Dawkins, Islam in schools, Part II

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Dawkins views are nothing but a racist attack upon progressive policies.[/b]

---

[img]http://i6.tinypic.com/2z3q7f4.gif[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

Yet you have no problem spreading your ignorance about biology on this thread about the teaching of non-science in science classrooms. Then you furthermore continue to spread your lie that Dawkins picks on Muslims based on one newspaper article about a snippet of an interview conducted with a different newspaper while ignoring his abundant writings on other religions.[/b]

---

What are you talking about? Where did I say that creationism should be taught in schools? I never said such thing. I am merely attacking the racist anti-Muslim spin.

quote:

---

He said science was being threatened in classrooms because the Government accepts that theories including "intelligent design" can be [b]discussed[/b] "in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution."

---

Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

Discussing something, is not "teaching" it. Is the theory if evolution so scientifically weak, that it can not stand up to a few queries from a few teenagers? Dawkins goes into a tirade when a few students don't accept on face value his assertions, so much for the "Chair for the Public [b]Understanding[/b] of Science."

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Beleif in Islam is a defining charateristic of several visible minorities in th UK.[/b]

---

In your dictionary. Many "visible minorities" (disgusting term) are smart enough to cast off superstition of all kinds and start thinking of themselves. I even know some Catholics who practice birth control, divorce, abortion, intermarriage, [b]homosexuality[/b], and who don't freak out about extramarital sex.

I'll give you their email addresses so that you can berate them for betraying their religious "defining characteristic".

quote:

---

[b]Dawkins views are nothing but a racist attack upon progressive policies.[/b]

---

You can't get much mileage by condemning his anti-religious views - so you condemn him for attacking "progressive politics"? God, Allah, and all their partners-in-crime, please preserve me from your definition of "progressive politics".

Anyway, answer my question: Is Islam a "defining characteristic" of Filipinos, Bengalis, Punjabis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Sudanese...?? Answer, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism or in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

Discussing something, is not "teaching" it. Is the theory if evolution so scientifucaly weak, that it can not stand up to a few queries from a few teenagers?[/b]

---

Tell that to [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001958]C... DiCarlo[/url], award-winning teacher and 2008 Humanist of the Year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Are you seriously suggesting that students should not be able to discuss creationism in class? That is what Dawkins is saying. I should have thought that an effective pedagodgy would include discussion of numerous ideas. What happened to free and open discussion as a basis of teaching?

[/b]

---

Frankly, and speaking as a religious believer with (I suspect) more in common with Muslims than anyone else currently posting in this thread, no, I don't want the biology teacher discussing - or attempting to discuss - the relationship between science and religion with my children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]
You and I, and virtually all biology teachers I know, are in agreement.
][/b]

---

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

ETA: I agree with you on Creation Science, too.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Where for example, is the scientific statistical evidence that Muslims are more prone to having "creationist" convictions than Christians.

[/b]

---

Who - in the name of all that is holy - has said that they are?!!!

ETA: I don't want the biology teacher discussing religion with my kids. At all. And I don't believe many biology teachers would want to.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]The opeartive word is "discuss," not "teach". [/b]

---

Hey, I don't care what term you use; call it dialogue, or tiddly winks if you wish. As long as it is not state sponsored, and the state is not restricting individual right as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you can call it whatever you like

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Scientists actually teaching science!?!? What a novel concept!!![/b]

---

If you have a chip on your shoulder or concerns about the curriculum and how it is delivered, take it up with your schools' Science Dept Head. Failing that, approach your schools admin team, the school board, or your ombudsperson. Or better yet volunteer your time, e.g. organise a science fair at a school and demonstrate scientific inquiry.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Where for example, is the scientific statistical evidence that Muslims are more prone to having "creationist" convictions than Christians.

---

Dawkins never said that. You are trying to warp his words to fit your bias.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

The only “chip on my shoulder” is when something [i]other than science[/i] is taught in science class. “Intelligent design”, creationism, or whatever else one might wish to call anti-science creationist mythology has no place in education, even if that is “offensive” to some.[/b]

---

This is why you, and RosaL, and others like you must stay engaged and voice your concerns when very vocal minorities lobby governments and school boards to give creation science and intelligent design equal coverage and weight in the curriculum. The Christians for example have been getting very devious, and are not above using deception to get Intelligent Design publications like
[url=http://www.amazon.com/Pandas-People-Central-Question-Biological/dp/09145... Pandas and People[/url] into the biology classroom.

They are now using [url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080218/ben-stein-wins-intelligent... Stein[/url]'s DVD to advance their cause and popularise their faith based perspective.

Christians are not above claiming they are being persecuted, or that teachers, scientists, school boards and governments are anti-Christian and are bigots.

