Ive just come accross this article on darwin. At first I thought this simon conway morris guy who wrote it was an idiot writing completely outside of his field of expertise. Thn Richard Dawkins himself posted the following comment:
Various people posting here have implied that Simon Conway Morris is ignorant or stupid. He is neither. He is a distinguished paleontologist and a clever writer. Unfortunately, he is also a devout Christian, and nobody can understand why. Once, when I asked him why, he replied that it was because of the credibility of the New Testament. It was the one answer I was not expecting, and I was speechless.
What I notice about this article is not ignorance or stupidity (although of course I disagree with the main point) but the sheer NASTINESS of the style. Every line is laced with a kind of peevish, sneering spite.
Now how can someone become a top scientist and yet come up with stupid arguments like simon conway morris does? The same can be said for people like fraces collins. As far as I can see there are two options:
1.There actually are good arguments for a sky daddy (this one is blatently false)
2.They are so desperate to believe that they compartmentalise there minds and one moment come up with good science and the next total and utter crap.
Clearly it must be option 2. It makes me angry to hear how religion can brain wash good scientists.
Richard Dawkins also makes a stellar point. Why do xians have such a nasty and spiteful writing style. Why is it that atheists such as Dawkins himself never show arrogance? And xians have the cheek to claim that you need a sky daddy to be good.