O’Reilly told Dawkins”
you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?
See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins
O’REILLY: . . . It’s not fair to leave it out of the science class if the science class is incomplete. And you, by your own admission, say we don’t know how it all began. So if the science class is going to say evolution only, but I really don’t know how it started, that gap has got to be explored.
DAWKINS: You must see that it’s quite remarkable peace of illogic to say that because science cannot fill a particular gap, therefore we have to turn to Christianity.
O’REILLY: You don’t have to turn anywhere. You have to present it. You don’t have to turn to it; you present it. . . .
DAWKINS: OK, I know it is. I’ve been warned about it. Just because science has a gap in its knowledge, that does not entitle you to turn to any other particular alternative. Pick on a better science.O’REILLY: No. That’s — that’s fascism. For you to say that you can’t mention…
DAWKINS: Fascism?
O’REILLY: Yes, for you to say you cannot, in a public school classroom, a science classroom, talk about brilliant men, and I know brilliant, smarter than you, who do believe in a higher power, who do believe that there was an overseer of the universe, and you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
DAWKINS: What you called fascism was my statement that, if science can’t answer something, you should therefore turn Christianity.
O’REILLY: Not turn. Discuss. . . .
See full interview O’Reilly v Dawkins on Fox News Oct 12, 2009
A friend just noted that academic publishers are a priori rejecting any book that mentions Intelligent Design.
Does that advance or hinder science?
What of O’Reilly’s
“brilliant men, and I know brilliant, smarter than you, who do believe in a higher power, who do believe that there was an overseer of the universe,”?
Should they be allowed to present alternative theories and evidence to Dawkins?
What if they advocate Intelligent Design?
What right has Dawkins to require only materialistic evolution?
What of the USA’s foundation on “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”?
Who do we listen to and why? Dawkins or the Declaration?
How is Dawkins any different from King George III in imposing regulations without representation?