The PBS Nova report on the Dover trial was quite well done and reportedly captured the entire affair really well. The defense was pathetic and the science prevailed regardless of how conservative the judge was. It was just a complete wash out.
One part annoyed me though. There were several teachers and people who opposed ID and as a consequence received some of that Christian tolerance (death threats, insults, attacks of every kind), they pointed out in several parts of the report that this was so very uncalled for because they were Christians and active in the church. The impression I got is that if they were atheists the threats, attacks and insults would have been called for. It is not okay to send death threats to Christians when they oppose Creationism dressed up in drag. And though, denying the antecedent doesn't make for a valid argument, it certainly does give the impression that attacking atheists is okay.
If (Christian) then death threats are not called for.
(~Christian)
If one adds the premise:
If (~Christian) then death threats are *STILL* not called for.
Then one doesn't even have an argument. It boils down to "death threats are not called for" and pointing out that they are Christian.
It's okay, though, it doesn't sit well with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment