Intelligent Design

BCSE and (New Best Friend Dawkins) Wish to Ban Freedom of Thought

Spread the love

It would seem Dawkins and BCSE have kissed and made up – well a small truce at least. How sweet. Dawkins asks people to sign the BCSEs petition that seeks to ban creationism and ID from being presented with any integrity (i.e. as being real and scientific) in the school classroom in British (English) schools.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/620663-please-sign-this-anti-creationist-petition

This is both regretable and ironic. They have clearly lost the battle to convince a large section of the population of the truth of Darwinism so resort to the law to enforce it. In so doing they seek to restrict freedom to think through the scientific evidence. A bit like a child who can’t win a game of footy, so he picks up the ball and goes home and spoils the game for the rest. An admission of failure, but a rather worrying one when it leads to loss of human rights and freedom of thought, and even undermines the process of science and quality of education.

Human rights are not safe with such people as they seek to isolate and exclude those who hold different beliefs to their own. But I don’t think they even understand the point of value and rights for all.

9 Replies to “BCSE and (New Best Friend Dawkins) Wish to Ban Freedom of Thought

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    Title malfunction- A mutation caused a deletion

  2. 2
    Joseph says:

    Intelligent design fixed it

  3. 3
    T. lise says:

    A bit off topic::
    Was Dr Richard Sternberg suppose to agree with these things to be their employee…??

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.....038;page=1

  4. 4
    PaulT says:

    I don’t understand the point of this post. Intelligent design is not mentioned on either the Dawkins or GoPetition site. Why is this mentioned here?

  5. 5
    Steno says:

    Do you think Dawkins or BCSE make a distinction? Of course it is relevant to ID.

  6. 6
    Joseph says:

    To mention both ID and Creation would be an admission they are not the same.

    “They” haven’t evolved that state of integrity yet.

  7. 7
    DrREC says:

    The petition seems to be a specific protest agains young earth creationist visiting:

    “??This April, all Year 11 children in a state funded school were brought together and had a visitor introduced to them as a scientist. He then spent the next one and a half hours presenting these sixteen year olds with a series of well polished Young Earth Creationist claims, described as scientific theory.”

    I don’t believe YEC is ID, do you?

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    DrREC.

    I have before me Dawkins’ book The Greatest Show on Earth.

    Surely, by the time he wrote this book, he was aware of “intelligent design.”

    Yet while in the index you’ll find:

    creationists views on:

    and

    design flaws:

    What you won’t find is any mention of intelligent design.

    You don’t find Behe, or Dembski, or Meyer listed. (But you do see PZ Myers.)

    And while you won’t find “irreducible complexity” in the index, or “complex specified information” (heck, you won’t even find “information”), what you will find is the following:

    There is a comic sequel to this triumphant tale of scientific endeavor. Creationists hate it. Not only does it show evolution in action; not only does it show new information entering genomes without the intervention of a designer, which is something they have all been told to deny is possible (‘told to’ because most of them don’t understand what ‘information’ means); not only does it demonstrate the power of natural selection to put together combinations of genes that, by the naive calculations so beloved of creationists, should be tantamount to impossible; it also undermines their central dogma of ‘irreducible complexity’. So it is no wonder they are disconcerted by the Lenski research, and eager to find fault with it. (p. 130-131)

    Dawkins is a hack. Period. He’s incapable of making distinctions.

  9. 9
    Robert Byers says:

    It simply comes down to whether the truth is to be taught in public schools on origins or not.!
    If the object of education is to teach whats accurate about conclusions then likewise this must be in origin subjects.
    If one position, popular or not, is banned then it means the state is officially saying its not true.
    Otherwise it would be saying even if true we won’t allow its teaching despite truth being the object of education.
    So the state must be saying its not true and therefore is saying further that ideas based on or associated with religion on some doctrines are not true!
    state dictate of religion is just another bad idea after state censorship of ideas.

    Reason is always on the side of truth where common presumptions that presume truth as a objective.
    We got’im.
    Does Prince william and the Duchess know about these attempts??

Leave a Reply