A reminder of a block to the EC program in American society

I hope BioLogos thrives. But tonight a friend reminded me of a problem that goes back to the newspaper cartoons from the Scopes trial.


He doesn’t like scientists who think they and only they know what the scope of the scientific method is and anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a “bozo.”

Bill Nye is a man baffled by young earth creationism, I tell my friend. He doesn’t call people names for disagreeing with him.

Richard Dawkins however said anyone who didn’t accept evolution was insane.

I don’t have the page from The Blind Watchmaker on that quote, but I seem to remember him saying it.

So my friend feels satirized and mocked like the Pope by Galileo.

So here comes “gracious dialogue” from BioLogos.

But then antievolutionist organizations satirize evolutionists too.

Isn’t this all about entertainment of audiences rather than education?

How do you talk to someone whose ears are blocked because they feel mocked by national celebrities?

I’m sure it’s easy to pick up on Dr Dawkins’ irritability, but here’s the quote I found:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Ignorance is among us all. The way Dr Dawkins put it is not very kind, especially as we can all claim to some degree of ignorance. Also, it’s way better to catch bees with honey than vinegar. However, I suspect the majority of us who don’t accept a scientific element do so because of being overwhelmed with understanding evolution, along with some prejudices. I disagree with Dr Dawkins that the prejudices are wicked, particularly as I’ve held them in good faith, putting my trust in people I trusted; and many of those closest to me hold them still, as well.

It takes a long time to turn an ocean liner around. Dawkins is trying to blast it around with a howitzer. I’m afraid he’ll sink the ship on the way, and lose his aim in the process.


Thanks for your discourse.


this may cut both ways

a great many people may accept evolution due to their faith in what scientists tell them, and not because they understand evolution

1 Like

Which is rational.

Tells that to Jews in Nazi Germany, or black slaves in the Confederacy.

Sorry? What’s that got to do with science?

The scientific consensus in those regimes was the people groups were subhuman and thus could be eradicated or enslaved. Is that rational?

Are you suggesting that the institution of chattel slavery in the Confederacy was the consequence of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”?

No, policy makers explicitly cited scientific consensus of their day as justification for their policies.

This was never a consensus driven by scientific research. It was instead a hideous, pre-existing ideology that was papered over with science words to give it a veneer of scientific authority.


Less extreme, European scientist thought Einstein was a quack.

Good thing that doesn’t happen any more so we can just trust whatever scientists tell us!

Which one? . . .

I’ll go drink some bleach so I don’t catch COVID-19.

P.S. That’s irony, folks! ^^^^ Please follow the science and do not drink bleach.

P.P.S. Are you taking issue with quantum mechanics, @EricMH? With quantum electrodynamics? With relativity? With plate tectonics? Big Bang cosmology?


Technically, that will prevent you from ever catching COVID-19, so you aren’t wrong…


Whose? Which? Where? When did science ever conclude slavery? Or genocide? You know the science of Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Kelvin, Pasteur, Ampere, Maxwell, Darwin? Science. Rational enquiry by observation, experiment. Unlike ID.

1 Like

You are partly right that scientific evidence does not support slavery nor genocide. However, many scientists have. And people trusted them due to their scientific credentials. Point being we cannot trust what people say just because they call themselves scientists.

I thought it was clear from my numerous posts here I am skeptical about Darwinian evolution for a variety of technical reasons, but maybe I haven’t been clear enough on that point.

Hi Eric,

  1. The theory of evolution is on a footing as solid as that of Big Bang cosmology, the standard model of particle physics, and plate tectonics. All of these theories – all of them – are incomplete and confront little anomalies at the edge which might someday become big anomalies. Or the anomalies might disappear with refinement of the theory or with better experiments. That’s why we still conduct scientific research.
  2. I have been impressed by the zeal of “armchair scientists,” but not by their results.



Evolution maybe, but it is unclear regarding the Darwinian variant.

Unfortunately, all I’ve got is armchair science. I don’t have a lab or generous grants. Just my laptop, so I do what I can :slight_smile: Armchair science doesn’t have such a bad track record, e.g. Einstein and Bell.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.