Friday, August 22, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

by National Secular Society Newsline

Reposted from:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/whydawkinsisrightandhiscriticsar.html

As the Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin drew to an end on Monday, the usual chorus of insults reined down on the head of its star, Richard Dawkins. Despite the fact that Dawkins went out of his way to avoid bad-tempered arguments or overt proselytising on atheism, his critics saw only what they wanted to see — and often that was not what appeared on the screen.

In one section of the film, Dawkins met a class of schoolchildren and asked them what they knew about evolution. Most said they had the rudiments, but also stated that they preferred to stick with their religion's explanation. Dawkins took them to a beach in Dorset to hunt for fossils. He gave them a quick lesson on how these ancient relics illustrated clearly that life on earth was tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old. Not six thousand, which is what their religion told them.

Some of the children, though, were impervious to this knowledge, and Dawkins was disappointed. But he did not challenge them or demand that they change their mind. The Radio Times, however, still published a letter from someone criticising the programme, saying Dawkins "tried to promulgate his atheist doctrine amongst schoolchildren."

AA Gill in The Sunday Times wrote: "His anger and bombast stand in stark contrast to Darwin's quiet, inquisitive humility."

Michael Deacon, the Telegraph's critic, too, couldn't resist a pop: "I, too, am an atheist", he wrote, "yet Dawkins is so fanatical that I find myself playing devil's advocate, or in this case God's."

It was sad to see Libby Purves, once a half-decent journalist, now obsessed with religion. She has a "Faith" column on the Times website of such unutterable stupidity it leaves one wondering how this once-great newspaper fell into the hands of such nincompoops. She wrote of schoolchildren's fossil-hunt: "The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism."

What programme were these people watching? I saw none of this. It is quite clear that Richard Dawkins has learned his lesson from previous programmes and tries to subdue his personal annoyance at the wilful ignorance he encounters. I thought he was the model of restraint when confronted with John Mackay, a leading creationist who insisted that "before the flood, people lived to be one thousand years old" and the "science teacher" at a state-funded grammar school who insisted that the earth as no more than 6,000 years old.

And that is before we came to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose famous silver-tongue seemed to become tied as he foundered to find a way out of the logical mess he created when trying to square his beliefs with reality. I thought Dawkins let him off rather lightly when he put the embarrassing evasions down to the use of "poetic language".

Richard Dawkins wasn't prepared to say it on air, but I'll say it for him here — if the Archbishop truly believes what he said on Monday's programme, then he is a deluded fool. He's often advertised as an intellectual giant. Intellect giant? I've said before and I'll say it again now — it's all flim-flam. Rowan Williams is an emperor with no clothes, and in this film we glimpsed his nakedness.

I don't know what it is that makes sensible people want to throw in their lot with the creationists and intelligent design merchants as soon as Dawkins' name is mentioned. Maybe it is some kind of residual feeling that they must be respectful of religion, even when it propounds absurdities. They think it shouldn't be attacked because nice people believe in it as well as murderous wackoes.

But as Dawkins pointed out — the nice people who subscribe to ridiculous things simply open the door to the nasties who want to blow us up or impose their fantasies on us by law.

Creationism is stupid and that's all there is to it. There is no equivalence with science, and we must resist the claim that there is. Creationism belongs with the other fairy tales and horror stories that make up religious education; and religious education belongs in church, not in school.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 610 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #234957 by mordacious1 on August 22, 2008 at 9:56 am

Hear, hear.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #234961 by Quine on August 22, 2008 at 9:59 am

Well stated.

Other Comments by Quine

3. Comment #234962 by RichardofYork on August 22, 2008 at 10:00 am

I concur

Other Comments by RichardofYork

4. Comment #234965 by Dhamma on August 22, 2008 at 10:04 am

I sure agree with him, but I don't really see how he convincingly showed Dawkins right and his critics wrong.

The more of these shows we have the better. Dawkins is a great 'leader' for atheism and I think he paves the way for others to make programs promoting atheism too, e.g. Religulous.

Other Comments by Dhamma

5. Comment #234966 by PrimeNumbers on August 22, 2008 at 10:05 am

I'd really like to see Richard doing a "proof of evolution" programme.

As a computer programmer, I've proven to myself the power of evolutionary algorithms, producing useful results by means of:

a population,
an environment that defines my goal,
a test to see how well the population fits the environment,
breading of those that fit the environment the best,
and most important, a level of mutation

The results are superb, and prove that the precepts of evolution work.

