This entry, which shall no doubt be subject to numerous edits over time, is an attempt at an alternative resource to all those pro "Richard Dawkins Resource" pages out there. After all, not all of us are fans of that particular Fanatical Religious Zealot and his Atheistic Evolutionists Uniformatism (AEU) cause, right ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Credit where credit is due, as per the links.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From an interview between Steve Paulson and Richard Dawkins, 13/10/2006
SP: Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?
RD: Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Quinn debates (read as "trounces") Richard Dawkins regarding "The God Delusion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pause
Includes direct corrospondence from Richard.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Arthur S. Lodge on "Richard Dawkins: Designer!"
Dawkins' famous computer example is an argument for design, not for the NDT!
Richard Dawkins (1987) describes a computer example of changing letters, one at a time at random, in a string and shows that, after only 41 generations of "breeding", the desired Shakespearean phrase is obtained. At each stage, however, the criterion for retaining a new letter is that it shall agree with the letter in the corresponding place in the final design!
Dawkins chose the Shakespearean sentence at the outset. He then used it as a template for accepting or rejecting all subsequent letter changes. This is a clear example showing the influence of a designer. The fact that each letter change was made using random choices (continued until the template-approved letter was found) addresses only the question of efficiency.
Reference: Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W. W. Norton, New York)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Dawkins, Hyper-skeptic
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DawkinsR.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Dawkins the Dogmatist" A review by Andrew Brown.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Phil Dwyer opinions on Richard Dawkin's "Gerin Oil" ("Religion") article.
For anyone who doesn't know him, Richard Dawkins is the biggest intellectual fraud and academic charlatan currently active. His work consists of a thinly-veiled apologia for market capitalism couched in the populist jargon of pseudo-science. It is of sociological rather than intellectual interest: future generations will marvel at how such a transparent ideologue could have been taken seriously.
They will conclude that only the present climate of Darwinist fundamentalism and scientistic imperialism could have allowed such an exotic, arcane and frankly weird person to become a public figure. In other words, he's rubbish, and anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot. Sorry to be so frank, but that is the simple truth. This is opinion.
I think Dawkins is dropping his guard, and openly revealing himself as the atheist fanatic he was all along. The man simply hates God. Atheism is an article of faith for him, quite as much as belief is for a religious fundamentalist. But articles like this do have the virtue of discrediting by association Dawkins's absurd meanderings about memes and genes, and if he is allowed to continue in this vain he will quite possibly ruin the carefully-constructed credibility that Darwinism currently enjoys among the half-educated. I say we should give him all the rope he needs.
A few more articles like this, and people will begin to wonder why they took his crap about genes so seriously. In 20 or 30 years, Dawkins's contemporary popularity will be held up as the prime example of our era's irrationality and superstition.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
regarDS
Posts
