Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part VI – His Illogical Intolerance

Do you consider everyone who disagrees with you to be a fool? Should people who believe that others ought to have the opportunity to formulate their own opinions be thought of as fools?

Professor Dawkins seems to think so. Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is one of the candidates for the Republican nomination in next year’s US presidential election, responded to a mother and son at a New Hampshire campaign event who asked him if he believed in evolution with this:

It’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.

Dawkins’ reply was issued on an article he wrote for The Washington Post’s On Faith:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office.

From what I hear about Rick Perry generally, he wouldn’t be my choice of candidate, but Dawkins is of the opinion that merely questioning the Theory of Evolution makes him unsuitable for high office.

Dawkins then either tries to give the impression that Darwin’s theories are facts, or else deliberately tries to confuse “evolution” and the “Theory of Evolution” in people’s minds.

Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well.

Before I was banned from Dawkins’ blog, I used to write there that evolutionists believe that the Theory of Evolution is a fact and I was always rebuked by Dawkins’ followers and told that it must be regarded as a theory.

Maybe they think that their honesty in the matter makes what else they have to say more credible.

I’m stating the obvious now, but I’ll say it anyway – people like Dawkins seem to think it is okay for them to shove their beliefs down other people’s throats constantly, while us Creationists are to sit in the corner with dunces’ hats on and keep quiet because we are ‘fools’.

The fact that the Dawkins’s of the world hate people having different viewpoints indicates that their approach to science is completely wrong and it suggests that they are uncomfortable with their own beliefs.

They would like to ban Creation Science from every classroom on the planet.

Think about that. They want to ban science if it is not the science that they *believe* in. Why wouldn’t they want schoolchildren to know about both sides then decide for themselves what to believe?

I suspect it is for the same reason that when I was a Mormon, I was told not to look at “anti-Mormon” websites because they were full of “lies”; the Devil would use these sites to try and turn me away from the “truth”.

Have you ever heard Dawkins admit that Creation Science actually involves as much real science as evolution science? Reading some of the articles in the Creation Ministries’ publications and on their website makes this clear.

Perhaps Dawkins’ greatest trick is to deny that Creationists use proper scientific methods, in the hope that his believers will suppose that scripture and science are incompatible with each other.

Whatever his attraction, his magic works on millions of people to the extent that:

a) They believe him without question.

b) They mock others who believe differently – or worse: seek to silence dissent.

c) They use lies to limit where Creationists can work, such as by claiming that scientists who believe in Creationism don’t understand modern scientific methodology and could therefore be a danger.

d) They believe that all religions and faiths are basically the same – just as if one were to believe in a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

Dawkins has a multi-million pound business to protect.

I am just interested in the truth. It is very odd that people like Dawkins who claim to be “free-thinkers” should be so scathing of those who think freely and come to a different conclusion.

“Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:21

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part VI – His Illogical Intolerance

  1. Dawkins is just a mindless atheist. If the theory of evolution is true, it could have been God’s original plan anyway. Who’s to say that God didn’t want species to evolve?

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I think the Almighty did want life to evolve – to be able to fill the earth. I assumed the Theory of Evolution must be true until about seven years ago, but now I don’t after studying both the science and scripture.

    It is unfortunate for the truth that ‘evolution’ and ‘The Theory of Evolution’ are assumed by many to be the same thing, so that when evolution is clearly demonstrated to be true, it follows for these people that the Theory of Evolution must also be true, but of course, this is not so at all.

  3. Ian says:

    “when evolution is clearly demonstrated to be true, it follows for these people that the Theory of Evolution must also be true”

    So you accept that life on Earth evolved but can’t accept that the Theory of Evolution- which, simplifying it a lot, says that life on Earth evolved- is true.

    If you can’t maintain logical consistency within a single sentence why are you surprised when people don’t consider your “Creation science” a serious subject?

    Or would you like to explain how evolution and the theory of evolution are so totally different?

    I understand that this is a self justifying post because anyone who points out the weaknesses in your logic and with “Creation science” in general will be automatically dismissed by you as attempting to silence dissent. Nonetheless- “Creation science” is not science. It is a religious lie dreamt up by people who believe that church goers are too stupid to understand the longer, more logical, fact based and proveable explanations of genuine scientists. (Unfortunately some church goers are stupid enough to be taken in by “Creation science”.) It should be taught in religious studies alongside all the other creation myths or, if it is to be addressed in science classes, given as much time relative to evolution as there is evidence for it relative to evolution. About half a sentence- “Some people believe life on Earth was created by a divine force, but I’m going to tell you how it really came about.”

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks, Ian, for so perfectly proving my point. I’ll give you time to try and work out why there is absolutely nothing illogical in what I wrote.

