Darwin Day in America
Discovery Institute
Seattle, Washington (United States)
ID: 202217 - 02/06/2008 - 0:57 - $29.95

West, John G. Associate Director, Discovery Institute, Center for Science & Culture

John West talked about his book Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

John West argues that the domination of science in American society has led to the corruption of our morals. He spoke at an event hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Source: Inside C-span archives

...

Darwin Day in America
Discovery Institute
Seattle, Washington (United States)
ID: 202217 - 02/06/2008 - 0:57 - $29.95

West, John G. Associate Director, Discovery Institute, Center for Science & Culture

John West talked about his book Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

John West argues that the domination of science in American society has led to the corruption of our morals. He spoke at an event hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Source: Inside C-span archives

Darwin Day lecture Part 1

Listen to it. Right away he speaks of Darwin Day as an attempt to promote atheism. He views learning science as an attack on religious faith with religion being viewed with paranoia and suspicion.

He supposes anti-religion (false premise to begin with) means anti-religious morals (which is a non sequitur; one has nothing to do with the other), etc., etc..

What amounts to improving intelligence through science, then, to Dr. West, becomes an assault on religion.

This is consistent with the axisoflogic article.

Nowhere does he speak of learning science as a subject or of the effects good or bad of science in general.

Did not understand that.

Nowhere does he mention morality.

The quote came from his own Creation Institute. Here it is:

"John West
argues that the domination of science in American society has led to
the corruption of our morals."

But you are right, in Part 1, he does not mention morals, it is part of a series where he attempts to make that case.

Nowhere does he say Darwin day is promoting atheism.

He says it right up front. ~ 2:09 minutes. He says pretty much all of the above (in different words, but the meaning is the same)...

Nowhere does he speak of learning science as a subject or of the effects good or bad of science in general.

Did not understand that.

Nowhere does he mention morality.

The quote came from his own Creation Institute. Here it is:

"John West
argues that the domination of science in American society has led to
the corruption of our morals."

But you are right, in Part 1, he does not mention morals, it is part of a series where he attempts to make that case.

Nowhere does he say Darwin day is promoting atheism.

He says it right up front. ~ 2:09 minutes. He says pretty much all of the above (in different words, but the meaning is the same).

3:12m ..."given these types of sponsors [secular groups], it really should be no surprise that the events also attack religionists.."

It's a false claim and a false premise. But that's his attitude throughout. He DOES correctly state that [science] biology doesn't support a Creator! He says it 'as if' its an attack on religion. It is not. It is a statement of scientific opinion regarding design.

He never speaks of 'improving intelligence through science' and thus cannot have said science is an assault on religion in the way you imply,

I don't imply it, I say it explicitly. Gaining scienfic knowledge IS improving intellegence through science. We've made more advancements in the last 100 years through science than in the prior several thousand years without it.

And he DOES claim evolutionism [science] to be an attack on religion. Said so right up front.

seems to me that you are just making assumptions about West's real attitudes and reading them into his talk.

No he's being very clear about his attitudes. It was his entire argument and reason for the lecture. How you missed it is somewhat baffling.

Listen to it. Right away he speaks of Darwin Day as an attempt to promote atheism.

No, he does not say this. Show me a quote where he says this,

You need to hear from him "my" exact words to accept his obvious assertion that he speaks of Darwin Day as an attempt to promote atheism? No yanceducat, listen to the MEANING of his words!

Just stop for a moment.

Forget the above ever happened. Now tell me, WHY is he discussing Darwin Day in relationship to the secular groups that are promoting it?

He clearly spends 3/4ths of his speech telling you WHO is promoting Darwin Day. YOU tell me WHY he's doing that?

What relationship do they h...

Listen to it. Right away he speaks of Darwin Day as an attempt to promote atheism.

No, he does not say this. Show me a quote where he says this,

You need to hear from him "my" exact words to accept his obvious assertion that he speaks of Darwin Day as an attempt to promote atheism? No yanceducat, listen to the MEANING of his words!

Just stop for a moment.

Forget the above ever happened. Now tell me, WHY is he discussing Darwin Day in relationship to the secular groups that are promoting it?

He clearly spends 3/4ths of his speech telling you WHO is promoting Darwin Day. YOU tell me WHY he's doing that?

What relationship do they have, according to West? WHY does he think it's relevant at all?

Just answer me that. (Never mind anything that I or you have stated prior. Just start here and answer that.)

Why does he think it's relevant that secular and atheist groups are promoting Darwin Day? What's his point in pointing that out?

Tell me.

So you assume that his motive for saying it is to claim that Darwin Day is designed to promote Atheism.

Yes, this is true. Otherwise why is he giving a lecture on ATHEISTS promoting Darwin Day? For any other reason it would be a non sequitur. There would be no relevance whatsoever.

Which is why I asked, WHY is he spending all his time making sure his audience knows WHO is promotion Darwin Day?

So you assume that his motive for saying it is to claim that Darwin Day is designed to promote Atheism. I hear it as making either a factual statement or not, of what actually happens at the events. As I have already said I think it is essentially a true statement that he ma...

read more»

So you assume that his motive for saying it is to claim that Darwin Day is designed to promote Atheism.

Yes, this is true. Otherwise why is he giving a lecture on ATHEISTS promoting Darwin Day? For any other reason it would be a non sequitur. There would be no relevance whatsoever.

Which is why I asked, WHY is he spending all his time making sure his audience knows WHO is promotion Darwin Day?

So you assume that his motive for saying it is to claim that Darwin Day is designed to promote Atheism. I hear it as making either a factual statement or not, of what actually happens at the events. As I have already said I think it is essentially a true statement that he makes.

But the question is... why is it relevant?

You see, I also happen to agree with him, as you do. But that's not the issue. The issue is WHY is it relevant? What's his point in saying so?

and then atheists discovered it and recognized the happy accident that provided them a forum to push their cause.

Nope, no accident. They sponsored it on purpose. Now, back to the question... WHY is it important to point it out?

You use the word "also" instead of often, which alters the meaning significantly.Also you leave off the explicitly.

Thank you; I was going by memory! But I'm glad you pointed out the part above it, where I state ""It's a false claim and a false premise. But that's his attitude throughout."

I was mistaken. It is not a false claim. That is, if you scratch the word "religionists" and replace it with "religion".

The premise of Darwin Day is evolution. That AUTOMATICALLY attacks the veracity of creation story based religion. So, in a sense, he's right. It IS an attack on certain religious beliefs (by proxy).

Pray tell, yanceducat, does evolution undermine the Christian creation story?

If "yes", what do you suppose West thinks that leads to?

(The answer is WHY he's giving the lecture.)