Even if you do believe it's the best origins theory, those aren't reasons to teach it to students.
He doesn't "believe it's the best origins theory", it's the only "origins theory". It's scientific consensus, and thus should be taught in science classes.
They need to know...
They need to know a lot of things. General education, remember? Evolution is one of many things they need to learn about.
that doesn't mean I think people should be ridiculed for their beliefs
What do you mean by "ridiculed"? Is any criticism of an idea "ridicule"? Should religion be raised above all criticism?
Could you give me one specific example of Dawkins ridiculing someone's beliefs please?
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole.
On the contrary. He is very open about his opposition to religion. His "attacks" on ID are just part of that because ID is nothing but an attempt to dishonestly get religion into science classes in order to undermine science and replace it with blind faith.
He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
You are wrong again. He explains his position, that science and religion are incompatible, and makes a factual, rational argument for that point of view. When did he say "I'm just debating the science" exactly? Please give me a link.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it.
So criticism of religion makes you look intolerant. How convenient, eh? Apparently you think religious ideas should not be criticised!
Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct).
No it does not. Experience, empirical evidence, shows that relying on existing theories works. No faith required what so ever.
There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
Nonsense. Scientific laws are merely descriptions. They explain what happens, not how. Theories explain how.
For someone who has spent so much time studying evolution, it is quite embarrassing how Dawkins manages to miss the evolutionary benefits of religion (holding genetically unrelated communities together, allowing people to make correct [hopefully] decisions without needing to understand the rationale behind them, and so on).
On the contrary. Dawkins has specificall addressed this point. In fact, it's one of the first points he makes in The God Delusion. Did you even read any of his books?
His recent work has read more like the ravings of the worst religious fundamentalist than science.
What "work" might that be? The God Delusion? That book is not supposed to be a scientific report. It's a book where Dawkins puts forth his arguments against religion. It's funny that you claim that it is like reading "the ravings of the worst religious fundamentalist", and at the same time you didn't even see the part where he addressed the point of religion being used for good things? Did you even read the book before ranting about it?
Actually, please give me one single specific example of this "raving like the worst religious fundamentalist". I'd really like to see what you consider this to be.
I find it ironic that he seems to have become infected with most of the memes that form the core of a religion and they cause him to attack religion so venomously.
What's wrong with attacking religion, exactly? Are you saying that religion should be raised above any criticism? If yes, then you are insane. If no, then why are you whining about Dawkins calmly and factually putting forth his arguments against religion?
Consider the source: the article comes from Richard Dawkins' web site
Actually, it comes from Dembski's site. Funny how Dembski and his ID friends claim that ID has got nothing to do with God and yet they include ID in their religion classes...
When studying apologetics, you learn how to defend a particular position (see definition two at dictionary.com here). What better exercise for learning a skill like that than to go out there and defend a particular position publicly?
So apologetics is basically spam? Just because something is taught doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
Certainly ID gets attacked enough by Darwinists (many of them ad hominem or straw man attacks--examples of which can be found in posts above this one) that people shouldn't get too upset when ID proponents start defending their position.
ID gets "attacked" because it's pure religion passed off as science, and its supporters are usually either ignorant or dishonest. Those opposed to ID are getting sick and tired of the same nonsensical and debunked claims over and over and over. No wonder they are being reposted all the time, though. Reposting nonsensical drivel is part of the "education" of religious zealots!
Why assume the students are going out there and randomly "making posts" but not contributing to the discussion? Maybe the professor grades the posts specifically on the quality of the discussion, with the 10 or more posts in a single back-and-forth discussion being worth more than trolling 10 different web sites.
Because the course says nothing about "discussion". It specifically asks students to post comments defending ID. No requirement to discuss anything. Just pure spam.
Either way, it seems that this is a very appropriate exercise when learning something like apologetics.
That's like saying that throwing rocks through people's windows is an appropriate exercise when learning to throw a ball.
Given Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo's dubious record for security, I and many other savvy computer users will not be welcoming our Cirrus overlords any time soon.
Ah, so it was Microsoft's dubious security record with Windows and all which caused Windows to disappear from the market... oh wait!
Yeah, and exclude yourself completely from the current culture. That's the problem, you see. These cartels basically own our culture, and are forcing us to pay for it. And if you don't participate, you will be an outsider. It's impossible to not participate anyway, since we are blasted with propaganda from the information cartels everywhere we move.
Any criticism of religion is offensive to the religious. Thus, if one criticizes religion, one is a dick according to you.
But I am actually offended when you claim that atheists are antagonistic. So that makes YOU a dick, because anyone who says something which offends someone, anyone, is a dick.
Bundling a browser isn't illegal. What's illegal is to leverage your dominance in one market to prevent competition in a different market. Should Chrome OS ever become the dominant operating system, Google will of course have to pay careful attention to what they are doing to avoid breaking the law.
Funny you should mention W.L. Craig, as he is a disgusting liar, and uses the worst red herrings, straw men and ad hominems when debating Atheists. He is truly an offensive bastard.
Going after Christians when they are being assholes is not a problem at all.
South park did an episode partially devoted to debunking the effectiveness of the FSM as a counter argument to god:
How does that debunk the FSM exactly? All I can see is a rambling creationist moron going on about it. But if you actually read the text from the episode it doesn't even get close to debunking the FSM as a counter-argument to religious irrational nonsense. The South Park episode in question and the blog post make no sense. It's basically the Chewbacca Defense, because they can't seem to come up with anything valid.
