January 17, 2008
OF WHAT DOES THE REPUTATION OF DARWINISTS CONSIST...:
Desecrating Darwin's Cathedral (Dinesh D'Souza, 1/17/08, AOL News)
Here you can see more of my Cal Tech debate with atheist Michael Shermer. I want you to make up your own mind about the debate, so I'm not going to try to settle arguments here that were fully aired in the Beckman auditorium on December 9. One point I did make was that the new atheists--people like Richard Dawkins--who use science to promote atheism are in fact an embarrassment to science. They are abusing science for ideological ends. Although I was in a generally hostile crowd, my comment drew a spontaneous and surprising burst of applause.Why? Part of the answer can be found in a remarkable article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine. Note that the magazine is published by none other than my debate adversary, Michael Shermer. Authored by David Sloan Wilson, the article is subtitled, "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion." Wilson is the author of several books including the acclaimed study Darwin's Cathedral in which he examines the evolutionary basis for religion.
Wilson begins, "Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory." Moreover, "We are both atheists in our personal convictions." Then Wilson gets to his point. "When Dawkins' The God Delusion was published, I naturally assumed he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues." Rather, Dawkins has subjected his atheist readers to "sleights of hand." He has produced a "diatribe against religion" that is "deeply misinformed." Indeed he is "just another angry atheist trading on his reputation as an evolutionst and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."
...beyond angry venting at God? Oh, and perpetrating frauds in a desperate attempt to save their ideology from the rigors of the scientific method. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2008 5:53 PM
Well, to the credit of the other evolutionary biologist, he's criticizing Dawkins for said angry venting.
I've browsed through Dawkins's tome at bookstores and, my oh my, is it bad. It boggles the mind to read guys like Steven Pinker call it a fair-minded critique of religion. Dawkins is exactly like those teenaged atheists who style themselves sophisticated for memorizing a list of crimes committed by Christians and knowing absolutely nothing more about the subject whatsoever.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 17, 2008 9:16 PMNothing more about the subject whatsoever?
Have you watched any videos of Dawkins fielding questions from Christians?
Here is a good one: Q&A at Randolph-Macon Woman's College after his reading from his new book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
The "angry" questioners (some of whom attend a university that showcases dinosaur bones labeled as being 3000-4000 years old and professors who teach young-earth creationism) don't need any help at embaressing themselves in front of an Oxford-educated Dawkins.
Now, I know the video is long, but you don't have to see to much to realize that Dawkins is a well-oiled demolisher of theistic mythologies. Do you disagree?
Mr. Dawkins is angry because theists won't buy the myth he's peddling and science is destroying what remains of it. In a similar position earlier in the 20th Century the ideology was saved by the Piltdown hoax, but the speed with which the Hobbit hoax was knocked down suggests no such rescue is coming this time.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2008 8:20 AMoj, are you actually denying evolution, in this age of technology anyone still unable to concept evo. is either a fundamentalist or mentally ill or just ignorant. Please evolve there's no reason to be so uninformed about science in this age.
Posted by: john connore at January 19, 2008 12:38 AMNo one denies evolution. The concept comes from Genesis. Creationism is an account of evolution. It's Darwinism that's false.
Posted by: oj at January 19, 2008 7:15 AM