Proponents of ID thank Dawkins (and God!) for his big gob

Looks like there's trouble afoot for people trying to defend the teaching of evolution in the US. The cause for such concern? Not the usual proponents of Intelligent Design, but avowed atheists! So says Madeleine Bunting, in today's Guardian:

On Wednesday evening, at a debate in Oxford, Richard Dawkins will be gathering the plaudits for his long and productive intellectual career. It is the 30th anniversary of his hugely influential book The Selfish Gene. A festschrift, How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, has been published this month, with contributions from stars such as Philip Pullman.

A week ago it was the turn of the US philosopher Daniel Dennett, second only to Dawkins in the global ranking of contemporary Darwinians, to be similarly feted at a series of lectures and debates across the UK launching his book on religion, Breaking the Spell.

The curious thing is that among those celebrating the prominence of these two Darwinians on both sides of the Atlantic is an unexpected constituency - the American creationist/intelligent-design lobby.

Huh? Dawkins, in particular, has become their top pin-up. How so? William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"

[However,] Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher (and an agnostic) based in the US, with a string of books on the subject, is exasperated: "Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

[...] Ruse put on the net an email exchange between himself and Dennett in which he accused his adversary of being an "absolute disaster" and of refusing to study Christianity seriously: "It is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil." Dennett's reply was an opaque one line: "I doubt you mean all the things you say."

[...]

All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat. It's a point that escapes Dawkins. His book on religion, The God Delusion, is to be published this autumn. Dembski and the intelligent-design lobby must already be on their knees, thanking God.

Does evolution necessitate atheism and therefore violate America's wall between 'church' and 'state' (and is atheism a religious position)? Bunting also says this debate has implications for 'thousands of young Muslims studying science in Britain'. I'm not quite sure how exactly. I do know that anti-evolution polemics are very popular amongst some (how many I don't think anyone can say) technically-literate Muslims, especially those with a 'secular' education. But, unless Bunting knows something I don't, I am not aware of any urgent Muslim movement in Britain which is going to great pains to have Intelligent Design taught in the National Curriculum (even if was to be taught, the place for it should be religious studies).

Comments

[abd]

as-salaam alaykum. thanks for pointing this out. funny i never thought of it that way. these things are complicated, of course, so this is not decisive but still interesting. i'm reminded of the complete silence with which my question "what if science proved the existence of God?" was met in a philosophy class on religion and liberalism. now i don't know if science could "prove" the existence of God, but i find it interesting that everyone assumes a dichotomy between provable science and unprovable religion. and never the twain shall meet.

[thabet]

wa'alaykum assalam

I think it would be difficult for a believer in God to argue that science alone can ever ultimately prove God, because most of their claims for their belief are in other realms.

Of course some would also say that science is never strictly proven --only disproven.

[Dissertation]

About the Madeleine Bunting you told so,is an English journalist and writer who is an Associate Editor and columnist on The Guardian.Also the Madeleine Bunting was formerly married to Patrick Wintour, political editor of The Guardian,so the details you share are really good and useful to read.