Article: Evolution -Not just for Atheists

Just watched the Documentary The Genius of Charles Darwin I was hoping it would talk more about evolution and less about religion, but the documentary wasn't meant for people like me. Poor Richard Dawkins. This is, I think, the third documentary I've seen him in. I confess haven't read his book, though not because I don't want to. That a brilliant Professor like Dr. Dawkins would spend his precious time and intellect arguing with ignorant religious fanatics is depressing. You might as well convince a brick wall to crumble to sand as get a devout religious person to abandon their beliefs. I agree with the vast majority of Dr. Dawkins' opinions. I LOVE evolution, and once you understand the concept, most of the things you observe in nature click oh-so-beautifully into place; paths of thought open up that a curious brain can follow for hours. Once the concept of evolution is understood, it baffles me that anyone could deny it's truth. An easy example of how brilliant the theory of evolution is: Once the concept is grasped, a definitive answer to the most famous cyclical question of all suddenly dawns like a chorous of angels... The egg came first. Before I have the audacity stumble into why Dr. Dawkins is getting nowhere, I'll explain where I'm coming from: Am I a Christian? No. Do I believe in {{God}}? No. Do I believe the Bible was anything besides a bunch of stories written by fallible(as they all are) men -possibly on mushrooms- trying to explain the way things are? No. I was raised in part by a scientist and physicist I call Dad. My mother's father was a professor of botany and the world's leading expert in Mixomycetes-he was probably an atheist, though HIS father was a Rabbi. Dad and Grandfather were some of the first people to work with and on electron microscopes. Dad wholeheartedly supports evolution, Dad worked at WSU in the physical sciences dept. for two decades or more, Dad currently teaches high school physics in California. Dad is also an Episcopal Deacon. SO a happy medium between science and religion can and does exist on the basis that there is still an awful lot of things out there that have not been explained AND that is OK! I think that's really neat, actually. There are still frontiers the science has not (legitimately) crossed into, may never cross into, and WE, AND the next generation, have the opportunity to explore untrodden ground and on this planet no less. Dawkins is attacking religious people's reality. He has a right to do that, but he won't get anywhere with anyone but the most skeptical agnostics. Attack people's beliefs and they won't hear you. Someone raised religious won't become an atheist because you have evidence that their reality is wrong, they will instinctively seek out even the tiniest loophole to weasel out of the argument and rescue the warm fuzzy core their life is built around. Naturally, When someone is attacked, they get defensive -handy evolutionary trait in most circumstances. Attack someone's reality head on and they won't say "oh, you're right" and abandon it. They have to come to the conclusion themselves-even Darwin and Wallace had to travel that path. If you're going to convince someone who believes otherwise, you have to start from their side of the fence, and let people know that they can have BOTH instead of demanding that they abandon their cozy headspace for something new and unfamiliar. Anyway, it's how Christians ate up all those other cultures, we CAN learn from this. had the best argument for religious ears I've heard: "To deny evolution is to limit God's Power. Brilliant. I'm NOT talking about Intelligent Design. That's not science, it's bullshit and we all know it; STFU and move along. If you're going to accept ID as reality, you also have to accept that God is F'ing retarded. But perhaps you CAN accept that the reason we're fucked up is because God isn't DONE YET. Pretend I'm a Christian for a minute: If God made the world, why isn't evolution the way it was done? Simple concept, elegant, brutal in some ways by our standards, yes, but anyone who's had hard times or lost a loved one and is still religious has to acknowledge that life's not all light, laughter and happiness. We ABSOLUTELY need to learn hard science in school, and evolution is a linchpin for a solid understanding of biology. Religions need to produce good scientists to survive in today's complex world, and to embrace evolution isn't denying God, it's opening the door to a greater understanding of how God works. The Bible was written by MEN interpreting God's word. Men who were fallible, fragile, superstitious and ignorant by the standards of even the most conservative Christians today. That they might've misinterpreted something is forgivable, REALLY, if God had spoken to them of computers or cell phones, someone two thousand years ago would've just written it in as 'magic box'. Maybe 6,000 years was the farthest back they could conceive. There's hundreds of places in the Bible we're taught to take with a grain of sacred salt, and the unveiling of evolution is just the next episode of people discovering the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, which is, in fact, vaguely spherical. /Christian PoV Organized religion is responsible for more death, destruction, prejudice, and technological backsliding than any other invention EVER, and hands down the most damaging human force on this planet. Most of the reasoning behind all of it is ridiculous; I see grown adults KILLING EACH OTHER over who has the best imaginary friend. That said, people still come together under religion's umbrella for hope, solace, comfort, healing, and company. When religion is used as a vehicle for healing, shelter and comfort to people who have nothing else, I'm happy to let their imaginary friend perform that job. Richard Dawkins strikes me as a good person. He's compassionate, curious, and when it comes to most things, open-minded. He's been pigeonholed to represent the far end of a spectrum that is unbalanced to the detriment of the human race. I am sad that he is made to play the necessary role of the extremist, its got to be a horrible job. Though if that's the most extreme an atheist can get, I don't understand what the churchies are worried about. I hope Dr. Dawkins is remembered as a great teacher and philosopher, and given more opportunities to unveil the beauty of science to appreciative learners and less brought in to argue with ignorant fanatics. Fanatics who can embrace good science AND keep their imaginary friend should they wish.