I know Richard has done this kind of work on both TV and books, but I'd really like to see it done again, with modern production values.

I'd like to see more discussion and showing of how the human body is badly "designed", the "design" links between humans and animals both in form and in DNA.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

6. Comment #234968 by Vaal on August 22, 2008 at 10:11 am

I wonder why the newspaper hacks love to pick on Richard, even the ones that agree with what he has to say.

If it had been David Attenborough presenting "The genius of Charles Darwin", I am convinced there would have been zero criticism and a storm of accolades.

As the article points out, I wonder if some of these people have actually seen the series, as in the case of Libby Purves, she actually made up what RD had actually said, to Richards chagrin, and naturally elicited a strong response.

Still, as Mordacious says, good article. I endorse his "hear hear".

Other Comments by Vaal

7. Comment #234969 by Dhamma on August 22, 2008 at 10:12 am

PrimeNumbers: I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he will, as he's about to write a book about proofs of the evolution.

I have a feeling it will be a very convincing book. I don't think the criticism he gets are too bad, as heaps will read his books and make up their own mind.

Other Comments by Dhamma

8. Comment #234970 by Riley on August 22, 2008 at 10:12 am

Quine wrote: " ... edit pending ..."

???

Other Comments by Riley

9. Comment #234973 by Elles on August 22, 2008 at 10:16 am

Somebody actually seems to have watched it...

Just give me a moment... I want to remember this day... Deep breath in....

Yep. It really happened.

Wow.

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster it's wonderful!

Other Comments by Elles

10. Comment #234975 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:17 am

He's ( The archbishop) often advertised as an intellectual giant.

Y'know who thinks he's an intellectual giant?

Mental midgets.

*Pats self on back for that line*
:)

Other Comments by Diacanu

11. Comment #234976 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 10:19 am

I am really glad that Paula Kirby mentioned this on another thread and it was put up here. It is a delight to read.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #234978 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:20 am

Oh, and I heard some right-wing dildo proclaim William F. Buckley Jr. as "an intellectual giant".

I eyeroll at that phrase now.

It's officially become meaningless.

Other Comments by Diacanu

13. Comment #234985 by Corona Dave on August 22, 2008 at 10:28 am

I've noticed this behaviour a lot.

my suspicion is that it is the symptom of a mediocre mind.

when these "mediocre atheists" are arguing with theists, they can feel good about not being as foolish/uneducated as the theists and not believing in religion.

however, when faced with an "exceptional atheist" like Dawkins, they see someone roughly like themselves but more successful in pretty much every way.

this undoubtedly injures their ego. the only way they can make themselves feel better is to attack Dawkins et al. in some way - find some metric by which they can consider themselves better. the easiest way to do this is an appeal to political correctness or moderation. moderation or "equal time" is a false virtue that is unfortunately prevalent in modern society, and I think these "mediocre atheists" think that if they claim Dawkins (et al.) is no better than a fundamentalist theist - he is a "fundamentalist atheist" - then they can conveniently put themselves in a moderate middle ground and perhaps even consider themselves in some way "more rational" by not being "fundamentalist", even though the thing they are refusing to be "fundamentalist" about is indeed the truth/evidence/logic, which in reality is neither democratically accountable nor subject to the policy of "equal time with falsehoods".

or, in a word, jealousy.

Other Comments by Corona Dave

14. Comment #234986 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 10:29 am

I hate to be contrarian, but I think Dawkins was guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy in the first episode of the series. I have a sustained argument on my blog, here: http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2008/08/dawkins-and-bad-pedagogy.html

Other Comments by Meadon

15. Comment #234987 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:31 am

Meadon-

Tch, shameless blog plugger.

http://dickynoo.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Diacanu

16. Comment #234989 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

Comment #234987 by Diacanu

I will also shamelessly blog-plug:
Diacanu's blog is awesome.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #234990 by designsoda on August 22, 2008 at 10:33 am

Oh, and I heard some right-wing dildo proclaim William F. Buckley Jr. as "an intellectual giant".

Smart man for sure, but an intellectual giant is a bit much I agree.

Although I've gotta ask, would Diacanu consider any conservative/right-wing intellectual an "intellectual giant?" How about a libertarian intellectual?

Other Comments by designsoda

18. Comment #234994 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 10:46 am

Diacanu:

I *could* rewrite my criticism of Dawkins for commenting here, but I'm far too lazy... shameless blog plugging it'll have to be.