  5. The scientific limitations of Richard Dimkins have been exposed in debate with creationist scientists several times – but the mainstream media in the UK have never exposed Dimkins for the fraud he is. Dimkins is nothing like so highly esteemed in the scientific world as he is in popular culture. One micro-biologist [a creationist] I know asserts that a growing number of biologists today dismiss the theory of evolution. Unfortunately Dimkins is a media darling and he gets loads of airtime to put across his views to a mass audience, unchallenged by heavyweight creationists: it’s sheer propaganda.

  6. P.S. A favourite of mine is Dimkins Vs. John Mackay. There’s some stuff on Youtube.

  7. Ian says:

    Stewart, nope, not seeing it. You accept that evolution is the way that life adapts to its environment and how it has come to have such wonderful diversity, but believe that the scientific explanation of the process of adaptation is somehow completely wrong. You’re going to have to explain to me what’s so wrong with the Theory of Evolution. (With something which holds up to examination and hasn’t been proven wrong many many times already.)

    Richard, Dimkins? You must be so proud of yourself for thinking up this silly name.

  8. bjedwards says:

    Stewart again demonstrates his capacity for making one logical fallacy after another as well as get his facts completely wrong.

    Stewart states:
    “From what I hear about Rick Perry generally, he wouldn’t be my choice of candidate, but Dawkins is of the opinion that merely questioning the Theory of Evolution makes him unsuitable for high office.”

    This is the same type of false assertion as Stewart does with 9/11, that Perry is “merely questioning” the “Theory of Evolution”. Of course neither Perry nor Stewart is doing any such thing. They are in fact asserting that Creationism is a legitimate science, which, of course, it is not. Creationists tried unsuccessfully to change the term into “intelligent design” to make it sound scientific but failed utterly. We know that Creationism is not science; there are no testable hypotheses.

    Stewart states:
    “Before I was banned from Dawkins’ blog, I used to write there that evolutionists believe that the Theory of Evolution is a fact and I was always rebuked by Dawkins’ followers and told that it must be regarded as a theory.”

    This is another favorite false assertion of denialists – that evolution “is just a theory.” If Stewart were actually interested in the truth, he would have long since learned the definition of a “scientific theory”: “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11

    Evolution is a fact. The Theory of evolution refers to the process of natural selection to explain the observed fact of evolution.

    “The scientific method has four steps

    “1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    “2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    “3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    “4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.”

    http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

    In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolution, the theory has strengthened and satisfied the tenets of the sceintific method.

    Creationism cannot do so and has not done so.

    Stewart states:

    “I’m stating the obvious now, but I’ll say it anyway – people like Dawkins seem to think it is okay for them to shove their beliefs down other people’s throats constantly, while us Creationists are to sit in the corner with dunces’ hats on and keep quiet because we are ‘fools’.”

    It is quite the opposite. People like Stewart insist on misrepresenting evolution and shoving his religious beleifs down everyone’s throat. Religious beleifs and claims have no place in the science classroom. People like Stewart who insist on rejecting science, evidence, and the scientific method can only be viewed as the denialists they are and treated accordingly.

    Stewart states:
    “The fact that the Dawkins’s of the world hate people having different viewpoints indicates that their approach to science is completely wrong and it suggests that they are uncomfortable with their own beliefs.”

    As we all know, you are entitlted to your own opinions but not your own facts. Youyr Creationsim is not science and cannot, by law and by reason, be taught as “science’ in schools. You may teach it at Sunday school if you wish in the full knowledge that you are teaching religious beliefs and not teaching science.

    Stewart states:
    “They would like to ban Creation Science from every classroom on the planet.”

    Of course. Because there is no such thing as “Creation Science”. The last thing honest Americans would ever want to do is teach lies and myth as science to our children. It just goes to show that nothing stops you Creationsists from lying, Stewart.

  9. Perhaps Dimkins should submit himself to death by crucifixion and then rise from the dead if he wants to be greater than Jesus?

  10. isitfoggy says:

    I have browsed the creation.com website and it is truly staggeringly frightening. Science it is not.

    Richard Carcrash – I thought you were the messiah.

  11. Thinker says:

    if evolution were true then how could nothing create something,
    seeing there was nothing to start with

  12. isitfoggy says:

    Thinker,

    And that’s exactly what scientists are trying to find out.

    Let’s turn it round the other way then. Who created god?

  13. Ian says:

    So I watched a clip of Dawkins talking to this McKay fellow. By Richard’s definition McKay may have won, but Richard’s definition of winning is repeating your one idea- which you think is really clever but actually isn’t- over and over again, thus avoiding having to address all the weaknesses in your argument which the other person is pointing out. McKay’s Bad Idea was the implication that in the past all the physical laws and constants of the universe were completely different in some hand-wavey way which allowed billions of years to be compressed into thousands and dinosaurs to live alongside humans. He couldn’t explain or justify his fantasy, just kept repeating it.

