Prof Richard Dawkins, a biologist who is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and a member of The Royal Society, spoke recently at the Meeting Hall (built in 1910) of the Society for Ethical Culture (founded in 1876) in New York City. It is located on Central Park West at West 64th Street. Approximately 800 people attended. (800 people is the capacity of the venue, and for all intents and purposes every space was filled. The hall features pews, not chairs, so it's a bit difficult to determine attendance at a glance.)
Professor Dawkins received a standing ovation at the conclusion of his presentation.
Prof Dawkins was gracious and thoughtful throughout the Q&A session. The first questioner pointed out to Prof Dawkins that perhaps he ought to reconsider his use of the term "Darwinism," because it can seem to legitimize a misuse (deliberate or otherwise) of the term by opponents of proper science education, such as many creationists, that suggests that evolution is a type of cult of personality. As this questioner pointed out: Physicists don't call themselves Newtonians or Einsteinians.
Prof Hawkins said that this was an interesting point, and he had had his consciousness raised by the questioner, and that--yes--he was convinced by the argument and would use the term more carefully in the future. He thanked the questioner humbly.
While the questioner did not explicitly say as much, it is indeed the case that many religious opponents of a proper science education (e.g., a science education including the teaching of evolution) indulge not only in the incorrect "evolution versus creationism" frame--as if both concepts were equally valid--but sometimes a "Jesus versus Darwin" frame.
But the choice isn't between Jesus and Darwin, it's between accepting or not accepting an overarching scientific principle that is based upon a massive body of evidence the vast majority of which has been repeatedly subjected to peer examination. If one does not believe in evolution it is as if one does not believe in gravity, the germ theory, or plate tectonics: disbelieve it if you'd like, but you will be rejecting the idea ultimately based on religious dogma, personal incredulity, ignorance, or a combination of the three, but not based on scientific evidence...nor based (as the questioner was mentioning) on choosing to like or "believe" Darwin over Jesus, Allah, or anyone else, as if one's choice were between an array of clever opinions, including the opinions supposedly based on supernaturally revealed truth. The questioner has a point, yes: evolution (or for that matter skepticism or secular humanism) is not about Mr. Charles Darwin per se. Taking or leaving evolution isn't about any person in history, but about a large body of evidence that you either take as scientifically valid or reject for non-scientific reasons.
Prof Dawkins is experimenting with some new angles to his arguments found in The God Delusion, including a heightened emphasis on the value of teaching comparative religion in schools. He made it clear during the Q&A that there are dangers associated with teaching comparative religion courses in public schools, but if such courses are taught competently, they can be very useful in demonstrating to students the simple fact that there are and have been numerous religions on the planet, therefore claims by any one religion that it alone reveals the whole truth of reality are unlikely to be correct.
Good news from PA recently:
