Edit: I also get exasperated with the "as bad as the fundamentalist religious" label slapped on Dawkins. The most he does is try to persuade people of his viewpoint. Fundamentalist religionists sometimes kill those that disagree with them. Is that really comparable?

markfiend wrote:And another thing

Let's take homeopathy as an example. All properly controlled scientific studies have shown that homeopathic medicine is no better than placebo. Yet someone like Prince Charles (and can I add him to my nomination for "people who ruined Britain" please? ) can get on his pulpit and demand that the NHS fund homeopathic medicine.

Is it intolerant to turn round and say "well actually, homeopathy is nonsense, look at the scientific evidence"? Is it intolerant to say that people who believe, despite the facts, in homeopathy are delusional? Is it intolerant to turn round and say "well, actually, I'm quite angry that my tax money is being spent on treatments that do not work"?

The plain fact is that most religious beliefs are incompatible with the scientific evidence; the universe was not created in 6 days in 4004BC, the whole word was never flooded at once a la Noah, Moses never led the Israelites out of Egypt, etc. etc. etc. Why is it intolerant to point this out? The situation is precisely comparable.

Edit: I also get exasperated with the "as bad as the fundamentalist religious" label slapped on Dawkins. The most he does is try to persuade people of his viewpoint. Fundamentalist religionists sometimes kill those that disagree with them. Is that really comparable?

Ditto.

I'm halfway through one of his books (I heard talking about him and I got curious) and it will certainly not change my ideas or ethics about the world. He's stressing his viewpoint maybe with a bit of 'messianic vibe' in it but that's all.
An interesting reading - many things I don't really agree with (and I'm not a scientist or genetist) but it's another viewpoint on various matters.
Full stop.
(And don't worry you lot, I'm retreating to shadows again, I've been typing too much )

markfiend wrote:Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair colour.

I hear this a lot about Dawkins, but I'm not really seeing it. Is it intolerant for an atheist to express his opinion now?

I'll allow you to reread those two contradictory statements for a moment.

7anthea7 wrote:Yup. Britain has always been perceived as a tolerant society - even for whackjobs like him....

7anthea7 wrote:If I were forced to make that choice...

What she said. every word of it.

markfiend wrote:What? I think you've been reading too much of Dawkins's critics and not enough of the man himself.

Can't answer for 7anthea7 but I haven't read much criticism - in fact I'm both surprised and heartened to hear that there's much of it at all - but I have read Dawkins at university level and the point stands. I personally used to be religious but no longer am - I'm a born again atheist - but I'd defend to the hilt everyone's right to a religious or any other belief and their right both to express their own beliefs and challenge those of others. Dawkins, however, expressly wouldn't. I find it interesting that he's still referred to as a scientist. Many years ago he was rather a good popular science writer but now all he writes and talks about is religion. He occasionally mentions science in his arguments but his main topic is always religion. It's a crusade. It's noticeable that your first response to my criticism of Dawkins was to describe him as an atheist. Not a geneticst or an evolutionary biologist but an atheist.

But going back to my original point about science being dependent on belief, let's look at the argument Dawkins most frequently employs: evolution. Now I believe in evolution. I've looked at the evidence and, despite some rather large holes, it all seems to fit so I believe in it. But it hasn't been proved and never will be. Nothing in science can ever be proved or disproved just supported or undermined by the weight or lack of evidence. A good scientist is always open to the possibility that the theory they subscribe to could be completeley undermined by new evidence. In the case of evolution, we've got a lot of pieces of evidence that seem to fit together and we've connected the dots with some educated guesses. Some of that evidence is very, very strong. Some of it isn't. Ultimately, you decide whether or not to believe the theory.

Just to round things off, yes there are lots of examples of people using religion to oppress, cause harm etc (and in most cases they're perverting the religious beliefs rather than following them). That doesn't make Dawkins right.

By the way, ho do you know that the scientists and AIDS workers aren't moderate Catholics?

stufarq wrote:Dawkins, however, expressly wouldn't.

Have you anything to back that up? I fail to recall anything in his writings or what I've seen of his speech where he advocates forbidding religious opinions.

Science isn't about belief. One accepts (or not) a theory on the weight of the evidence. Like you say, it's not about proof (a saying I've seen is that proof is for Mathematics (or alcohol )). I wouldn't say that I "believe in evolution". I would say that the theory of evolution (by natural selection and random mutation) provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. That fact is independent of any "belief".

And quite frankly if you think there are "holes" in the theory of evolution, you're welcome to try to fill them. I'm sure the Nobel committee will be in touch.

And it was DeWinter that mentioned atheism first.

stufarq wrote:By the way, ho do you know that the scientists and AIDS workers aren't moderate Catholics?

Aye, fair enough. You got me

silentNate wrote:The list is in no particular order:

1 Jeffrey Archer
2 Richard Beeching
3 Howard Schultz
4 James Callaghan
5 Diana
6 Greg Dyke
7 Charles Saatchi
8 Graham Kelly
9 Anthony Crosland
10 John McEnroe
11 Stephen Marks
12 John Prescott
13 Frank Blackmore
14 Sir Jimmy Saville
15 Edward Heath
16 Janet Street-Porter
17 Margaret Thatcher
18 Alan Titchmarsh
19 Topsy and Tim
20 Tim Westwood
21 Tony Blair
22 Richard Brunstrom
23 Paul Burrell
24 Sir Alex Ferguson
25 Kenneth Baker
26 The Very Rev. Ronald Jasper
27 Sir Denys Lasdun
28 Helen Willetts
29 Dame Suzi Leather
30 Richard Dawkins
31 Geoffrey Rippon
32 Julia Smith
33 'Webonymous'
34 Michael Martin
35 Harold Wilson
36 John Birt
37 Ed Balls
38 John Scarlett
39 Graham Kendrick
40 Gordon Brown
41 Tony Greig
42 Maurice 'Maus' Gatsonides
43 David Blunkett
44 Peter Bazalgette
45 Alastair Campbell
46 Harold Walker
47 Rupert Murdoch
48 Nicholas Ridley
49 Rhodes Boyson
50 Alun Michael

(copied from another site )

Shame no Chris Moyles mentioned though I guess that fool Westwood will do

Aww, you disappoint me! - Why NOT in an order of your choice? ... Also, of course: 'Bubbling Under' - Or should that be: 'Boiling Over'?! ... I'm personally 'warming' to the idea of people who ruined sport, but perhaps 'tis best not get into that too much here, knowing how much most HLers hate 'Fitba', eh?!

No Polly Toynbee?

What about non-UK citizens who've been damaging? Surely you could stick Roosevelt on that list for his "lend-lease" programme that bankrupted us in return for second-hand weapons and rusty ships? Or George W Bush, for embroiling us in his family vendetta against Saddam Hussein? Ted Kennedy for advising against American action against the IRA for many years?

DeWinter wrote:What about non-UK citizens who've been damaging? Surely you could stick Roosevelt on that list for his "lend-lease" programme that bankrupted us in return for second-hand weapons and rusty ships? Or George W Bush, for embroiling us in his family vendetta against Saddam Hussein? Ted Kennedy for advising against American action against the IRA for many years?

Yes, yes, and hell yes. (I generally like the man, but on that particular issue he was owned by the wrong people. )

7anthea7 wrote:

DeWinter wrote:What about non-UK citizens who've been damaging? Surely you could stick Roosevelt on that list for his "lend-lease" programme that bankrupted us in return for second-hand weapons and rusty ships? Or George W Bush, for embroiling us in his family vendetta against Saddam Hussein? Ted Kennedy for advising against American action against the IRA for many years?

Yes, yes, and hell yes. (I generally like the man, but on that particular issue he was owned by the wrong people. )

Er, which man @7 (Ted?) - Bush = 'Shrub' - So I hear?!

