Comments on: Is Charles Darwin the “Poster Boy” for the New Atheists?

By: Santiago

Santiago — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:30:31 +0000

I agree with Professor Agazzi, who says: If you read Darwin’s books, Darwin directly, You can see that he was never opposed to the idea of Creation. Never. He was always opposed to the idea of individual species being created by God or by Someone, Separately rather than being the result of a transformation. What happens nowadays? Unfortunately once again in the United States there is a minority of fundamentalist Evangelicals, Seeking to take the Bible word for word, as a discourse that tells us how the world was created. They call themselves creationists. Once again the term has been seized for another use. The term “creationists” does not mean in the slightest. That the book of Genesis should be taken as a true story about the Cosmos. But for them it does. They say yes, here is something that at the very least. Should be taught alongside the theory of evolution.. Once again a mistake has been made. And people say, Creationists are enemies of science and enemies of Evolution.
Regards,
Santiago Chiva
Granada, Spain

By: bobxxxx

bobxxxx — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:53:00 +0000

That doesn’t mean that understanding Darwin drives you inevitably to atheism. But it certainly constitutes a giant step in that direction.

Dawkins said it perfectly. Of course a good understanding of evolution can make any theist doubt his childish religious beliefs. Evolution threatens not just the magical creation myth. It completely kills the idea that people are special. Special enough to go to heaven, or special enough for a god fairy to notice them.

By: SarahH

SarahH — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:05 +0000

I think that Bunting’s article would have been best left ignored. She’s free to spout her shrill fear-mongering about atheists, but in this case, I think responding is simply giving her what she wants, and what people like her interpret as more ammunition, in some cases.

Anyway, I say anyone and everyone who appreciates Darwin’s work – philosophers, scientists, atheists, theists, writers, bloggers, everyone! – should join in the celebrating, and appreciation for his work (and yes, its fruits in different areas) shouldn’t be overshadowing by bickering and finger-pointing.

Incidentally, I think this quote is pure gold: “[...]when scientific evidence challenges religion it is, by and large, purely incidental.” Spot on.

By: Aj

Aj — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:18:38 +0000

Evolution never factored into my atheism. Creationism did and has factored in many people’s theism. Darwin didn’t start evolutionary thought but his theories were instrumental in resolving problems and wide adoption of evolution. I believe Dawkins is right in his estimation of the importance of Darwin towards atheism.

Madeleine Bunting joins a long list of people who readily lie about Dawkins, and more rarely lie about Dennett. She shows her stripes when she writes that Darwin’s refutation of ~~scientific~~ racism was driven by a moral impulse instead of a truth impulse. Placing Darwin anywhere near to Freud or Marx is an insult to him, and shows us where her priorities are i.e. not in science.

By: miller

miller — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:52:27 +0000

I believe she is correct in the sense that evolution is a very poor an unnecessary argument for atheism. However, she is attacking a straw man, because afaik, even Dawkins doesn’t argue that it’s “impossible to believe in God and accept Darwin’s theory of evolution.” IMO Dawkins is a little too gung ho about evolution and whatever he thinks the philosophical implications are, but then what else would we expect from an evolutionary biologist?

Beyond that, I’m not sure what she expects. I refuse to apologize for liking Darwin while incidentally being an atheist.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:10:40 +0000

What annoys me most about her article is that she seems to assume that a scientific theory needs an ethical standpoint or basis in some sort of worldview – be it atheism, abolitionism or anything else. The study of reality stands on its own.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:27:27 +0000

What about those of us who are biologists and atheists? Are we hijacking Darwin too? I would think that the man who revolutionized biology and who also renounced his faith would be the perfect representative for us.

By: lunarmagpie

lunarmagpie — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:01:40 +0000

if he is, this is the poster:
http://www.2skinnypros.com/blog1/uploaded_images/darwin_in_bumper_car_sm-775016-753015.gif

By: Anthroslug the Much Put-Upon

Anthroslug the Much Put-Upon — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:40:43 +0000

I have not yet read the article linked (I hope to do so tommorrow or Friday, when things are a little less hectic), but I think that MH makes an important point. Darwin is dead, and while we can look at what he did write and say to others regarding atheism, it’s a bad idea to put words into his mouth or to assume that we know the full context and content of what he had to say on the matter when he is not present to discuss it himself.

That being said, while I have not read all of the “New Atheist” (how I detest that label) books, those that I have read have made it clear that an understanding of evolution does not necessarilly force someone to become an atheist, but simply removes an obstacle – the stumbling block of “how did we get here, anyway?”

So, if an atheist claims that understanding evolution forces atheism, they are not only wrong (we all know religious people who have no problem with accepting evolution), but they are also playing right into the hands of the half-wits and demagogues of the world who require that the equation “Darwin=Atheism=immoral societal collapse” be true in order to further their own agenda.

In other words, the truth is on our side, we shouldn’t overplay our hand.

By: Josh Spinks

Josh Spinks — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:33:43 +0000

There’s a lot of talk about evolution among atheists, for the obvious reason that it is a good example of how religion promotes faith at the expense of reason. I don’t see that much focus on Darwin himself, so the claim that atheists are hijacking Darwin strikes me as groundless. Methinks the author has seen too much of creationist claims that atheists worship Darwin and just assumed that atheists must fixate on Darwin or why would creationists say that? (because they’re profligate liars, of course)