10 ms·

Richard Dawkins' rage of reason

8 points by rglovejoy 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago
Too bad he came up with "lions eating zebras" and "polar bears eating seals" (if he really did, maybe author just made it up). These are the pictures that are misleading about evolution - when really it is not always physical strength that makes for "fitness".
- Allocator2008 17y ago
  Precisely. It is not the strongest nor the smartest often that survive, but the best adapted. Dawkins has made this point himself, in that the genes which survive are the "mediocre" genes, genes that tend to do well in the "average" of their environments. Evolution is more likely to produce spineless wonders like T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock than Superman, roughly speaking, because Prufrock, dipshit though he may be, is adapted to the meine of his environs.
run4yourlives 17y ago
I can't stand this nimrod. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with most of what he says, and consider myself agnostic - rather, that evolution is the most logical explanation for the origin of our species, and that it is likely that the notion of "god" as defined my Abrahamic religions is pure fantasy. But Dawkin's is both an asshole, and a worshiper of evolutionary theory. His smug demeanor and equation of belief in god with stupidity is small minded. It smacks of everything he supposedly rails against. It's teenage atheistic angst with a book deal. 40 per cent of people in most Western countries say they still think that God created men and women and that Earth is only 6,000 years old Sorry, what? Only evangelical Christians of certain persuasion believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Outside of the US, there is nowhere on the planet where that belief system comes close being 40% of a population. This is the type of conformist single-minded fear-mongering crap they teach in churches and mosques Mr. Dawkins.
- demallien 17y ago
  I can't stand this nimrod - ad hominem. Dawkin's is both an asshole - ad hominem. and a worshiper(sic) of evolutionary theory - strawman. Honestly, what a load of rubbish. Dawkins doesn't worship anything. If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. That is the direct opposite of all that worship implies. He does not value the idea of evolution any more than any other idea on the planet - he is sceptical, and will reject it if that is where the evidence leads. At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position.
  - jdminhbg 17y ago
    Those are only 'fallacies' if his post is meant to rebut Dawkins claims and he's using those statements as support for an opposing position. Instead, he says he agrees with Dawkins but finds him to be kind of an asshole. I agree.
    - amelim 17y ago
      Except he does rebut Dawkin's claims. Did you not read the part about not accepting Dawkin's claim that 40% of the western world does not accept evolution and instead believing in a Young Earth Creationist model? As per the original post, it seems to me that the demonizing of Dawkin's is largely unfounded. Even though I've never met him, from what I can tell from videos and interviews, he is a fairly meek man who just writes passionately about his position. I would hardly call his position evangelical because he is neither unwilling to change his position nor is he founding his statements upon unverifiable evidence. Just because the man is confident, doesn't mean he's an asshole.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        My point though isn't about his confidence level, but the fact that he is being arrogantly hypocritical, suggesting his detractors base arguments on logic and evidence - of which I have no argument with - but then supporting his own stance with stuff he's clearly firing off of the top of his head. It's the arrogance that he is above error combined with the - obvious! - error itself that makes him come off as an asshole.
teilo 17y ago
Wherever in the geek news sites the names of Dawkins, Harris, or Hutchins appear, raging debates follow. Even, ironically, debates between agnostics. I hope that HN can avoid these in the future. I left Slashdot because of them.
Allocator2008 17y ago
Professor Dawkins is one of my all time heroes. Selfish gene theory stands at the center ultimately of all anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology. He has transformed the world by giving us an understanding of our own existence, he has answered the age-old question of "Why are we here?". We are here, to preserve and copy the genes. They should build a statue of him next to Darwin. He is the apotheosis of human understanding. Like Prometheus, he has "given man a gift they had not conceived, and lifted darkness off the earth."

8 points by rglovejoy 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

Too bad he came up with "lions eating zebras" and "polar bears eating seals" (if he really did, maybe author just made it up). These are the pictures that are misleading about evolution - when really it is not always physical strength that makes for "fitness".

Allocator2008 17y ago
Precisely. It is not the strongest nor the smartest often that survive, but the best adapted. Dawkins has made this point himself, in that the genes which survive are the "mediocre" genes, genes that tend to do well in the "average" of their environments. Evolution is more likely to produce spineless wonders like T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock than Superman, roughly speaking, because Prufrock, dipshit though he may be, is adapted to the meine of his environs.

run4yourlives 17y ago

I can't stand this nimrod. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with most of what he says, and consider myself agnostic - rather, that evolution is the most logical explanation for the origin of our species, and that it is likely that the notion of "god" as defined my Abrahamic religions is pure fantasy. But Dawkin's is both an asshole, and a worshiper of evolutionary theory. His smug demeanor and equation of belief in god with stupidity is small minded. It smacks of everything he supposedly rails against. It's teenage atheistic angst with a book deal. 40 per cent of people in most Western countries say they still think that God created men and women and that Earth is only 6,000 years old Sorry, what? Only evangelical Christians of certain persuasion believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Outside of the US, there is nowhere on the planet where that belief system comes close being 40% of a population. This is the type of conformist single-minded fear-mongering crap they teach in churches and mosques Mr. Dawkins.

demallien 17y ago
I can't stand this nimrod - ad hominem. Dawkin's is both an asshole - ad hominem. and a worshiper(sic) of evolutionary theory - strawman. Honestly, what a load of rubbish. Dawkins doesn't worship anything. If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. That is the direct opposite of all that worship implies. He does not value the idea of evolution any more than any other idea on the planet - he is sceptical, and will reject it if that is where the evidence leads. At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position.
- jdminhbg 17y ago
  Those are only 'fallacies' if his post is meant to rebut Dawkins claims and he's using those statements as support for an opposing position. Instead, he says he agrees with Dawkins but finds him to be kind of an asshole. I agree.
  - amelim 17y ago
    Except he does rebut Dawkin's claims. Did you not read the part about not accepting Dawkin's claim that 40% of the western world does not accept evolution and instead believing in a Young Earth Creationist model? As per the original post, it seems to me that the demonizing of Dawkin's is largely unfounded. Even though I've never met him, from what I can tell from videos and interviews, he is a fairly meek man who just writes passionately about his position. I would hardly call his position evangelical because he is neither unwilling to change his position nor is he founding his statements upon unverifiable evidence. Just because the man is confident, doesn't mean he's an asshole.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      My point though isn't about his confidence level, but the fact that he is being arrogantly hypocritical, suggesting his detractors base arguments on logic and evidence - of which I have no argument with - but then supporting his own stance with stuff he's clearly firing off of the top of his head. It's the arrogance that he is above error combined with the - obvious! - error itself that makes him come off as an asshole.

teilo 17y ago

Wherever in the geek news sites the names of Dawkins, Harris, or Hutchins appear, raging debates follow. Even, ironically, debates between agnostics. I hope that HN can avoid these in the future. I left Slashdot because of them.

Allocator2008 17y ago

Professor Dawkins is one of my all time heroes. Selfish gene theory stands at the center ultimately of all anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology. He has transformed the world by giving us an understanding of our own existence, he has answered the age-old question of "Why are we here?". We are here, to preserve and copy the genes. They should build a statue of him next to Darwin. He is the apotheosis of human understanding. Like Prometheus, he has "given man a gift they had not conceived, and lifted darkness off the earth."