Other Comments by Meadon

19. Comment #234996 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:47 am

designsoda-

Although I've gotta ask, would Diacanu consider any conservative/right-wing intellectual an "intellectual giant?"

Probably not.

How about a libertarian intellectual?

Hmm, maybe.

Libertarianism has some good core ideas, but it almost always seems to mutate into extreme Randian wacko stuff, and the more Randian and wacko, the "smarter", the libertarian intellectuals are deemed.

Camille Paglia is alright.
Her personality (sometimes), and infatuation with the lamest of pop culture makes me roll my eyes, but on other topics she seems to be bright and on the ball.
A bit too much in love with religion's impact on art for my tastes, but, meh.

Other Comments by Diacanu

20. Comment #234997 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

Steve-
Aww, shucks. :)

Yours ain't half bad either. ;)

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/

Meadon-

S'okay, I was teasing. ;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #235001 by Cartomancer on August 22, 2008 at 10:57 am

Actually, I am quite impressed with the intellectual capacities of Rowan Williams. I read some of his DPhil thesis a few months back, and he is very learned indeed. The problem with him is not that he isn't a clever man, it's that he has invested far too much of himself in the Church of England to be in a position to engage with debates about it rationally. I suspect there is an element of political manouvreing and intellectual dishonesty about him - after all, if you were Archbishop of Canterbury your hands would be fairly well tied when interrogated on matters of church doctrine. More than that however, he is what Daniel Dennett likes to call a "murky", in that he seems to actually believe there are aspects of intellectual endeavour where clarity and rigour are not desirable and poetic vagueness is a much better approach.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

22. Comment #235003 by Richard Dawkins on August 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

14. Comment #234986 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 10:29 am
I hate to be contrarian, but I think Dawkins was guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy in the first episode of the series. I have a sustained argument on my blog, here: http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2008/08/dawkins-and-bad-pedagogy.html

Dawkins, I think, falls egregiously afoul of the last principle in this documentary. In one sequence, he goes to a school to teach a group 16 year-olds about evolution. Unsurprisingly, religion soon rears it head; several of the students, it turns out, are religious and they reject evolution for that reason. And what does Dawkins do? He tries to persuade them to become atheists!

That is a bloody lie. I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM. That is NOT the same as persuading them to become atheists. I was scrupulously careful to do no such thing.

I suspect that you didn't watch the documentary at all, but read one of the critics, such as Libby Purves, and believed her.

Please apologise NOW. As an educator, I feel extremely strongly about this.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

23. Comment #235004 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

designsoda-

Continuing my thoughts, I'll come right out and say what passes for Republicans in Washington are a joke to me.
Libertarians most closely represent what conservatives are supposed to be about.

Washington Republicans are this weird soup of socialism, warped utopianism, corpratism (not true capitalism) cow-towing to bible-thumpery, just a mess of contradictions.

How real conservatives keep voting these creatures in baffles me.

They've bought a big fat okey-doke.

Other Comments by Diacanu

24. Comment #235010 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 11:06 am

Richard Dawkins-

Ah....you actually click open people's blogs...

*Eyes dart,...feels exposed...runs to my blog to vaccuum and dust, and change the rubbish bag*

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #235013 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 11:08 am

Comment #234986 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 10:29 am

I hate to be contrarian, but I think Dawkins was guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy in the first episode of the series. I have a sustained argument on my blog, here: http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2008/08/dawkins-and-bad-pedagogy.html

This is spectacularly unfair.

I've just re-watched the part of the first episode in the classroom to confirm that it is one of the children who first raises the issue of religion and that it is on the basis of his particular unspecified 'holy text' that he will actively reject any evidence of evolution. Dawkins - pedagogically correctly - tries to correct this ridiculous approach.

Styrer

[Edit: I see Richard has already responded in suitably robust terms. My points nonetheless remain.]

Other Comments by Styrer-

26. Comment #235018 by Cartomancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:12 am

To be honest, I suspect that the misunderstanding perpetrated by Meadon, Libby Purves and all those who think that Richard tried to insist on atheism in his encounter with the children of Park High could have been predicted. In today's climate it is a misunderstanding waiting to happen - something a lot of people would go out of their way to misunderstand. Having watched that section of the programme again I can see that someone who wanted to believe that Richard was shoving atheism down the children's throats might be able, on a cursory and unconsidered viewing, to come to this conclusion. The clearly edited nature of the encounter opens up the imagination to speculate on what was going on between the bits we do see, and no doubt the minds of Richard's critics would have filled those gaps with their own imagined forcing of atheism on the children.

