Collegiate Times

A couple of comments. Unless Morris's views interfered with his ability to teach, do research, and collaborate with colleagues in Civil Engineering, his dismissal seems unjustifiable. If Morris was dismissed for holding views unrelated to his field that were not scientifically justified, then Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, should be similarly chastized for using his position as a bully pulpit for going beyond the realm of science and vilifying people's views on religion which can't be disproved by science.

To clarify, by "his position," I am referring to his until-recently-held post as the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. "Public Understanding of Science" is not synonymous with "Public Debunking of Any Philosophy other than Atheism," which is what he seems to preach. As the author mentions, we don't have to have science v. religion. We have a woefully incomplete understanding of both, and for Dawkins to act as though he has the power to compel everyone to dismiss any spiritual belief, then he is worse than Morris, who was at least able to function as an engineer, in spite of his religious perspectives.

you have MANY facts wrong. Morris was a very brilliant man, he wrote over 80 books in his time. His www.icr.org continues to do amazing work with its very strong team of scientist. All of which have their degrees from little schools like HArvard, Princeton, Texas A & M

While it is certainly true that Richard Dawkins is an atheist, he is not anti-science, and has done much to promote public understanding not just of biological evolution but also of science in general. Morris on the other hand was anti-scientific, and promoted anti-scientific views precisely because he was pushing a religious agenda in accordance with his belief in the religious dogma of young earth creationism. (By the way, the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford was first offered to Richard Dawkins at the express insistence of Charles Simonyi himself, and Dawkins is now retired.) In regard to this so-called "very strong team of scientists" at the Institute for Creation Research, that is nothing more than a big joke. It doesn't matter where you get you degree. What matter is *what professional scientific research you do*, and the creationists at the ICR have never published any scientific research that supports their creationist beliefs in the professional science literature of astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. The ICR is nothing more than an organization purposely set up by young earth creationists (such as Henry M. Morris and Duane T. Gish) to pump up pseudoscience literature for their religious audience of fellow fundamentalists. It has nothing to do with real science.

Todd, I think you misunderstood a few things. Here's how he's unwittingly anti-science. Instead of using logically sound, complete arguments to scientifically justify atheism, he uses patchworked, non-scientific processes to arrive at the conclusion that atheism is, in essence, the only scientifically acceptable choice. How can others be expected to understand science when he often uses the "religion contradicts physical evidence, therefore there is no creator" stream of logic? The existence of a creator is not dependent on the correctness of religion, a human creation. This fundamental flaw renders his arguments patently unscientific. Also, I did acknowledge that he no longer holds that position.

As an aside, at the moment, agnosticism is the only scientifically justifiable belief. Science can not specifically prove or disprove the existence of a creator. Before you use the Russell's Teapot argument to ask why we would ever presume that there's a creator, let me preempt you by saying that the argument breaks down when you consider this difference: there is no reason to believe that there is a teapot flying around in space, but there is reason to believe that something created the universe. Ironically, science is much of that reason. Its lack of ability to answer questions about the origin of the universe leads people to hypothesize about the unknown. That's essentially what belief in a creator is: a scientific hypothesis that may never be testable. Science investigates correlations, relationships, causality, etc. So we're naturally led to ask "what caused the big bang." Upon answering that, we must ask "what caused the thing that caused the big bang," and so on, ad infinitum.

It is wrong to compare Morris to Dawkins just because they both held public views about how religion and science should interact. When Morris was the head of civil engineering, he was calling the professors of evolutionary biology I(working 2 buildings away) satanic and evil. The university asked him to stop publishing his religious anti-science material and he refused. He was knowingly acting in opposition to the scientific goals of the university, so he was justly fired. Dawkins was head of the public understanding of science, and since the supernatural is non-science by definition, part of his job was to debunk supernatural claims. Professor Dawkins is well known as a brilliant biologist and a great popularizer of science, all within the confines of the goals of Oxford. And Mr. 'Truth', please give ONE example of some 'amazing work' that any creationist research group has ever done. (Other than something amazingly stupid, like claiming that the Grand Canyon was made in a few days by Noah's flood.)

So I propose that the measure of a scientist should be his unwavering, faithful use of the scientific method in all professional aspects of his career. Dawkins fails when he attempts to scientifically conclude that a creator MUST NOT EXIST. This is something that even the most vehement atheist must recognize is not possible.

Eric, my point is that in the process of "debunking" such claims, Dawkins abandons science and logic and leaps to conclusions that are not scientifically defendable. Debunking specific claims made by religious people doesn't debunk the belief that there is a creator.

Jason, Dawkins has stated time and time again that he does not believe with absolute certainty that a creator does not exist. He uses scientific principles to show how the creators of popular religions (like the god of the bible) almost certainly do not exist. Chapter 4 of "The God Delusion" is entitled 'Why there ALMOST Certainly is no God'. I think we also have a disagreement on semantics. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive; theism is about belief and gnosticism is about knowledge. I consider my self to be an agnostic atheist, as does Dawkins. There is nothing scientifically unsound about Professor Dawkins' arguments.

Common guys, didn't you know Jesus rode a T-Rex down to Galilee?

