Dick Dawkins Before He Dicks You!

And now, in the interest of public safety....
The Dick Dawkins Roundup:
[Additional links provided by Extremely Pavlius]

Next time someone tries to shove some Homo Stultus bullshit down your throat it would please me very much if you would use these links to explain your disinterest in their Darwingelical Dawkins Da'Wa....

Dick Dawkins: "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?"
That's right, that's what he said, he said that, that's what he said....

I’m constantly on the alert for changes of mind, but extremely skeptical that those changes will just happen to be in the direction of embracing a god of Bronze Age camel herders from the Middle East,”

First of all asshole we herded sheep, not camels.

He's an Evangelical, which is so abhorrent coming from them but just FINE coming from this fucker, right?

"I think my ultimate goal would be to convert people away from particular religions toward a rationalist skepticism, tinged with … no, that’s too weak," he said, correcting himself, "… glorying in the universe and in life. Yes, I would like people to be converted away from religion to skepticism."

But enough about me let's talk about me...
Obviously the dude has not a clue what is going on in the world if he thinks slavery is dead and women and children are "safe" now....

“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity. There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued.

“We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.” He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.

snip

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Darvangelist Propaganda and the Evolution of Belief

If science claims to want religion to stay the hell out of it's business then science would do well to stay the hell out of religion's business. Why should any scientists give a rat's ass what you BELIEVE? Because their end game is to own and direct what you believe, which has shit to do with science... but has all to do with power.

Climbing Mount Agenda Without a Rope
The Sciencefada. A bully's guide on how to lie, obsfucate and humiliate into submission all you encounter who disagree with you. “If I can’t rationally convince you, I’ll bludgeon you into agreeing with me using mockery and derision.”

"What's so special about life, anyway?"
~ Dicky Dawkins

Dick Dawkins & The Seven Deadlies
The Self Delusion...

Melanie Phillips does Dick Dawkins
IT'S NOT FASCISM WHEN HEEEEEE DOES IT, MELANIE!

Afterwards, I asked Dawkins whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm. He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression. But he also said other things which suggested to me that some of his own views simply don't meet the criteria of empirical evidence that he insists must govern all our thinking.

God's Revenge on Darwin? Dick Dawkins!

Dawkins, Hitler and Stalin
Dawkins on his "shifting moral zeitgeist" - Hitler wasn't really that evil at all, you see. Stalin either!

On page 273 Dawkins states, “There is no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist. . . . But there is no evidence that his atheism motivated his brutality.” Is that another way of saying Christianity motivates brutality? There is enough evidence in the Bible from Christianity’s Founder and his apostles that condemns evil in any form – but for now let’s just remind ourselves of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus stretches the principle of goodness from mere acts to thinking evil against someone to being guilty of murder – the thought is as good as the deed (Matthew 5).

It is unfortunate that a scientist of such high standing should be guilty of selective thinking and deliberately abusing the trust of his readers whom he must assume to be biblically illiterate and dependent on him for objectivity and honesty. I suspect that Dawkins got his information on Hitler from the Straight Dope website. After reading Dawkins on Hitler it is certainly familiar reading.

UK TV Review: Dick Dawkins: Evangelical Darwinist

Since he scripted the show himself, as well as presenting it, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, by my reckoning, it took him about 45 seconds to divert the programme from a discussion of Darwin's genius to a vehicle for the wider dissemination of Dawkins' own much-publicised and already well-known anti-religious polemicism.

Charlton Heston visits the Ministry of Science
TAKE YER FILTHY PAWS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY DAWKINS!

Dick Dawkins: Faith schools are child abuse
Unless of course it is him doing the indoctrinating and his agenda being forced.... it is not fascism when heeeeee does it, ya know!

"What I'm passionately against is indoctrination. That is wicked, that is evil, that is child abuse," he continued.

Dick Dawkins: "Eugenics may not be so bad!"

Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?

UK: The Lowdown: essential guide to the Liberal Democrat party conference

The Lib Dem delusion: Professor Richard Dawkins appeared on the conference fringe to say that he had voted for the Lib Dems in every election

Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Same cult of death, different dogma.

Famed biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins, who mentored Bauer during her recovery, was so impressed and moved by her courage.....

A nightmare for Richard Dawkins: Statistics show that atheists are a dying breed

Richard Dawkins & Carl Sagan: “Will the Universe Be the New Religion?”
Oh hohoho HO! Welcome to the Book of Revelation! Have a seat. Someone from our Feral Jewtian Department will be with you shortly...