With reflection, perhaps a short twenty-second explanation from Richard at some stage in this scene would have cut off the misunderstanding in the bud. Something along the lines of "some of the children have brought up religious objections. It would be wrong of me as an educator to simply rubbish their claims and insist on an atheistic perspective, so I shall present them with the evidence - this is a lesson about Evolution, not about atheism". Since the programme's lawyers insisted on all the many clear expressions of Richard's atheism, it might have been a good idea to spell out just as clearly the fallacies they might have tempted unscrupulous viewers into. I wish television audiences did not need such pointers and could work out what was really going on on the screen for themselves, but clearly from the reactions of so many reviewers they do.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

27. Comment #235019 by Paula Kirby on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 am

Meadon: Unsurprisingly, religion soon rears it head; several of the students, it turns out, are religious and they reject evolution for that reason. And what does Dawkins do? He tries to persuade them to become atheists!

Meadon, that is a scandalous lie, and you should withdraw it at once. If you are in any doubt, watch the programme again.

Not ONCE does Richard Dawkins advocate atheism in front of those schoolchildren. It is the CHILDREN who bring up the subject of religion as their reason for not believing in evolution - Richard does nothing more than ask them to look at the EVIDENCE. Throughout he is talking about EVOLUTION, not religion.

You are perpetuating an outrageous lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm quite serious - watch the programme again and you will see that you are absolutely, utterly wrong.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

28. Comment #235020 by planeswalker321 on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 am

[[[[That is a bloody lie. I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM. That is NOT the same as persuading them to become atheists. I was scrupulously careful to do no such thing.

I suspect that you didn't watch the documentary at all, but read one of the critics, such as Libby Purves, and believed her.

Please apologise NOW. As an educator, I feel extremely strongly about this.
Richard ]]]]

///////////////////////////////////////////

I may have seen the documentary, or I may be thinking of a different lesson, but yes, I can confirm that you were merely teaching evolution, and encouraged them to think objectively (without actually trying to "convert" the children into anything more than children.)
I think I can also see where your critics are coming from; they see it as a slippery slope. After all, if you tell them that one part of the bible could be wrong, it logically casts into doubt the rest of it. I certainly agree with this, slippery slope though it may be; if a part of the bible is wrong, it does indeed cast doubts upon the rest. Even so, the goal of science is to seek objective truth, so a scientist must follow the evidence, no matter what the implications. Teaching this to children is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, it is, after all, SCIENCE CLASS.

Other Comments by planeswalker321

29. Comment #235021 by Dr Doctor on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 am

Prof. Dawkins,

Any chance of persuading Channel 4 (or the BBC) to produce a solid, brand new, lavish and compelling documentary on evolution with you as presenter?

Something as thorough as Climbing Mount Improbable with the production values of The Blue Planet should suffice to end the sympathy amongst the British for creationism/ID once and for all.

[ on topic - Rowan Williams gave the impression of someone who knows what he is saying is unsupportable and unconvincing. A man going through the motions, I feel. ]

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

30. Comment #235024 by Meadon on August 22, 2008 at 11:14 am

Richard,

(I'm assuming it's the Richard Dawkins, not some random person who registered with the username "Richard Dawkins". I stand to be corrected on this point).

I have indeed watched the documentary - well, the first two episodes so far. And I do honestly think you were guilty of promoting atheism in that classroom - I watched the classroom section a number of times to make sure. I'm going to watch the relevant bit of the episode again right now to be absolutely sure.

I will, of course, be more than happy to withdraw my criticism and apologize if I'm wrong.

Other Comments by Meadon

31. Comment #235031 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:21 am

I have indeed watched the documentary - well, the first two episodes so far. And I do honestly think you were guilty of promoting atheism in that classroom - I watched the classroom section a number of times to make sure. I'm going to watch the relevant bit of the episode again right now to be absolutely sure.

I would be interested to see a specific example from that segment of the film that demonstrates how Prof. Dawkins was promoting atheism. I remember that section rather clearly, and all I recall the Professor doing is challenging the students' embracing of creationism on a purely scriptural basis.

When religion conflicts with reality, promoting reality does not equate to promoting atheism.

