Since Steven Dutch does not even have a Wikipedia page, and since he takes very bold stances on refuting the anti-science movement (which is one of Rational Wiki's stated goals), I decided to create this page. While he presents several attractive ideas in the first link, I cannot help but question his insistence on equating the design of a deity to the design of natural selection. BassoonsAreSexy (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of Professor Dutch's position
I believe the following does not accurately summarize the professor's position or even the page it references.
- "However, one theme that is consistent throughout his website is his insistence that theology be placed on equal grounds as science ... He claims that Dawkins' critique of religion is unjustified, as both natural selection and deities are self-explaining."
The passage is inaccurate as a summary of the article, because nowhere in the article does the author suggest that science is no more objective than theology. He makes the point that Richard Dawkin's reasoning is flawed, since the same reasoning logically eliminates the possibility of natural selection. The passage is inaccurate as a representation of professor Dutch's personal views as stated in several places: "If your religion says something that conflicts with objective evidence, your religion is wrong." http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm I think the passage quoted from the Wiki needs to be heavily modified to remove the inaccurate slant. I'll come up with a suggested modification forthwith.— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
I also think that paragraph his represents his stance on the theology-science debate. What Prof. Dutch often contends is that theology is every bit as rational, intelectual and internally logical as science, and that the difference between the two isn't placed in those aspects, but in the fact that science is reality and factual evidence based, while theology rests on the bible and in personal experiences to draw evidence. This is a good point, because when someone argues on behalf of science entering into a theological debate, often makes the mistake of not being sufficiently informed of the theology they wants to discuss.— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
Dutch attacks both religious people whose beliefs conflict with science, and most atheists, seeming to accept the common argument that absent God life has no meaning, all morals are mere opinions, etc. I don't know for sure, but it seems he's either religious but accepts evolution, or a disgruntled non-religious person who relies on false equivalence arguments regarding both (something, ironically, he attacks others for). Mcc1789 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It really is a surprise. I think it's worthy to mention that Steve Dutch seems to express disapproval of the Old Testament killings such as here. I was also convinced he was a disgruntled non-religious person, but it seems that's not the case. TheShadow25 11:59, 30 July 2013
Liberal Christians (which it seems Dutch likely is) aren't fond of the Old Testament massacres, so it's not surprising. Of course, it remains in their Bible, so how I'm not sure how they reconcile that. Overall Dutch's world view appears to be "a plague on both their houses" as reflected in his blog, ] which is subtitled as "Equal opportunity offender of liberals and conservatives." Mcc1789 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but Steven Dutch has been very active on Quroa and some of his answers there shed a very clear light on his positions, openly describing himself as a "believer" and arguing for some form of intelligent design. Might be worth picking trough for those interested with some spare time: https://www.quora.com/profile/Steve-Dutch 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's odd, as he seems to support evolution strongly. I guess for him they are compatible?Mcc1789 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In September 2011 someone added "Aside from Scientific and Technological discussions, he has shown disdain the 9/11 truth movement" with a link. This sentence stayed unchanged till January 2014. This month I added a link to the 9-11 conspiracy theories article which I was sure improved the wiki. Powdery, Smoky Leather reverted this, I suspect he thought I'd written the sentence instead of just adding a link. Below is a quote from the link.
9-11 conspirators seem to be a mix of liberals still smarting over 2000 and ultra-conservatives angry that George Bush Jr. hasn't opened the national parks to a land rush. But if Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it. 
- Basic questions of capitalization and a missing preposition. Do you not read what you write? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Steve Dutch's university web page
- Please sign your comments.--King Tempest 01:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also, its back under a new address. Here: