Agnostics in Peril!!!!

The term "agnostic" was invented by Thomas Huxley because he was being referred to as an atheist and he did not feel that he was qualified to be an atheist. It was also bad PR.

His was an argument from ignorance; which forms the backbone of the intent of the term. There was an element of humility--probably not borrowed from Darwin but from Christian tradition--that is by and large clean gone out of the present day of the West. Certainly there is no lack of hubris and polarization on the scene!

Not too long ago Macroevolution was declared to have "evolved" from a theory to a "fact."  This auto de fe reminds me a bit of Pharoah's magic team of Exodus 7 and 8. By sleight of hand and probably a lot of distracting verbiage, they convinced Pi Roh that the frogs of the magicians were somehow distinct from the plague frogs--when in fact they were probably using the plague itself to justify their existence and their job security.

Science itself has no new information to justify the verbal transition.  In fact, science itself is, at its core, in dire crisis, as even the New Yorker has noted.  When a discipline feels itself "rocked to the core", it usually appeals to faith, fiats, and fatwhas. It becomes rigid and seeks scapegoats, as with certain influential atheists who seek to deny entrance to the university to anyone with Christian beliefs. There is already this rule in place in regards to faculty--it would be only a short step to require students to renounce their faith at the door.  (Downside: atheist faculty would lack scapegoats and conversion materials--how can they let THAT happen?  No "sport" wouldn't be "sporting"!!!

What I am saying is that the West is so polarized that very few can be bothered with the strict definitions of fact and proof--which are very hard to come by--they are certainly not to be simply extrapolated from the rocks, which like the Bible of old, are of vastly more than one interpretation. (c.f. Dr. Kurt Wise)

So agnostics are in danger. People who claim to be agnostics are, in practice and attitude, "practical atheists."  For our present culture calls for various kinds of complete committment. Chances are that if Dawkins has his way ( unlike Huxley hinself!) and macroevolution is elevated to the status of Absolute Truth (make no mistake; this is the goal and the present statement of affairs) then the lifespan of the utility and even permissibility of agnosticism will be quite limited and may have to become tacit in the future.

Not unlike the theologian in Germany who said, "When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew." (Point of history: most of the Jews did not dare to speak up either--but were not allowed to vote with their feet...)(And are we?)