Stephen A. BatzerHere's a video that was posted today on Uncommon Descent by Salvador Cordova. Before watching it, read my post on: Why are Darwinists do uncivil?. It links to an IDiot post by Stephen A. Batzer where he complains about "Darwinists" being uncivil.
Here's one of the points that Batzer makes ...
Thought leaders in the Darwinian movement, such as Dawkins, Prothero, Shermer and so on, inculcate and advocate incivility by their own example. Look at the way biologist James Shapiro and philosopher Jerry Fodor have been treated. It's ugly.The video was produced by Mike Booth. Decide for yourself if the evolution side of the debate behaves like the IDiots. (Apologies to Richard Dawkins for propagating this nonsense but people need to see the depths to which the Intelligent Design Community can sink.)
UPDATE: Denyse O'Leary has responded to this post [Huh? Actually, we thought Little Richie (Dawkins) was a special creation, just for us…]. She says, "Moran thinks it originated in the ID community. Unclear why because it’s really not about our usual questions and concerns." Actually I don't know anything about Mike Booth or whether he is a support of Intelligent Design Creationism. I looked, but I couldn't find anything. What I do know is that IDiots like Denyse O'Leary post the obnoxious video on their websites. O'Learly also says this about the video, "It’s also not a lot nastier than the old showman himself." I think I'll let intelligent people decide for themselves who is nastier. I'm glad that Denyse O'Leary at least acknowledges that the video she posted was nasty.
I (unfortunately) have to agree with most of what of what Booth put in the cartoon about Dawkins. He is a very smart man and a great science writer, but often acts like a twit when it comes to religion.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, what is Booth's connection to the Intelligent Design/Creationism?
Dawkins has his flaws, but ego isn't one of them. When has he ever claimed he's one of the great minds on the Earth? It's slander-- sweaty, desperate slander that shows what the creationists have got: nothin'.
DeleteDawkins, like any public figure, is a legitimate target for criticism-- but this isn't criticism, it's fantasy. Anti-science assholes always accuse scientists of "hubris" whenever they're successful.
This cartoon only shows the rich life of the creationist imagination. The cartoon only shows, again, that ID proponents have nothing but ad hominems (and INACCURATE ones) and quote mines. That's it.
Dawkins "acts like a twit when it comes to religion"? Gimme a concrete example. Pointing out the fallacies in "iron-clad proofs" of the existence of God is a trillion light years from actling like a "twit."
If you were to say PZ Myers acts like a twit, you might have a case.
Remember when the physicists discovered the Higgs boson? The creationists went ape-shit. Denyse O'Leary went into full denial, and all the creationists wanted to chew the face off the next physicist they saw. "Hubris!" the assholes screamed. Not "Congratulations guys, good on ya!" No, the scream was "Hubris!"
&!#$ them, it's the politics of envy. They feel inferior. They should.
Richard Dawkins has a gentle side to him, but he often likes to talk down to religious believers and belittle them. Have you ever seen him debate religious believers? It isn't pretty…
DeleteHere are two examples of his twitiness when it comes to religion:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115368/video-richard-dawkins-says-obama-atheist-president
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-twitter-row-muslims-cambridge
The comment about Obama being an atheist needs no explanation because it is so stupid. The one about Muslims and the Nobel prize is also so incredibly dumb. Most Muslim majority countries produce little science because they are desperately poor and underdeveloped, and have been that way since they were subjugated by the West in the 19th century. Those historical factors out way any Islamic opposition to science, though I don't discount there has been and is now some (aka Harun Yahya). How many Nobel prizes in science have been won by Latin Americans? Not that many. Is that because of Catholicism or Christianity? Only a fool would say that.
Again, what is the evidence that Booth is a Creationist or supports Intelligent Design?
Re hardindr
DeleteI think that Dawkins is right on the money in pointing out that the Muslim world has fallen far behind the West in science, considering that for several hundred years it was far in advance. It's the religion of Islam that is responsible for this situation; there is no equivalent of the Renaissance in Islam.
I would point out that in the 113 years history of the Nobel Prize, only two Muslims have received the award in the sciences. In 2013, 6 Jews received the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. Muslims outnumber Jews by a factor of more then 100. By the way, both of those Muslim scientists did all their work in the West, one at Trieste and various British universities and the other at Cal Tech.
hardindr references two 2nd hand accounts of what Richard Dawkins has been said to say on various topic most likely because he/she has not bothered to read anything written by the man himself and/or is incapable of forming an opinion except by lapping up the vomit of others.
Deletehardindr then opines that an observation Dawkins made about a correlation between the quantity of scientific output of a country and it's state religion (presumably also obtained from a 2nd hand source) is dumb and then goes on the resolve the entire issue in less than a paragraph.
Perhaps if hardindr took the time to pull his/her finger out of his/her nose or whatever other orifice it currently resides in and invested a bit of effort in reading what the man has actually said he/she might be able to form and defend a coherent thesis.
steve oberski is one of the reasons I hate posting comments on anything in blogs or youtube. Yes, I have read several books by Richard Dawkins. Yes, I have followed both controversies around Dawkins comments (one of my links was to a publication that did an extensive interview with him). I'll leave it for other readers to decide if the links posted above accurately reflect what Dawkins said. I'll leave it for other readers to decide how much of a asshole steve oberski is (I think a rather big one).
DeleteThe success of Jews in winning Nobel prizes probably has more to do with where they have lived (i.e. the industrialized West), than anything to do with Jewish religion or Jewish culture, though both have probably played some part. I think the same can be said for Muslims.