Ravi Zacharias responds to Wall Street Journal articles by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong
The telling statement of the month:

Dawkins says: "What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics."

Chew on that satanic little snippet for a minute.
L'CHAIM, ya MFer.

VIDEO: DICK DAWKINS ON THE IMMORALITY OF ISRAELI SCHOOL CHILDREN
Richard Dawkins discusses how the religious beliefs held by Jewish school children in Israel distort their moral perception of genocide.

Or he DID... The video has been REMOVED.

"JEWS MONOPOLIZE AMERICAN POLICY"
Yes, Dick.... we are dumb fuck camel herders monopolizing policy like mad MFers.

A top British scientist drew fire from American Jewish organizations on Monday, after remarking that the American Jewish lobby is "monopolizing American foreign policy." Professor Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, was quoted by the British Guardian newspaper as saying last week: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and (yet they) more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy

A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein, adding “This impact spreads within the intellectual community, and then trickles down to the general populace.”

July, 2002: Dawkins had signed the British Academic's boycott of Israel:

Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".

HUFFPO: David Berreby: Richard Dawkins' Jewish Question

In short, quite a muddle. I cannot tell who we secularists should be trying to copy -- lobbyists, ethnically Jewish Americans, believers in a deity or people who hold to traditional practice without reflecting on ultimate questions. Only one thing is clear: By casually echoing the rhetoric of anti-Semites, Dawkins has made a fool of himself and, by extension, those of us for whom he claims to speak.

Richard Dawkins Issues a fatwa against Religion

I happened to be in the United Kingdom when a bizarre television series entitled "The Root of All Evil?" was aired in primetime. Presented by Oxford University Professor and avowed atheist Dr Richard Dawkins, the series explored the evils of religion.

snip

What was so offensive about the series was the disdain Dawkins showed for any sort of faith. During the programme, which Lord Winston says nearly provoked him to smash his television set, my mind travelled to the story of the late Rabbi Hugo Gryn during Chanukah in Lieberrose concentration camp. Gryn's father, salvaging a tiny morsel of butter in the camp to symbolise the endurance of the Maccabees, said a man can live without food and water but he cannot live without hope. When someone asked me why I attend religious services I like to say I do it for someone who died in a camp and could never enjoy another festival.

snip

Although one would not wish to lump him with these figures, Dawkins does come from the same culture that allowed to operate freely Oswald Mosley, the lifetime anti-Semitic campaigner Dowager Lady Birdwood and Holocaust-denier David Irving. The fact that Little Britain and Big Brother attract huge audiences and that churches are empty is a commentary on the state of British spiritual life. France is indeed fiercely secular but does not seem to suffer the absence of soul that has crept into British life since the me generation replaced the Greatest Generation of the Blitz.

So.... there you have the man the blog you used to love is shilling for. At least as bad as cozying up to the VB - if not worse. The hypocrisy is staggering. Seems to me Dawkins is just pissed off cause that damn dirty Jew Jesus is bigger than he is...

IT'S NOT FASCISM WHEN I DO IT!

NOTE: This is not an invitation to break Oymerta. Do not use the evil tongue on my threads or you will be booted. Thank you.

~ BabbaZee, The Outraged Spleen of Zion

Do not hasten in your spirit to be angry,
for anger rests in the bosom of fools.
~ Ecclesiastes 7:9

NEWSWEEK: Dick Dawkins ~ The Angry Evolutionist

Dick Dawkins: "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?"

This is a Spleen Flashback.
I am reposting here parts of a post I originally did in 2008 ~

But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast. Abstain from evil [shrink from it and keep aloof from it] in whatever form or whatever kind it may be.
~ 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

“Faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus
but harder to eradicate.”
~ Richard Dawkins

Religion is the opium of the masses
~ Karl Marx

Obammunism is the Hopium of the Asses
~ Outraged Spleen

Divinyls ~ Science Fiction ~ 1982

It is through the sciences that the secular will come to know the face of GOD
~ Maimonides

Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist
by Larry Taunton
byFaith Magazine
Issue Number 18, December 2007

[SNIP]

DAWKINS: “Of course I have doubts all the time,” he said, “and I think in a way the word ‘atheism’ is misleading because it suggests that there’s just one alternative, which is God. I’m constantly on the alert for changes of mind, but extremely skeptical that those changes will just happen to be in the direction of embracing a god of Bronze Age camel herders from the Middle East,”

[SNIP]

"What is the objective of your anti-religious campaign?" I asked.

