The words "dogma" , "dogmatic" "doctrine" and "doctrinaire" only ever seem to get used these days in their negative, pejorative senses - to denote hidebound, uncritical ways of thinking. But there is an element of dogma and doctrine in all systematic attempts to explain the world, whether the attempts are scientific or mystical: the passing-on of any firmly held opinion through teaching must necessarily involve dogma and doctrine to some extent. The early doctors of the church taught and passed on a body of knowledge to seminarians, doctors of science did, and still do, the same thing. The notion of the world being supported on the back of a giant turtle was dogma for people in some parts of the world, as was the Garden of Eden myth for Christians .Things have moved on, but I wouldn't deny that the idea of humans being descended from lower life forms isn't dogma for those who espouse the theory of evolution. It is for me, because without that central idea, the whole theory of evolution collapses.


The problem I have with new atheists is about the insulting language they use to religious people, not the fact that they hold strong opinions on the issue of evolution. I agreed with a lot of what the article said, but thought that it over-emphasized the similarities between the supposed "rigid mindsets" of protagonists on either side of this debate. By putting an equals sign between two sets of rigid "doctrinaires" it could leave readers with the impression that the evolution versus creationist controversy is really nothing more than two sets of blinkered antagonistic dogmatists slugging it out over which side of the same coin is more valid.