That's a very powerful denouncement. No government administration or school board wants bad publicity or the perception that they are bigots.

It doesn't even have to be true. Calling a government or a school board bigoted is a powerful political tool. Very few people's political careers could survive a denouncement like that.

Also the ID and Creation science crowds are not above demonising local Christians (that support keeping their schools secular) and scientists that have faith, like

[url=http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html]Kenneth R. Miller[/url] .

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

More info on Expelled: [url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/]Link[/url]

It's a blatant propaganda piece, dishonest on a number of levels. And yet some people eat it up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I think Ben Stein is a funny guy, in a peculiar sort of way. But, although I've not seen it, I've heard his recent DVD is absolutely terrible--anti-intellectual.

---

I have been trying to find it, without any luck - I will never pay to see it. It appears to be a train-wreck of dishonesty. For instance Stein quotes Darwin:

quote:

---

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

---

as proof that Darwin felt his own theory was absurd, without quoting the rest:

quote:

---

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

---

Or mentioning that over the last 150 years science has shown 1) the steps of eye evolution and 2) science has since realized and shown that the eye could be in no way considered an intelligent design, in fact it is on the whole a pretty poor design which would be expected from a long series of small alterations from a more primative eye.

for your viewing pleasure

Ben Stein is [url=http://www.expelledthemovie.com/]Angus Young[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Exactly Dawkins views are based on no evidence whatsoever in regards to Muslim views on Creationism or the theory of evolution.[/b]

---

Yeah, he just hates brownish people, and he hides behind a cloak of science. How very profound.

quote:

---

[b]... he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.[/b]

---

He just loves Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and hates brownish people - at least, the Muslim ones. Go figure, all those books, all that science. He could have just joined some Islamophobic cult and got his rocks off that way. These Brits, they go to so much trouble.

quote:

---

[b]He then goes on to attack multicultralism. Why multiculturalism? [/b]

---

Ummm, I also oppose "multiculturalism", at least as applied in Canada. It was developed by the Liberal Party to: (a) dilute Quйbec demands for recognition of their right to self-determination; and (b) pay off some puppets in various immigrant communities, sponsorship-style. The Liberals are past masters at this.

There is no "multiculturalism" in Canada and none is needed. There is Canada, there is Quйbec, and there are Aboriginal nations and people. We don't need ghettoes run by Liberal (or other) hacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

...All we have is this one anecdote, which he then extends into a sweeping statement about Muslims in schools, .....

He then goes on to attack multiculturalism. Why multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is a specific form of policy intended to protect the rights of minority groups in a society, such an attack on multiculturalism would not make any sense whatsoever if he were attacking religions in general or the Christian majority of the UK,

[/b]

---

You are correct and many people agree, and have stated over 2 threads now, that they agree that anecdotal evidence is always weak. We get it, everyone gets it Cueball. Dawkins made a mistake, and a generalisation and we recognise it.

Your interpretation of his "attack" on multiculturalism is interesting though, but I suspect it is not accurate and might even be a straw-man.

I don't exactly know what kind of views on multiculturalism Dawkins subscribes to, but I doubt that you can represent his views. Also I am familiar enough with Dawkin's writings and public appearances and his DVDs that I know Christianity is not spared his criticism and examination. Christianity has never gotten a free pass from Dawkins. He is relentless and dogged.

I can only speak for myself:
I think keeping state sponsored faith based perspectives out of public schools is right on the money. In fact I believe that no state sponsored religion in the schools strengthens multiculturalism.

How so?

Well lets say it 1859, and the Canadian government advocates the Church of England's (Anglican?) perspective. All students must be taught the Anglican doctrine, the Anglican perspective on faith and creation and salvation, and their views on women and homosexuals. How much individual freedom is there? Students can not express views contrary to the state sponsored religion which is taught in the schools. Ultimately, no room for multiculturalism as everyone is expected to conform or just shut up. White Christian heterosexual males have all the power.

Now lets jump forward to 2008. Canada is essentially a secularised country with no state sponsored religion, and does not advocate a particular faith based perspective.
There is now a lot of individual freedom. Students can have any views they like, and express their convictions freely if they choose to. We have Anglicans, Catholics, Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, First Nations, atheists, and Jedi Knights learning a secular curriculum together. The state prefers no one perspective over another, and advocates no faith based perspective. The kids are sharing their convictions and philosophies without fear of reprisal, like corporal punishment.
Not everything is hunky dory of course because white Christian culture still dominates our society, but at least our schools are a safe haven from religious indoctrination, dogma, and threat of physical harm from government agents for expressing something other than the state sponsored faith perspective. White Christian heterosexual Males have most of the power, but things are progressing to a society with more equality. This is a better environment to foster multiculturalism, if the citizens want it.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

Dawkins never said that. You are trying to warp his words to fit your bias.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ][/b]

---

Wait a second I am wrong. CMOT caught it right away Dawkins, the "scientist" does in fact state that "[b]Most[/b] devout Muslims are creationists", base on one single anecdote derived from his TV show experience. He presents absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this conjecture, such as survey of Muslim opinion, nor does he offer an estimation of what he considers a "devout" Muslim, or in anyway try an establish how many of these "devout" muslim Creationists there actually are in the British school system. Pure prejudice and conjecture. Nothing scientific about it.