"I think my ultimate goal would be to convert people away from particular religions toward a rationalist skepticism, tinged with … no, that’s too weak," he said, correcting himself, "… glorying in the universe and in life. Yes, I would like people to be converted away from religion to skepticism."

[SNIP]

In September, the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) sponsored a conference in Washington, D.C., featuring Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, among others. The conference sold out. The purpose was to encourage, inform, and unite the unbelieving. Something like a Promise Keepers for atheists—minus singing, crying, and Tony Evans, of course.

[SNIP]

Make no mistake about it: Richard Dawkins is their leader. As the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at arguably the most prestigious university in the world, Dawkins occupies the bully pulpit of science and culture and uses it to maximum effect. That he receives top billing at the AAI conference in D.C. should come as no surprise. Unlike Hitchens, a flamethrower and a mere pundit, or Harris, an upstart graduate student, Dawkins is a fellow of the Royal Society, the author of eight bestsellers, and a highly respected scientist. As one Oxford journalist told me: “Richard Dawkins IS Oxford University.”

[SNIP]

But for all of Dawkins’ sophistication, there seems to be little appreciation of the fact that religious faiths and practices are not monolithic. Dawkins disregards all nuances. To him, all religions are the same—irrational and opposed to the rigors of scientific inquiry. And that is the way Dawkins frames the debate: science vs. religion. We may reasonably translate this as “fact vs. fiction” or “rational vs. irrational.”

[SNIP]

“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.

There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued.

“We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.”

He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.

“I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’”

At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeistis a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeistor should they look beyond it to something else?

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

[SNIP]

READ IT ALL!

People travel to wonder at the height of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long courses of rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and they pass themselves by without wondering.

~ St. Augustine

RICHARD DAWKINS WEB SITE

DICK HEARTS UNCLE CHOM

DAWKINS: "My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism"

Show 208: Intelligent Design/ Evolution Debate
This is an audio version of the Firing Line debate held in 1997.
Audio MP3 Podcast 78 minutes long, 18MB.

DEBATE TRANSCRIPT

Intelligent Design Proponents:

William F. Buckley Jr Columnist and Host

No description is apt enough or even necessary. This man did not descend from an ape!
~ BZ

God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom,"

is a book published in 1951 by William F. Buckley, Jr., who eventually became a leading voice in the American conservative movement in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Buckley wrote the book based on his undergraduate experiences at Yale University. In the book, he criticized Yale and its faculty for forcing liberal ideology on its students. He criticized individual professors by name for their trying to break down students' religious beliefs through their teaching. Buckley also claimed in the book that Yale was denying its students any sense of individualism by forcing them to embrace the growing creed of liberalism.

God and Man at Yale received mixed reviews when it was first published. Many underestimated the ultimate impact that the book and Buckley would have on American society, thinking that it would quickly fade into the background. Quite the opposite happened, as Buckley used it as a sort of launching pad into the public eye. He went on to be an active force in the conservative movement through the political magazine he started, National Review, and his television show Firing Line. The book and its author played a crucial role in tying together the different factions of the arising conservative movement to form a potent political force.

Phillip Johnson Law Professor, Berkeley , Co-Founder Discovery Institute

With the publication of his book "Darwin on Trial" in 1991 he began a second career as one of the foremeost critics of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and its wider sociological and cultural implications. Johnson is one of the leading members of the Intelligent Design movement and has done much to help these ideas gain acceptance and a wider hearing worldwide.

Johnson is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC)

Johnson is the author of several books on evolution, philosophical naturalism, and other cultural issues and speaks extensively around the country. His "Leading Edge" column appears regularly in Touchstone Magazine.

Michael Behe Biochemist, Lehigh University

American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity"

Animation of The Flagellum Motor

The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

David Berlinski PHD Philosophy, Post Doctorate Fellow of Mathematics and Molecular Biology

Berlinksi is a secular Jew and self-described agnostic, and according to a 2008 Slate magazine profile "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank."

TWO "HARD SCIENTISTS",

ONE WITH A DEEPLY BIBLICAL BELIEF SYSTEM,

ONE AN AGNOSTIC (Berlinski)

ONE LAW PROFESSOR WITH A DEEPLY BIBLICAL BELIEF SYSTEM,

ONE LEGENDARY WRITER / PUNDIT WITH DEEPLY BIBLICAL BELIEF SYSTEM

Evolution Proponents:

Barry Lynn ~ Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the movement known as the Religious Right. Organizations and leaders representing this religio-political crusade seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans through government action"

SEARCH: RICHARD DAWKINS / BARRY LYNN

Eugenie C. Scott ~ National Center for Science Education

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out.
NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue.
SEARCH: RICHARD DAWKINS / EUGENIE SCOTT

Kenneth Miller Biologist, Brown University

Miller has proudly voiced his support for what he calls "pro-science" candidates in politics. He has actively campaigned for school board and education candidates who support the teaching of evolution in Kansas and Ohio. In the science community, he has sought to elevate the understanding of scientists of the roots of the creationist movement, and to encourage the popularization of scientific concepts.

Miller has appeared in court as a witness, and on panels debating the teaching of intelligent design in schools. In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education held a public debate between two scientists, including Miller, and two proponents of intelligent design. He was a witness in Selman v. Cobb County, testing the legality of stickers calling evolution a "theory, not a fact" that were placed on the biology textbook Miller authored. In 2005, the judge ruled that the stickers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . This decision was vacated on appeal on a technicality, and was remanded back to the lower court and was eventually settled out of court Miller was also the plaintiff's lead expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, challenging the school board's mandate to incorporate intelligent design into the curriculum. The judge in that case also ruled decisively in favor of the plaintiffs.

In 2006 the American Society for Cell Biology gave him a Public Service Award. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) also recognized Miller for his contribution to the public education of evolution in the United States. Miller also appeared at the 2006 Dwight H. Terry Lectureship at Yale, delivering a lecture entitled "Darwin, God, and Dover: What the Collapse of 'Intelligent Design' Means for Science and for Faith in America."

SEARCH: KENNETH MILLER / RICHARD DAWKINS

Michael Ruse Philosopher of Science

Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The field is defined by an interest in one of a set of "traditional" problems or an interest in central or foundational concerns in science. In addition to these central problems for science as a whole, many philosophers of science consider these problems as they apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to draw philosophical morals. Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the field and still do.

Issues of ethics, such as bioethics and scientific misconduct, are not generally considered part of philosophy of science. These issues may be studied in ethics or science studies.

TWO SPOKESPEOPLE FROM POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ACTION FOUNDATIONS WITH OPENLY STATED DISDAIN FOR THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW WHO ARE CLOSELY ALLIED WITH RICHARD DAWKINS

ONE "HARD" SCIENTIST CLOSELY ALLIED WITH RICHARD DAWKINS

ONE "SOFT" SCIENTIST WHO APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY ONE WITH NO TIES TO DAWKINS IN THE GROUP

"One person who comes in for withering scorn in The God Delusion is me. Even though I am not a Christian, I nevertheless think that one can be a Christian with integrity and that Darwinism does not in itself preclude Christianity. In fighting fundamentalism - from scientific creationism to intelligent design theory - one should be willing to work with liberal Christians.

Suppose it is true - that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? Perhaps, given the U.S. Constitution, the creationists are right and Darwinism should be excluded. ”

~ Michael Ruse

SOURCE LINK

MR. HELL'S SCIENCE

[SNIP]

But the critical question is: compared to what? And here Dawkins is less convincing because he fails to examine the question in a systematic way. Tests of religion's consequences might involve a number of different comparisons: between religion's good and bad effects, or between the behavior of believers and nonbelievers, and so on.

While Dawkins touches on each, his modus operandi generally involves comparing religion as practiced—religion, that is, as it plays out in the rough-and-tumble world of compromise, corruption, and incompetence—with atheism as theory. But fairness requires that we compare both religion and atheism as practiced or both as theory. The latter is an amorphous and perhaps impossible task, and I can see why Dawkins sidesteps it.

But comparing both as practiced is more straightforward. And, at least when considering religious and atheist institutions, the facts of history do not, I believe, demonstrate beyond doubt that atheism comes out on the side of the angels. Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual facts that (1) the twentieth century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.

[SNIP]

SOURCE LINK: "A MISSION TO CONVERT - NY REVIEW OF BOOKS"

Dick Dawkins: "Eugenics may not be so bad!"

