For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other — one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin — explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment.
He thinks evolution will help us "understand our sinful ways" (To use the reporter's words.) I'm not sure this way of thinking really harms anyone - so long as school boards don't force teachers to teach it in science class. But the article quotes a scientist saying it could encourage society to think less rigorously about evolution.
5 comments:
Wow, I honestly can't tell if that guy has stumbled upon some unimaginable truth, has some secret evil plan, or is just totally crackers. At the interface between science and religion lies such complete balderdash; I just can't picture someone standing on it so calmly.
The more I think about it the more I do love this.
Dennett's right; Dowd is just sugar-coating the science with religion, but there's something really honest about that, maybe. That's all religion has ever been, anyway--an easy interface for our brains to understand and accept rules, both natural and artificial. Sugar-coating doesn't necessarily have to be secret or cynical to work, either. It's effectiveness isn't tied to our ignorance of it.
I mean, just look at the sugar-coating on Advil, and how well that works. As long as the sugar doesn't interfere with the functioning of the pain reliever, I'm not sure I need to restrict people from using it, just so long as they understand that it's not the ibuprofen that's sweet.
Since I'm no longer going insane with studying I can write without foaming at the mouth. Good for me!
At first I thought, hey great, he's pro evolution! But no. I think Dowd sucks. Here's why: He's profiteering (literally, from that $750,000 book deal) with yet another easy way to help people feel absolved of all their guilt (nothing much new there). But he gets the bonus points for pretending to understand and agree with science and evolution, only to stab them in the back by preaching that they're responsible for us losing our moral centers.
Here's a guy who repeatedly cheat on his wife, but can now live life guilt-free because biology and evolution made him do it. It's no longer because he's simply an asshole who cheats on his wife, it's because testosterone suppresses his religious upbringing... Instead of going to the confessional to make yourself feel better about being a jerk, now all you have to do is blame science and take no more responsibility for your actions. Oh! And buy my book.
Tell me if I'm just reading this wrong, but I think he's going completely the wrong direction with this. First religion was the ultimate crutch, but now he's adding evolution as an excuse for destroying what superficial moral fiber these guys had left in the first place. I don't think we're making any friends or headway with this guy.
The anecdote of the 81-year-old who felt absolved for cheating on his wife troubled me too. I thought, well, did you ever think about how your actions made her feel? Coming up with an evolutionary excuse for your behavior doesn't fix that. Relying on evolution just gives him a way to avoid the undeniable fact he's been an ass to someone else.
On the other hand, I can see how Dowd's mesage may be powerfully comforting to those who can't deny the science behind evolution but who are too scared to admit there may be no god out there guiding us along. It's a big leap for a lot of people to let go of the idea of god.
So like Mr. Pony says, Dowd's just sugar-coating science with religion. But I'd argue that's better than teaching creationsim in schools.
I sure hope this isn't ever taught to children, or to people who otherwise don't know any better. I think sugar-coating is for consenting adults.
Post a Comment