    (PS. Richard, why did you remove the blog post linking to this photo which I took on Saturday?)

  14. The Kat says:

    Thought you might like to watch the video on Cranny’s blog where they all (Dawkins, Toynbee and Grayling) all run away from a debate with American evangelical theologian William Lane Craig. Marvellous! Just see Dawky’s ‘ad hominem’.

    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/william-lane-craig-puts-fear-of-god.html

  15. There’s nothing unusual about the occasional temporary post on my blog as regular readers know very well. That I do the occasional temp post is no secret. I wouldn’t read too much into it. Temp posts can be useful for a variety of reasons; the removal of a post after a short period does not mean what my enemies often like to think it means.

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Sorry; I’ve been neglecting this thread…

    Richard – Exactly. One POV gets 95% + of the airtime. The BBC, especially, is supposed to be impartial.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    As I said, there was no inconsistency when I said that ‘evolution’ and the Theory of Evolution’ are different. The former is easily demonstrable – up to a point, however the TofE goes much, much further – it goes from being about minor genetic mutations changing organisms into a fantastic journey of imaginary happenings in the past for which there is absolutely no evidence.

    That’s the difference. There isn’t a shred of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs and I think that when you really understand how difficult it would be for evolution and natural selection to do this then you have to discount the TofE. Then you think of all the other creatures on the earth and realise that for the TofE to be true then all this incredible and statistically impossible improvement in the animals’ genomes must have happened too many times to be true even if the Universe was a trillion times bigger and lasted a trillion years.

  18. Stewart Cowan says:

    BJ,

    This is another favourite false assertion of denialists – that evolution “is just a theory.”

    Genuine people of science, even many of Dawkins’ followers, admit it is a theory (and I am aware of the scientific definition).

    Evolution is a fact.

    As big a fact as you’ll ever find.

    The Theory of evolution refers to the process of natural selection to explain the observed fact of evolution.

    This is where evolution scientists start muddying things. Natural selection in no way proves that the TofE is true.

    “The scientific method has four steps

    “1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    No animal has been observed to change from one kind to another. No life has been observed to spontaneously appear from non-life.

    “2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    In physics, repeatable experiments can be done to ‘prove’ something. This doesn’t happen with the TofE. It can be proved that genetic mutations can change an organism, but it cannot be proven that these changes can produce a new kind of animal; e.g. change a repilian lung to an avian one. That’s science FICTION.

    “3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    A “hypothesis” can be completely wrong, as has happened many times, such as the hypothesis that the earth is flat.

    “4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.”

    See 3. A prediction based on false assumptions will not produce correct results, no matter how many experiments are done.

    In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolution, the theory has strengthened and satisfied the tenets of the sceintific method.

    See 3.

    Creationism cannot do so and has not done so.

    Wrong. I bet you know next to nothing about what Creation scientists teach.

    People like Stewart insist on misrepresenting evolution and shoving his religious beleifs down everyone’s throat.

    You’re the one misrepresenting the power of evolution. And when have I “shoved” my religious beliefs down your throat?

    Religious beleifs and claims have no place in the science classroom.

    Even when they demonstrate the errors of other methods and theories? Really?

    People like Stewart who insist on rejecting science, evidence, and the scientific method can only be viewed as the denialists they are and treated accordingly.

    See previous answer.

    As we all know, you are entitlted to your own opinions but not your own facts.

    And you.

    Youyr Creationsim is not science and cannot, by law and by reason, be taught as “science’ in schools. You may teach it at Sunday school if you wish in the full knowledge that you are teaching religious beliefs and not teaching science.

    It is science-based and to reject it is unscientific.

    Stewart states:
    “They would like to ban Creation Science from every classroom on the planet.”

    Of course. Because there is no such thing as “Creation Science”.

    As I thought. You know nothing about it.

    The last thing honest Americans would ever want to do is teach lies and myth as science to our children. It just goes to show that nothing stops you Creationsists from lying, Stewart.

    See previous replies. The TofE is a lie – a whopper – a dangerous lie – completely unsound; it is not based on real observable science and is statistically impossible.

  19. Ian says:

    Stewart, I can see what you’re trying to say now. However, the problem isn’t with the theory but with your understanding of it.

    Natural selection in no way proves that the TofE is true.

    Many, many things prove the theory is correct.

    No life has been observed to spontaneously appear from non-life.

    That’s a whole different discipline, it’s not even part of the theory of evolution. That you think it is shows that you haven’t grasped the theory. Perhaps you don’t want to, perhaps it just hasn’t been properly explained to you.

    A “hypothesis” can be completely wrong

    A hypothesis can be tested, and accepted, adapted or discarded based upon the results of testing. Has Creation “science” generated any hypotheses worthy of testing?

    I bet you know next to nothing about what Creation scientists teach.

    So tell us what they teach so we can judge it for ourselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>