This is a Spleen Flashback.
I am reposting here parts of a post I originally did in 2008 ~

Charlton Heston visits the Ministry of Science
Planet of the Apes, 1968

Eugenics may not be so bad - Richard Dawkins

From the Afterword

By Richard Dawkins

In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

advertisement

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

Dawkins and Eugenics:

A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.

Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?

Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their strongly held worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases.

CLICK ME - YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT

ENGINEERING EVOLUTION: THE ALCHEMY OF EUGENICS
Sanger believed that society's tolerance of "morons," "human weeds," and the "feeble-minded' was encouraging dysgenics. To remedy this purported genetic threat, Sanger unabashedly promoted the implementation of authoritarian measures:

The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period.... we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded (Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, pp. 101 - 102, 1922).

Killing Babies, Compassionately

AT LAST A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

CLICK ME, SOULESS HOMINID!

Baboon metaphysics, they revere and believe in.
Human metaphysics?
Not so much.

There is a review of that Baboon book posted at Dawkins site which led me to discover that Richard Dawkins and the two authors of this Baboon Book are connected

Eugenics may not be so bad!
What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?
~ Dick Dawkins, High Priest of the genus Homo Stultus
Click him, Hominid! You'll Love it! It's a way of life!

Hitchens vs D'Souza: The Dogma of Materialism

MUSE: THOUGHTS OF A DYING ATHEIST

The Dogma of Materialism

Posted Jul 18th 2008 1:10AM by Dinesh D'Souza



My Las Vegas debate with Christopher Hitchens continues to attract attention and comment.



If you'd like to read an account of the debate, you can do so here.
(I posted it below~ bz)


Also on Monday July 21, at 4.30 pm Eastern time, I'll be debating Richard Dawkins (yes, Richard Dawkins!) on Al-Jazeera (yes, that Al-Jazeera). This is a noteworthy development because Dawkins has so far refused to debate me. But now we're appearing together on the Riz Khan television show, which I understand has some 25 million viewers worldwide. If you want to watch Monday's debate live you can watch it here. The segment will also be posed on the web and I will link to it on this blog.


I also hope that, upon seeing for himself that I am not a Hitlerite kind of speaker, Dawkins will summon up the courage to step into the public arena with me. Like one of the atheist commenters recently said on Dawkins's own website: all the best spokesmen for unbelief have gotten a whipping from this D'Souza guy and it's now up to Dawkins to try and redeem the reputation of atheism.


Given that my thoughts are currently focused on how to deal with Dawkins, I'm going to post here on a question that seems to mystify him and many other scientific atheists. These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it? The conventional wisdom among Dawkins and others is that Americans oppose evolution because they are religiously committed to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.



But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda. Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect."



In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory. Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?
Dawkins finally puts his cards on the table by saying of evolution: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available." And if Dawkins is dismissed as a crank, here is Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker making the same point. "Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."



We have here the weird spectacle of so-called scientists who are so wedded to a theory that they cannot even imagine it not to be true. This is a level of dogmatism that would embarrass any theist. Even the strongest religious believer can imagine the possibility that there is no God. So how can these self-styled champions of reason adopt so closed-minded an approach?



The short answer is given by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who in a 1997 essay in the New York Review of Books makes a revealing admission: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."



And you thought I was making this stuff up! No wonder Americans are skeptical of these apostles of skepticism. They are peddling their own metaphysical dogmas in the name of science, even though few are as honest as Lewontin in admitting it.




[SNIP]


"The 20th Century was really an attempt to create the secular utopia," D'Souza said. "It's failed miserably. So the one great experiment of creating secularism, of creating the religion-free society, has been a terrible failure."


At the end of debate, the conference host asked the audience – through an informal show of hands – who they thought won. Surveying the hands, the host named D'Souza the champ.


Later that night, the comment about the debate igniting sparks proved eerily prophetic as thunderous lightning bolts lit up the skies above Bally's Las Vegas, the rumbling sound reverberating throughout the Strip.


READ IT ALL

Queen @ Live Aid
We Will Rock You/ We Are the Champions

God's Revenge on Darwin? Dick Dawkins!

Basil Poledouris~ Theology & Civilization
From the soundtrack to "Conan the Barbarian"

Obviously both these guys firmly support Darwinism and even THEY see what a DICK Dawkins is. Bwaha!

See Also:

UK TV Review: Dick Dawkins: Evangelical Darwinist

Dawkins and The Seven Deadlies

Charlton Heston visits the Ministry of Science

Richard Dawkins, Atheist Evangelist: "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?"

