I was listening to Bruce Sterling's SXSW talk this morning (downloaded onto my flash player). Hadn't heard him speak before.
He's an uptalker. Really smart on tech. Good turns-of-phrase.
And asked the question 'Do you believe Adam and Eve rode to church on the back of a dinosaur?' Proceeded to talk about the shame of creationist beliefs.
Understatement: No believer in creation believes that crappy strawman.
I have long been angered by the fact that it's ok to ridicule people who believe in creation. I do not ridicule people who believe in evolution, though I think it's an intolerable leap of faith. I boil it down to: Do you find it more probable that everything was designed* and initiated and guided by a Creator or happened randomly? I realize there are presuppositions that inform this opinion. I find the first explanation immeasurably more probable.
Still, if you don't, that's fine. Then I argue, *gasp* for civility. Is it such a leap of understanding or empathy to imagine how someone might arrive at a different opinion?
Richard Dawkins is the chief offender I've run across. I refuse to use his word 'meme'. I really hate the things he has written about those of us who believe in creation.
PZ Myers is another person who ridicules those who believe in creation.
I removed Kottke from my blogroll for his frequent pointing to those who ridicule creation beliefs, including all of the crap about the flying spaghetti monster.
Of course there are many.
And now Sterling's added to the list.
How should reasonable people who believe in creation react to evolutionist bigots?
You're reading my response. By having no truck in any part of their indoctrinations. And, for me, by calling them the bigots they are. response may be different.
I don't plan on reading anything by Sterling anytime soon. Don't know how long that'll last. Might be permanent.
* I'm using this word broadly. The human conception would not apply to an omniscient omnipotent.