7anthea7 wrote: Yes, yes, and hell yes. (I generally like the man, but on that particular issue he was owned by the wrong people. )

Takes a brave man to support murder at a distance. Just the same sort of bravery that makes you let a woman drown in your car.
I don't know what sickens me more, him being offered a knighthood( what good he has done this country I would dearly like to know), or that he had the front to accept it.

I'm not sure what Jimmy Saville has done to be on the list...

DeWinter wrote:Takes a brave man to support murder at a distance. Just the same sort of bravery that makes you let a woman drown in your car.

Oof. Harsh.

But fair

Minty Fresh eh Mark?!

DeWinter wrote:I don't know what sickens me more, him being offered a knighthood (what good he has done this country I would dearly like to know), or that he had the front to accept it.

(I realise this is opening up a whole new can of worms, so just to forestall the inevitable - I'm not gonna get into it... )

He initially misplaced his representation of the Irish-American community with the hardliners. He was instrumental (eventually) in brokering the peace in Northern Ireland, albeit mostly by backing away from his previous stance once he realised it was political suicide to continue. So I sort of understand the knighthood - but I also understand how offensive it could be.

I should have been more specific: I generally like his policies and political stance. He backs all the right stuff. And he isn't beholden to as many scumbags as most. Personally...eh. He's better than he was, no worse than many, and way better than some. The American political machine is so disgustingly corrupt I can't even think about it without blowing the proverbial gasket.

Politics??? - Ahh, that be:~ The Gravy Train - The World over, eh?



- I don't have an emoticon for Anarchy (of the peaceful variety) ... Perhaps someone can oblige?

markfiend wrote:Science isn't about belief. One accepts (or not) a theory on the weight of the evidence. Like you say, it's not about proof (a saying I've seen is that proof is for Mathematics (or alcohol )). I wouldn't say that I "believe in evolution". I would say that the theory of evolution (by natural selection and random mutation) provides the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. That fact is independent of any "belief".

This seems to be a matter of semantics. I think you're equating "belief" with "religious faith" rather than "opinion", which is what I'm getting at. I'm sure you'd be happy with the term "scientific opinion". That's the same as a "scientific belief". You weigh up the evidence and form an opinion on it. That's no different to any other kind of opinion (or belief) including a religious one. It's all a matter of what you accept as evidence in the first place and how you choose to interpret it. If something hasn't been proved then accepting it as true is a matter of opinion - which is the same as believing in it.

markfiend wrote:

stufarq wrote:Dawkins, however, expressly wouldn't.

Have you anything to back that up? I fail to recall anything in his writings or what I've seen of his speech where he advocates forbidding religious opinions.

He doesn't believe that parents should bring their children up to believe in the religion that they (the parents) believe in. But presumably he would bring his own children up to believe in science and in his own views of morality. In fact, he's made clear that he thinks all children should be brought up that way. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable: teach children a generalised morality and let them choose their belief when they're old enough to understand the choices. But what makes one person's belief more right than another's? Why should everyone be brought up being taught Dawkins's belief (science and generalised morality)? Parents have to teach their children something and what else would they teach them except what they themselves believe? But Dawkins won't allow for that because it's not what he believes. He's doing exactly what he criticises religious people of doing.

markfiend wrote:And quite frankly if you think there are "holes" in the theory of evolution, you're welcome to try to fill them. I'm sure the Nobel committee will be in touch.

Even Dawkins admits that one. This is getting a bit technical but in The Selfish Gene he agonises over the problem that the nautilus hasn't evolved a lensed eye when, according to all evolutionary expectations, it should have done. Of course, the biggest hole is the fact that the fossil record itself is made of the few things that survive and we find, meaning that we have to assume that all the transitional forms existed because we'll never find them all. The fossil record gives us snapshots but there are lots of stages of evolution that we'll never catch "in the act". It doesn't mean that they never existed but it's still assumption. Just to reiterate, I do believe in evolution (and I use that word deliberately to annoy you ) but I'm also aware that it's not a perfect theory and certainly not, as many (Dawkins included) like to claim, scientific fact. Very little, if anything, is. Maybe one day it'll turn out to be complete rubbish and we'll discover that we really did come from monkeys after all.