Is Dawkins God's revenge on Darwin?

Next year is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. For a person who was never a member of the Groucho Club and never owned a production company, Darwin has been responsible for an enormous amount of television: nature programmes, police and medical dramas, reality shows. It will also be the 150th anniversary of his reluctant publication of The Origin of Species, a book that not only changed the world, but also explained it. Television likes an anniversary, and this is a particularly auspicious one, for our greatest scientist and arguably Britain’s pre- eminent original thinker.

Unlike the ideas of Newton or Hobbes or Adam Smith, natural selection is clearly understandable and explainable. And the path that led to The Origin of Species is properly exciting. In fact, it is probably one of the few significant scientific discoveries of the past two centuries that is accessible to everyone, as well as affecting everyone. So, Darwin deserves a landmark, flog-it-round-the-world showcase series. And, just as obviously, the natural selection for a presenter should be David Attenborough.

In survival of the fittest, there is no second best: there are just winners and lunch. Richard Dawkins is lunch. In fairness, Darwin is his thing, his fundamental belief; he has been a devoted acolyte of the great bearded ape all his life. His day job is Oxford professor of science PR, so being asked to make the defining series on his hero was a big opportunity that he grasped with both hands — then dropped.

Maybe it was nerves, perhaps he’s just too emotionally involved, but the first episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin (Monday, C4) left Dawkins blinking in the headlights.

It also revealed a sorry truth. He is much happier, and much more accomplished at, knocking things down than building them. He’d rather be against something than for it. Confronting a class of quiet, respectful, eager and religious schoolchildren, he became tongue-tied and muddled about selling evolution. He was much happier attacking religion. His anger and bombast stand in stark contrast to Darwin’s quiet, inquisitive humility. Darwin was a gentle man who thought deeply and went out of his way to avoid confrontation or to incommode others. Tellingly, he managed to live his entire life with a devout Christian.

This was a great opportunity for a lush, life-affirming, invigorating series, but what we got was a confused liturgical spat. Much of the blame must fall to the producer, who really should have made sure there was a far more rigorous and inspiring script. In the end, the wisest and most memorable observation came from the mouth of a schoolboy. After a day on the Jurassic coast, discovering ammonites, he said that yes, he believed in evolution, then paused and, with a faint smile, added: “But I’ll still say my prayers.”


And then there's this:


An Atheist Plays God’s Advocate

God is omnipresent. If not in the universe, then certainly, these days, in the work of Richard Dawkins. On Monday the author of the atheist diatribe The God Delusion presented a documentary about evolution, The Genius of Charles Darwin (Channel 4). It was meant as a paean to Darwin, but somehow God kept managing to elbow His way into it.

Evolution “is one reason I don’t believe in God”, announced Dawkins at the start. Darwin “made it possible no longer to feel the necessity to believe in anything supernatural”, he added later. “It’s not God at work here in all this squalor and suffering,” he sighed while visiting a Nairobi slum. It was like listening to a teenage boy who professes disdain for the most popular girl in class, yet can’t stop talking about her.

I’m not convinced that all this anti-God stuff needed to be there, because evolution in itself isn’t proof that God doesn’t exist. Proof that the Bible is inaccurate in numerous places, yes. But it doesn’t rule out the possibility that billions of years ago, God – or a god, or gods – created the world and populated it with bacteria capable of evolving. I too am an atheist, yet Dawkins is so fanatical that I find myself playing devil’s advocate, or in this case God’s.Otherwise it was a good documentary. Lucid and enthusiastic, Dawkins is more likeable on screen than in his finger-jabbing prose.

He appears slightly ill at ease around children, though. He visited a school to spread the word about Darwin. Before he entered the classroom there was a puzzling shot, which lasted several seconds, of Dawkins peering through the window in the door at the oblivious pupils, as if they were some mysterious new species.When he did get around to addressing them, he was either stiffly earnest or unconvincingly pally, like some brilliant but remote uncle you might find in a Narnia book. Although, of course, you couldn’t put Dawkins in a Narnia book or he’d be forever lecturing the Pevensie children about the non-existence of Aslan.

Missing Links in the Brave New World

The Scorpions ~ Robot Man

BRAVE NEW MFing WORLD:

Richard Lynn: The condemnation of eugenics went too far ~ needs reassessment

Spleen Search:
EUGENICS: A Reassessment by Richard Lynn


Richard Lynn on Dawkins' Site


Richard Lynn, Fearless Champion of Truth!