And since you blindly linked to that blog without checking the validity of the argument, I am tempted to conclude that you, too, are just another creationist moron.
According to your logic, taking mind-altering drugs is the most interesting thing you can do, then. It has nothing to do with reality as such, it's just your view that gets all weird and interesting. No need to poison your mind with religion.
Slashdot Mirror
He doesn't "believe it's the best origins theory", it's the only "origins theory". It's scientific consensus, and thus should be taught in science classes.
They need to know a lot of things. General education, remember? Evolution is one of many things they need to learn about.
What do you mean by "ridiculed"? Is any criticism of an idea "ridicule"? Should religion be raised above all criticism?
Could you give me one specific example of Dawkins ridiculing someone's beliefs please?
On the contrary. He is very open about his opposition to religion. His "attacks" on ID are just part of that because ID is nothing but an attempt to dishonestly get religion into science classes in order to undermine science and replace it with blind faith.
You are wrong again. He explains his position, that science and religion are incompatible, and makes a factual, rational argument for that point of view. When did he say "I'm just debating the science" exactly? Please give me a link.
So criticism of religion makes you look intolerant. How convenient, eh? Apparently you think religious ideas should not be criticised!
No it does not. Experience, empirical evidence, shows that relying on existing theories works. No faith required what so ever.
Nonsense. Scientific laws are merely descriptions. They explain what happens, not how. Theories explain how.
Of course there is. It's the cornerstone of biology. It's important to understand where we came from.
Bundling in itself is not illegal, but the way Microsoft did it is/was. Indeed, MS has been convicted of this in countries like the US and Korea.
On the contrary. Dawkins has specificall addressed this point. In fact, it's one of the first points he makes in The God Delusion. Did you even read any of his books?
What "work" might that be? The God Delusion? That book is not supposed to be a scientific report. It's a book where Dawkins puts forth his arguments against religion. It's funny that you claim that it is like reading "the ravings of the worst religious fundamentalist", and at the same time you didn't even see the part where he addressed the point of religion being used for good things? Did you even read the book before ranting about it?
Actually, please give me one single specific example of this "raving like the worst religious fundamentalist". I'd really like to see what you consider this to be.
What's wrong with attacking religion, exactly? Are you saying that religion should be raised above any criticism? If yes, then you are insane. If no, then why are you whining about Dawkins calmly and factually putting forth his arguments against religion?
Actually, it comes from Dembski's site. Funny how Dembski and his ID friends claim that ID has got nothing to do with God and yet they include ID in their religion classes...
So apologetics is basically spam? Just because something is taught doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
ID gets "attacked" because it's pure religion passed off as science, and its supporters are usually either ignorant or dishonest. Those opposed to ID are getting sick and tired of the same nonsensical and debunked claims over and over and over. No wonder they are being reposted all the time, though. Reposting nonsensical drivel is part of the "education" of religious zealots!
Because the course says nothing about "discussion". It specifically asks students to post comments defending ID. No requirement to discuss anything. Just pure spam.
That's like saying that throwing rocks through people's windows is an appropriate exercise when learning to throw a ball.
Religion, bullshit... Potayto, potahto... ;)
You are clearly rather ignorant of Microsoft and Netscape's history. It was the Windows/IE bundling which caused Netscape to crash and burn.
And lo and behold, it's gradually happening.
Ah, so it was Microsoft's dubious security record with Windows and all which caused Windows to disappear from the market... oh wait!
Yeah, and exclude yourself completely from the current culture. That's the problem, you see. These cartels basically own our culture, and are forcing us to pay for it. And if you don't participate, you will be an outsider. It's impossible to not participate anyway, since we are blasted with propaganda from the information cartels everywhere we move.
They claim to notice the exposure immediately, so your question is rather pointless.
"Ex" because she's now dead due to chicken poisoning? :P
But I am actually offended when you claim that atheists are antagonistic. So that makes YOU a dick, because anyone who says something which offends someone, anyone, is a dick.
Bundling a browser isn't illegal. What's illegal is to leverage your dominance in one market to prevent competition in a different market. Should Chrome OS ever become the dominant operating system, Google will of course have to pay careful attention to what they are doing to avoid breaking the law.
Going after Christians when they are being assholes is not a problem at all.
They tried, and failed. You don't mock something by using a straw man.
How does that debunk the FSM exactly? All I can see is a rambling creationist moron going on about it. But if you actually read the text from the episode it doesn't even get close to debunking the FSM as a counter-argument to religious irrational nonsense. The South Park episode in question and the blog post make no sense. It's basically the Chewbacca Defense, because they can't seem to come up with anything valid.
And since you blindly linked to that blog without checking the validity of the argument, I am tempted to conclude that you, too, are just another creationist moron.
Is that you, John Titor?
You have to specifically download and install Firefox, and Mozilla has not been convicted of anti-competitive practices, unlike Microsoft.
Does Google Chrome OS have a dominant market share? Actually, has Google been convicted of engaging in anti-competitive practices with Chrome OS?
Actually, those pictures are old. That they had HPs before making the purchase doesn't mean that they chose them again.
According to your logic, taking mind-altering drugs is the most interesting thing you can do, then. It has nothing to do with reality as such, it's just your view that gets all weird and interesting. No need to poison your mind with religion.
Christianity and Islam certainly embrace the God of the Gaps.
In other words, it isn't actually valid evidence, it's some nonsensical mumbo jumbo.