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:(belief vs opinion stuff)

This seems to be a matter of semantics.

Yep, I think you're probably right. I think there's a qulitative difference between religious faith and scientifically formed opinions though... But I've been on this merry-go-round before. Maybe we can agree to disagree here?

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:

stufarq wrote:Dawkins, however, expressly wouldn't.

Have you anything to back that up? I fail to recall anything in his writings or what I've seen of his speech where he advocates forbidding religious opinions.

He doesn't believe that parents should bring their children up to believe in the religion that they (the parents) believe in.

Heh. Semantics again.

Dawkins's argument (as I understand it) is this: You don't talk about a Conservative child, or a Labour-supporting child (for instance) -- a child is too young to have formed a political opinion. Even the most hard-line Trotskyite would hesitate to say that their child was a Socialist. So why do religions get to claim "Christian children" or "Muslim children" etc.?

(Incidentally, going back to Catholicism, as far as the church in Rome is concerned, if you were baptised a Catholic, you're a Catholic until you die (or get excommunicated) so they get to count millions of "lapsed Catholics" in their claim of a billion plus members.)

stufarq wrote:But presumably he would bring his own children up to believe in science and in his own views of morality. In fact, he's made clear that he thinks all children should be brought up that way. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable: teach children a generalised morality and let them choose their belief when they're old enough to understand the choices. But what makes one person's belief more right than another's? Why should everyone be brought up being taught Dawkins's belief (science and generalised morality)? Parents have to teach their children something and what else would they teach them except what they themselves believe? But Dawkins won't allow for that because it's not what he believes. He's doing exactly what he criticises religious people of doing.

But on the other hand, without overt religious instruction, a child will naturally grow into a kind of "naive atheism" in that they won't spontaneously develop any kind of god-belief. This is his point, that children must be indoctrinated if they are to develop religion.

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:And quite frankly if you think there are "holes" in the theory of evolution, you're welcome to try to fill them. I'm sure the Nobel committee will be in touch.

Even Dawkins admits that one. This is getting a bit technical but in The Selfish Gene he agonises over the problem that the nautilus hasn't evolved a lensed eye when, according to all evolutionary expectations, it should have done.

I don't remember the part you're talking about but I think you must have misunderstood. There is no "should" in evolutionary theory.

The nautilus has (IIRC) a pin-hole camera eye, and is usually used as a response to the standard claim "How can an eye have evolved? What good is half an eye?" in that from the standpoint of our eyes (or those of octopus and squid etc., that also have lenses) the nautilus has "half an eye" but it is still better than no eye at all, so this is expected under evolutionary theory.

stufarq wrote:Of course, the biggest hole is the fact that the fossil record itself is made of the few things that survive and we find, meaning that we have to assume that all the transitional forms existed because we'll never find them all. The fossil record gives us snapshots but there are lots of stages of evolution that we'll never catch "in the act". It doesn't mean that they never existed but it's still assumption. Just to reiterate, I do believe in evolution (and I use that word deliberately to annoy you ) but I'm also aware that it's not a perfect theory and certainly not, as many (Dawkins included) like to claim, scientific fact. Very little, if anything, is. Maybe one day it'll turn out to be complete rubbish and we'll discover that we really did come from monkeys after all.

But you're wrong. Evolution is a fact, a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution. Evolution is a mathematical necessity given that more organisms are born than live to reproduce.

There are far more holes in the theory of gravity (including, for a start, why it exists at all) than there are in the theory of evolution, yet no-one is in any doubt that a rock dropped off the top of a cliff will fall to the bottom.

(Oops, hit "quote" rather than "edit" just there)

markfiend wrote:Maybe we can agree to disagree here?