Eric, sorry, I don't have my copy of The God Delusion handy; it's on loan to a friend. I understand your distinction about theism v. agnosticism, but Dawkins himself often uses a "sliding scale," with one end being complete faith, the other complete atheism, and the middle ground agnosticism. I have heard him say that he is extremely close to absolute atheism on that scale. My question is this: how can one be "almost certain" that there is or is not a creator? A good scientist wouldn't say that, simply because of a lack of empirical evidence, there isn't one; he can only say "there is no scientific evidence to suggest the existence of a creator." That's very different than saying "there almost certainly isn't one because religions are stupid, and besides, we can't detect it." The fact is that since no "God test" can be conducted, all that exists are logical rebuttals to virtually every argument made both for, and against, a creator. The reason these rebuttals abound on both sides is because no argument I've ever heard is convincing one way or another. How can it be? It is my opinion that to try to use science to further your opinions on the existence of a creator is disingenuous. Of course, I realize the semantics issues at play. What is meant by "creator" is another.

Would you object if a scientist said "Lightning is almost certainly not caused by Zeus"? Or "The Earth is almost certainly not placed on the back of a giant turtle"? I agree that not everyone has the same definition of a 'creator'. If you have a pantheistic, all encompassing, naturalistic definition (like Einstein, Spinoza, or Hawking), then that is not view that can be debunked and Dawkins nor anyone else tries. However, if you take the classic Biblical creator god definition, then there are some 'god tests' that can be conducted. For example, Mark 16:18 says that is you believe in god and drink poison, then you will not get sick. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me. If a believers continually get sick from drinking poison, it can be said that a god who protects you from poison if you believe in him almost certainly does not exist. It is a mistake to assume that because there is no proof for or against a creator, the probability of a creator being real is 50%. Sorry to bring it up, but Bertrand Russel's teapot is a valid point here. Just why is there a reason to believe that some being created the universe? I think to claim a universe creator is to make a scientific claim about the universe, and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny.

Eric, you just did exactly what I asked you not to. You used the equivalent of Russell's teapot argument. Please see my previous post for why I think it is not a valid analogy. I understand what you're saying, and I have more of the definition that you attribute to Einstein et al. Still, my question is this: what evidence does Dawkins have either way that Einstein's creator does or doesn't exist? None. So how can he be anything other than 50/50 agnostic? I still can't help but think that his disbelief is caused by the prevalence of ridiculous interpretations of God portrayed in religion.

Jason T., thanks for showing that the person is misunderstanding things is none other than yourself. You obviously don't even know what atheism means. First of all, atheists don't have to justify anything because they have nothing to justify. It is theists who posit the existence of a god, and thus it is theists who have the "burden of proof" of justifying their conjecture by producing the evidence. Atheists don't have to produce anything, since it is not atheists who are positing the existence of a god. Second, there is nothing about what I've just described concerning atheism that is anti-science. Indeed, it is *consistent* with the scientific approach: Require good evidence, use rational analysis of the relevant data. Third, theism is the opposite of this, because theism is based on *faith*, not on an attitude of critical thinking. Fourth, creationist attitudes, and young earth creationist attitudes especially, are overtly anti-science. So nothing you have said backs up the idea that Richard Dawkins is "unwittingly anti-science."

Thank you all for your wonderful comments! Footnotes for my article are available at http://www.filebox.vt.edu/users/burket/burkes/articles/evolutionofcreationism.htm. I will address those comments that directly relate to my article: Jason, you are apt to point out the violation of academic freedom. The version of this article that I submitted to my editor contained this (this paragraph was deleted for reasons I am trying to discover): "...petitioned the dean to reinstate Morris. A civil engineering professor who worked here during the 1960s disputed this claim in an email. “I was never given an opportunity to sign a letter protesting efforts to force him out. I would have signed had I been given the opportunity, because I think that would have been a grievous violation of Dr. Morris’ academic freedom.” Nevertheless, the professor noted “that Dr. Torgersen mentioned one day, not many years ago, during a conversation, that the College of Engineering and the University received a lot of criticism because of Dr. Morris’ books on creationism.” After his dismissal..." As to the "Truth" writer, I would need some more evidence to address the validity of your statements.

Evolutionism is vapidly becoming more and more vapid. Too much helium in the sun. Too much helium in those blasted granite rocks. That is only a small portion. Evolution is the blunder of age.

Todd, I never said that atheists must prove that a creator doesn't exist. The problem is that many attempt to, and worse, they attempt to use science to construct this proof. Even worse, the proof is usually something like "religious teachings have scientific flaws, ergo there is probably no god."

Jason, would you be happy if they clarified it and said "religious teachings have scientific flaws, ergo god, as defined in those specific religious teachings, probably doesn't exist"? It is flawed to use errors in the ancient Hindu texts to show that Amon Ra (an Egyptian god) probably isn't real. The argument depends on how you define your god. It is one thing to say "god is nature and the reason why there is existence" and an entirely different thing to say "I have special knowledge that God wants us to mutilate the genitals of infants and He generally disapproves of us eating pork." Unfortunately, the more common definition of god is something along the lines of the second.

Eric, that's fine, and I agree that many portrayals of this would-be god are, unfortunately, atrocious. But it is an important distinction to keep the issue of whether or not a creator exists distinct from that of the creator's nature. Science teaches us to explore cause and effect, so even atheist scientists must surely believe that some chain of events either leads to a particular originating event (i.e. "creation" of the universe - which, of course, begs questions about the origins of the creator (infinite god regression)), or that there is an infinite chain of causality and the universe has always existed. Alternatively, there is the belief that such a god would exist external to the laws of the universe, but if so, how did that god come to be? All of these are tough pills to swallow, which is why humility should be exalted among scientists, theologians, and philosophers alike.