Other Comments by soul_biscuit

32. Comment #235032 by Ishruul on August 22, 2008 at 11:21 am

Going to the beach, to look for fossiles and get evidences -EVIDENCE- that the earth is older than the 6,000 years old earth disproven fundamentalistic belief ain't the same thing as promoting atheism.

BTW, who care about your blog? So don't spam it!

EDIT: Soul_biscuit I love your avatar :)

Other Comments by Ishruul

33. Comment #235033 by Paula Kirby on August 22, 2008 at 11:21 am

Meadon: I will, of course, be more than happy to withdraw my criticism and apologize if I'm wrong.

You ARE wrong, so go ahead and withdraw and apologise. Either that, or post here the quotes from the programme showing that Richard tried to "persuade them to become atheists". Watch it again, and you will see that he did nothing more than try to persuade them not to let their religious beliefs stand in the way of seeing the evidence for evolution. Something else ALTOGETHER.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

34. Comment #235035 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 11:22 am

Comment #235018 by Cartomancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:12 am

With reflection, perhaps a short sixty-second explanation from Richard at some stage in this scene would have cut off the misunderstanding in the bud.

Possibly, Cartomancer, but where on earth can Richard possibly be expected to a draw a line under correcting for imagined 'misunderstandings' of this sort?

There is enough evidence to suppose that ANY such anticipatory clarification of Richard's would similarly be misunderstood, in many cases gleefully and willfully by the so-called 'commentators'.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

35. Comment #235036 by Torgny on August 22, 2008 at 11:23 am

While I agree with the author's perception of creationists and their ilk, his arguments would be much more persuasive to those who do not already share his opinions if he gave examples in support of his thesis and refrained from calling people such infantile names. It is hard to look mature and rational when you engage in name-calling.

Other Comments by Torgny

36. Comment #235037 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 11:23 am

Ishruul-

BTW, who care about your blog? So don't spam it!

*Eyes dart again*

*Whistles nervously*

Other Comments by Diacanu

37. Comment #235040 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

It is hard to look mature and rational when you engage in name-calling.

I'm irresistibly curious. Can you provide some examples of Prof. Dawkins' name-calling in the documentary?

Other Comments by soul_biscuit

38. Comment #235041 by phasmagigas on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

cartomancer

I wish television audiences did not need such pointers and could work out what was really going on on the screen for themselves, but clearly from the reactions of so many reviewers they do.

that of course is the issue, many people in an audience are simply incapable of filling in the 'most likely' gaps and put in what they want.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #235042 by Cartomancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

I'm not saying that pains should be taken to pre-empt any and all possible misunderstandings generated by the programme, but some care certainly does need to be taken to avoid the obvious ones. Were there not frank and blatant statements of Richard's atheism in the first part of the programme then I would agree that this misunderstanding would be unlikely, but since the lawyers wanted them there from the beginning, and given the already known misunderstandings of Richard in the media anyway, I don't think it's at all implausible that many viewers would take the programme in the context of atheism, not of evolution.

Given that the purpose of a documentary television programme is to communicate ideas to the audience, blatant misunderstandings are necessarily undesirable. The audience must be taken into account in this process just as much as the ideas. I suspect that this particular problem would not have been detectable until quite late in the day however , almost certainly after editing, and so it would be churlish to start laying blame at anyone's door, either Richard's or the production company's.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

40. Comment #235043 by Steve13 on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

Professor Dawkins even says that he would hate to be seen as making them believe something and that he's just asking them to look at that evidence (for evolution not atheism). The only reason the subject of atheism and religion came into the discussion is that the children have obviously been taught in church that evolution = atheism.

Other Comments by Steve13

41. Comment #235046 by debacles on August 22, 2008 at 11:34 am

"That is a bloody lie. I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM. That is NOT the same as persuading them to become atheists. I was scrupulously careful to do no such thing."

It's sad that you have to defend yourself. I might come off as immoral to some, but i believe trying to convince people there is no god isn't so bad anyways. I'll gladly convert someone to atheism, not by telling them there is no god, but telling them there almost certainly isn't one. Of course, you first have to know wether they understand and truly absorbed the theory of evolution. I love putting myself on the frontline ALA Hitchens. I find it so rewarding to convince someone that evolution is fact without any real evidence, but simply through the art of chain logic.

Keep up the good work Richard. You got many foot soldiers willing to do the dirty work. Heck, i've lost my last 3 girlfriends because of my "beliefs"/raised consciousness. You'd think girls who thought consciousness wasn't eternal would put out, but it seems to be the other way around. If there is a god, he's a cold hearted son of a bitch. Yeah, I need to get laid.