Shan't

Oh, alright then.

markfiend wrote:Dawkins's argument (as I understand it) is this: You don't talk about a Conservative child, or a Labour-supporting child (for instance) -- a child is too young to have formed a political opinion. Even the most hard-line Trotskyite would hesitate to say that their child was a Socialist. So why do religions get to claim "Christian children" or "Muslim children" etc.?

Yes, it's that same argument. But he goes on to say that parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children and that religion should only be taught as literature and cultural history.

markfiend wrote:But on the other hand, without overt religious instruction, a child will naturally grow into a kind of "naive atheism" in that they won't spontaneously develop any kind of god-belief. This is his point, that children must be indoctrinated if they are to develop religion.

I'm not sure that that can be right. After all, someone must have come up with the first religious ideas without being taught them. So unless we're saying that they were divinely inspired...

markfiend wrote:I don't remember the part you're talking about but I think you must have misunderstood. There is no "should" in evolutionary theory.

Turns out it's from The Blind Watchmaker - my mistake:

Richard Dawkins wrote:Actually, Nautilus is a bit of a puzzle in its own right. Why, in all the hundreds of millions of years since its ancestors first evolved a pinhole eye, did it never discover the principle of the lens? The advantage of a lens is that it allows the image to be both sharp and bright. What is worrying about Nautilus is that the quality of its retina suggests that it would really benefit, greatly and immediately, from a lens. It is like a hi-fi system with an excellent amplifier fed by a gramophone with a blunt needle. The system is crying out for a particular simple change. In genetic hyperspace, Nautilus appears to be sitting right next door to an obvious and immediate improvement, yet it doesn't take the small step necessary. Why not? Michael Land of Sussex University, our foremost authority on invertebrate eyes, is worried, and so am I. Is it that the necessary mutations cannot arise, given the way Nautilus embryos develop? I don’t want to believe it, but I don’t have a better explanation. At least Nautilus dramatizes the point that a lensless eye is better than no eye at all.

markfiend wrote:Evolution is a fact, a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution.

No! No! No! The fossil record is (potentially) explained by the theory of evolution but that doesn't make evolution a fact. You could just as well say that creationism provides an explanation for the fossil record therefore creation is a fact. It's an "if-maybe-therefore" argument. Evolution is an inference, not a fact.

Well if Dawkins & his chums are going to 'save' humanity they'd better get on with it - Otherwise he/they & us will perish (after we've turned on them & 'science', eh?) ...

Dum de dum - I'm off to Stonedhenge anyway! - We usually have a good party - Before Ragnarok ...





& Dawkins:~



Just kidding Folks! - We're all DOOMED anyway ...

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:Dawkins's argument (as I understand it) is this: You don't talk about a Conservative child, or a Labour-supporting child (for instance) -- a child is too young to have formed a political opinion. Even the most hard-line Trotskyite would hesitate to say that their child was a Socialist. So why do religions get to claim "Christian children" or "Muslim children" etc.?

Yes, it's that same argument. But he goes on to say that parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children and that religion should only be taught as literature and cultural history.

If you learned that a teacher was berating your child every single day, telling them that they are evil, they were born evil, and could only wash off the evil by doing what the teacher says, would you not say that was psychological abuse?

So why is religion allowed a pass?

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:Evolution is a fact, a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution.

No! No! No! The fossil record is (potentially) explained by the theory of evolution but that doesn't make evolution a fact. You could just as well say that creationism provides an explanation for the fossil record therefore creation is a fact. It's an "if-maybe-therefore" argument. Evolution is an inference, not a fact.

Yes yes yes.

The fossil record, while being powerful evidence, is not the only line of evidence. Evolutionary theory wouldn't be much less well-supported without the fossils.

Consider Nylon-eating bacteria for example. The chemical by-product of the Nylon manufacturing process that they digest did not exist in the natural world prior to 1935. Yet bacteria now have the ability to digest it.

This group of bacteria has changed in the intervening years. This is evolution as an observed fact.

Another example is the E. coli long term evolution experiment in which some groups of E. coli were observed to evolve the ability to digest citrate. (Wild populations are unable to do this.)