This spurious guestimation is then leveraged into an attack on mulitculturalism.

Yet, the so called "rationalists" are all over this hot potato, ready to defend this pompous ass in the name of "science."

Ridiculous.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]And just because Muslims are exposed to attacks doesn't mean that Dawkins should not treat everyone equally.[/b]

---

That is a good point and it highlights a fact that some people cannot seem to get their heads around: Attacking [b][i]an idea[/b][/i] is not the same thing as attacking [b][i]a person[/b][/i].

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

EAnd, contrary to various statements made by people here defending this pseudo-science, he is not making a general statement about Religion in general, but one specific religious movement, which is exposed daily to racial and ethnic attacks based on their association with this religious denomination.
[/b]

---

huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.[/b]

---

Of course, you are correct, RosaL. To argue otherwise would be to expose one's complete ignorance of Dawkins's writing and views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]

huh? He wrote a book attacking "Religion in general"! I read it. He goes all over the world attacking "religion in general". He is no more anti-muslim than anti-any-other-religion. As far as I can recall, it was mostly Christianity and Judaism he discussed in The God Delusion. This is just too ridiculous.[/b]

---

That is besides the point. This is about Dawkins attack upon Muslims and Multiculturalism. See the thread title. It is clear as day.

Why multiculturalism? Who does the policy serve? What are its aims? Certainly not to protect the rights of the Christian majority. The policy comes into existence precisely to help support minorities, not the white Christian majority.

If he were generally making a statment about religions, the multiculturalism angle would make no sense whatsoever. Can you imagine talking about how "fanatical mulitculturalism" is being exploited to defend English Protestants creationist?

That is an absurd idea, that would only make sense in India or Pakistan, where English Protestants are not the majority.

If you are saying that Dawkins words are being twisted by the British press to make a prejudiced attack against Muslims, then he is twice the fool he appears to be, since of course these statements can be seen to express precisely what they appear to be expressing, since he would then have had to be so stupid as to walk into a minefield of racist stygmatization, without carefully measuring his words and there impact, and possible uses.

It would have been very simple to make these statements in a general sense about religious people in general, but he did not. Nor do I think he is so stupid. He is biased, that is all. Typical European racist arrogance projected into the realm of scientific discourse.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
See the thread title. It is clear as day.

---

Ah, well if it is in the thread title then it must be an absolute reflection of Dawkins views on religion. Good catch. Thread titles are inerrant.

I agree with Rosa this is just too ridiculous. (and pointless)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

Ah, well if it is in the thread title then it must be an absolute reflection of Dawkins views on religion. Good catch. Thread titles are inerrant.

I agree with Rosa this is just too ridiculous. (and pointless)[/b]

---

If you are saying that Dawkins words are being twisted by the British press to make a prejudiced attack against Muslims, then he is twice the fool he appears to be, since of course these statements can be seen to express precisely what they appear to be expressing, since he would then have had to be so stupid as to walk into a minefield of racist stygmatization, without carefully measuring his words and there impact, and possible uses.

And yes, as a group Babblers are making precisely the same political error by feeding anti-Muslim prejudice and stygmatization, based on this pompous idiots anecdote.

It would have been very simple to make these statements in a general sense about religious people in general, but he did not. Nor do I think he is so stupid. He is biased, that is all. Typical European racist arrogance projected into the realm of scientific discourse.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Where did I say I think that Muslim beliefs should be above criticism? What I am saying is that no one should be open to spurious, supersticious and prejudiced attacks from people in positions of authority. I feel this is important when dealing marginalized minority groups about which there is already substantial stereotyping and prejudice.

Dawkins had a discussion with some children about the theory of evolution. He then extrapolates this incident into a general "theory" about what "most devout Muslims" believe complete with lessons to be learned about the policy of multiculturalism. No where are these theories supported by substantive evidence beyond this single interview, nor are they even within the purview of the field for which he was trained, as is evident by his lack of sociological acumen.

Spurious and apparently biased bullshit based in his authority as the "chair" of a basket weaving position at a prestigious university.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball, are you arguing that most Muslims do not believe in creationism, or are you arguing that Dawkins should have no right to say what he did because it was specific to Muslims?

IMV, there should be NO creationism taught/discussed/alluded to, in any publically finded school in any supposed democratic country.