Other Comments by debacles

42. Comment #235047 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 11:38 am

"Heck, i've lost my last 3 girlfriends because of my "beliefs"/raised consciousness."

There's an interesting topic. DS Wilson presents religion as a means of in-group identification or a sign of loyalty to a group.

Women, more so than men, are concerned with their partners loyalty. So from a female perspective rejecting or even questioning faith in a god can be cause for concern. Men who passionately and devotedly follow their faith can be displaying characteristics which are attractive to women.

Other Comments by J Mac

43. Comment #235049 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 11:40 am

It would seem the only way NOT to "promote atheism", would be to not discuss evolution at all, and to shut up, and be a good little drone.

Y'know, like those properly frightened politically correct school teachers.

Other Comments by Diacanu

44. Comment #235051 by phasmagigas on August 22, 2008 at 11:43 am

Y'know, like those properly frightened politically correct school teachers.

I can bet now that those teachers were in a school with a fairly significant (ok, im not sure what fairly significant means but there you go)muslim population, they were fucking shit scared of causing trouble and that of course is why sites like this are even here in the first place.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

45. Comment #235054 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 11:45 am

I am baffled by the use of the word "promote". My understanding of the connotations is that it means that something is being presented not merely as "acceptable" but as something that is actively encouraged and argued as "the right way".

It is as if no one is able to say "I think X" without people somehow hearing this as "X is the only normal way to behave". Simply look at the way that talking about homosexual rights suddenly becomes "promoting homosexuality". The word is full of crazies.

Other Comments by Sargeist

46. Comment #235055 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #234986 by Meadon

I hate to be contrarian, but I think Dawkins was guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy

Of course the religions of those children in the programme are not compatible with evolution and science. Let's not pretend otherwise, even the kids themselves could see it.

Sure, it may be possible to devise a non-interventionist God that set the wheels of evolution in motion - but 'theistic evolutionists' and atheists agree that this is quite different from a literal interpretation of a holy book. Dawkins job in the context of the program is only to say their versions of religion are incompatible with science and invite them to consider alternatives. After all, one of world's most famous atheists is not really trying to teach the children: he's presenting to us the audience.

To try to teach evolution without reference to religion is disingenuous, due to the obvious conflict between widely held religious views and science. It also ignores the historical perspective. In terms of tactics Dawkins acknowledges he values clear thinking and reason more highly than simply persuading people of evolution.

Other Comments by spiderdancer

47. Comment #235056 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 am

Well, here's one schoolteacher who is (improperly?) not frightened. I will start my first biology class in September, and I intend to begin with evolution, after enough time is given to the nature of science itself.

Other Comments by soul_biscuit

48. Comment #235059 by Ishruul on August 22, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #235049 by Diacanu

I couldn't agree more! Why the fuck thruth is so hard to understand and share. Lying is the way of the future (and past) it seem. Name a rock a rock, a cat a cat and your imaginary buddy an imaginary buddy.

We live in a world filled with beauty, amazing animal, woundrous plants, breath taking panorama. Why on Earth do we believe we need lie to fill our supposely soul?

Politically correct, MY ASS, any children can see through that lie if he's not terrify by indoctrination first.

Other Comments by Ishruul

49. Comment #235063 by phasmagigas on August 22, 2008 at 11:50 am

soul_biscuit

and I intend to begin with evolution

with upper groups you could try the first page of 'the selfish gene' (i forget the name of the author) as a good opener, ok i know its not bells and whistles but it sets the historical scene quite nicely and gets to the point efficiently.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

50. Comment #235068 by Styrer- on August 22, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #235042 by Cartomancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

Points taken, but I think enough care was taken. In the first episode, as in the series as a whole, there is a clear delineation between Richard's own voiced-over comments and opinions - which make welcomely explicit his atheistic views - and his recorded encounters with the students in the classroom, where NO attempt is made by Richard whatsoever to 'persuade them to become atheists'.

I think that Richard drew a correct line in the sand here on allowing for both unintended and willful ignorance on the part of viewers in interpreting what this series is about. If, as you say, it's not 'at all implausible that many viewers would take the programme in the context of atheism, not of evolution', then more bloody fool them for not paying attention. Richard can only do so much to pander to ignorant gits and I think that what he did in this series, and particularly in this episode under discussion, was perfectly sufficient.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

Reload Comments | Back to Top