@hardindr
DeleteSince this seems to be the place to resolve all of the big issues in sound bites, I'd say that the main reason for Jews winning so many Nobel prizes can be directly attributed to Catholic anti-semitism, this being one of the tenets of Catholicism imported into the protestant reformation virtually unchanged (check out "On the Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther, but be careful as this is a first hand source and you may not be used to acquiring your information this way).
The Jews were forced into ghettos and prohibited from working in traditional trades and were forced into roles such as pawn broking, money lending, printing and medicine, all which required a fair amount of education.
Thus a cultural tradition of education was developed.
The problem with your facile explanation is that many non Jewish people also live in the industrialized west who do not seem to have a cultural bias for winning Nobel prizes, so it is exactly Jewish tradition and culture that is a far more reasonable explanation for this phenomena.
At least the design values are an improvement on that last great outing in ID creationist animation: Billy Dembski's fart-noise Kitzmiller video. And it's original too, not just stolen from XVIVO and given a sepia tint. I'd say this marks a singular improvement in their sophistication. Next we'll be be hearing "Charles Darwin's Mama" insults.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody have a link to Dembski's fart noise video?
DeleteRemember: ID proponents are civil.
Dembski is keeping the original so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians
DeleteRichard Dawkins hosted the original version on his website but had to remove it at Dembski's request. link:http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/428
DeleteWhy's Dawkins even featured in that animation? He wasn't part of the trial. I guess he's just the ultimate badguy to IDiots.
DeleteFamous atheist darwinist evolutionist materialist. (And probably secretly a satanist). I'm surprised Dimski didn't give him horns.
Please let's not call the Fig Newton of Information Theory "Dimski" or "Dumbski". They pick up on that, and use it to distract their audience away from the fact that his mathematical claims were thoroughly debunked by Richard Wein, Elsberry, Shallit, etc. etc.
DeleteAs for Dawkins not having horns... he did have horns... when he appeared on the Simpsons.
So, there's something wrong with those who just make fun of others.
ReplyDeleteSelf-awareness is not their strong point.*
Glen Davidson
*But then, what is?
I don't think the one who posted that video on Youtube is any kind of creationist, for what it's worth. That Dawkins criticizes Islam and its practices, much as he does Xianity and its practices (at least as far as I know) appears to be the target, as well as his perceived (I don't know if true or not--doesn't much matter to me) arrogance.
ReplyDeleteBut we know why Sal posted it, regardless of his attempt to later pretend otherwise.
Glen Davidson
Another video from same Youtuber, making fun of Creator Gods
ReplyDeleteDidn't see that at UD, so I think we can figure out why we saw the Dawkins' one there.
Glen Davidson
I don't think Mike Booth is a creationist. It's much more likely that he finds being mistaken for one pretty funny.
ReplyDeleteEven if Mike Booth is not personally a creationist, the fact that ID creationists have embraced his sophomoric animation is telling in two respects: it shows their rhetoric about politeness is mere hypocrisy, and it shows that their primary concern is religion, since this was supposed to be (but failed at being) a take-down of Dawkins' atheism, not his science. Having read only half of The God Delusion because I gave up on it in frustration and annoyance, I have to say that there couldn't have been a softer target on this score, but Booth managed to make Dawkins look good by comparison. As Diogenes correctly notes, whatever Dawkins' other flaws, he has never claimed to be the world's greatest mind or anything like it.
DeleteHaving looked at a few of his other videos, I'd have to say that he's more likely a member of what Chris Clarke aptly described (though not in this context) as the "Progressive Marshmallow Coalition". Members of the PMC are generally wishy-washy secularists who take any sustained criticism of religion as uncouth bigotry simply on the basis that they personally would prefer to not be confrontational to religion and therefore we should all follow their example and are big meanies if we don't. Needless to say, the PMC member doesn't give any quarter when it's one of his sacred cows under attack. In those instances, we're all fools or knaves if we don't immediately join in the fight to save the country from the revanchist right, which usually means "Like"ing a post on Facebook or signing a petition at Change.org.
Personally, I much preferred my leftists when they had some concept of praxis and wrote books like God and the State.
Mike Booth is a comedian. Here, he is taking the piss out of the "Just for Hits" video Richard Dawkins made - which does seem rather ripe for parody. The whole thing should not be taken too seriously, IMO.
DeleteYou call that "taking the piss out of"? It's moronic.
DeleteAs for "comedian", well I've seen one video of his and it was not funny even for a microsecond.
Dawkins stands on a tricycle and screams, "Your husband beats you with a stick"? Not even bad satire-- not satire at all.
You needn't worry. If there's one thing I'm not doing, it's taking this video seriously. Instead, I can't think of anything I find more trivial.
DeleteWhether Dawkins or Myers or any other spokesperson on our side is ever uncivil is trivial. The only weapons they have are words, used in an effort to mobilize like minded people to very important causes. Think for a moment about the real actions that they are speaking out against, and one can easily forgive them if they lose their temper once in a while. They point out that half of our species are treated like 2nd class citizens in Islamic countries. They help keep our attention on the fact that children have been raped, and that their rapists have been protected by the most powerful church in the Western world. The effort to curb global warming is being hampered by muscular and well funded interests, based in the conservative & religious right. There has been no growth in acceptance of the fact of evolution in America, thanks in large part to continued efforts of the C/ID movement and to continued belief in a magic man in the sky in which there is no merit of evidence. I should hope that members on our side are passionate and at times strident when working against this continuous onslaught against morality, truth, and reason.
ReplyDeleteThere has been no growth in acceptance of the fact of evolution in America
DeleteWell, actually, there has been growth in acceptance of evolution, but it's slow.
'Ads by Google' adds a commercial for a promotion CD by Evangelical Broadcasting, here in the Netherlands
ReplyDelete