"Man is becoming God. Those who see in national socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than a religion. It is the will to create mankind anew".
~ Adolf Hitler

The above link contains EXACTLY the modern Eugenicists argument - notice please that it is precisely the same argument being put forth by HOMO STULTUS

Google Search: Richard Lynn


Google Search: Lynn / Dawkins


Richard Dawkins: The Genius of Charles Darwin


"Evolution Evangelist" of Commie Churchianity


The Religion Virus (BEHOLD the future of Gramscian deception)

About the Book:
Using wry humor, carefully researched facts, and fascinating examples from history, The Religion Virus dismantles Western religions from prehistoric to modern times, using the powerful tools of cultural evolution, called memetics.

Each major religious concept (such as monotheism, heaven and hell, sin and morality, intolerance, guilt, and many others) is analyzed as a meme, a mutating, evolving entity that is fighting for survival and reproduction. With this insight, we learn how each idea's appeal, rather than its veracity, made it survive and thrive, but where "appeal" means the concept that is the most soothing, frightening, amazing or ego-boosting, not the concept that is correct.

BTW
Dick Dawkins is the originator of the word "meme" a word I never, EVER use

Google Search: James W. Isom / Richard Dawkins


The Hate Filled PZ Myers


Google Search: PZ Myers / Richard Dawkins


The European Union Collective ~ Enemy of it's Member States by Christopher Story


The U.N. recently accorded two homosexual-rights groups "consultative status"

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Commie (they call them "mainstream" ) Churches do not dig Christians United for Israel


From Crayons to Condoms

ITALY: Take my wife... please

HUH? "abortion rights cleric?" Unholy Oxymoronica!


The Jeddah-based 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has called the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Omar Bashir on genocide charges “unwarranted and unacceptable.” At the same time it has urged the UN Security Council to suspend indefinitely the move by the ICC prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for Bashir


WTF is the OIC you may ask? I'll tell you:

57 Ways to Weave Your Cover

WTF is the OIC & why should you care?

You Down with OIC?


A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for nearly a week during the battle for Basra

The Pentagon admitted in a recent internal report that an intense investigation into the loyalties of a US army engineer was based solely on that individual's Jewish ethnicity and his knowledge of Hebrew.

In the report, the Pentagon stated that it had wrongly accused David Tenenbaum and subjected him to "unusual and unwelcome scrutiny because of his faith and ethnic background, a practice that would undoubtedly fit a definition of discrimination."

Tenenbaum told the Detroit Free Press this week that the Defense Department and FBI investigation that started in 1997 had literally terrorized himself and his family.

While Tenenbaum was cleared of any wrongdoing in 2000, he said not until the release of the Pentagon report did he truly feel vindicated.

An interesting aspect of the story is that in 1995, Tenenbaum led an advanced armor project for US army vehicles that could have ended up producing the means to protect American military personnel from the roadside bombs that today plague them in Iraq. However, the project was shelved after Tenenbaum was accused of being an Israeli spy.

Queen Condi of the Amalekites Pet Pali Fulbright "Scholars" Have their Visas Revoked

Israel's Islamic Movement: Filling the vacuum, aiming for a caliphate

Israel Frees a head Hamasshole

Iran Tests "New Weapon"

Noted Bush Administration Caliphellator Karen Hughes gave $$ to the bad guys

URBAN INFIDEL: PHOTO ESSAY: Say NO To Wahhabism

6.0 quake hits Central China


3.0 near Palm Springs

Global Trade Talks "Collapse in Acrimony"

SCORPIONS ~ HUMANITY

Humanity
Auf wiedersehen
It's time to say goodbye
The party's over
As the laughter dies
An angel cries

Humanity
It's au revoir to your insanity
You sold your soul to feed your vanity
Your fantasies and lies

You're a drop in the rain
Just a number not a name
And you don't see it
You don't believe it
At the end of the day
You're a needle in the hay
You signed and sealed it
And now you gotta deal with it
Humanity
Humanity
Goodbye
Goodbye

Be on your way
Adios amigo there's a price to pay
For all the egotistic games you played
The world you made
Is gone

You're a drop in the rain
Just a number not a name
And you don't see it
You don't believe it
At the end of the day
You're a needle in the hay
You signed and sealed it
And now you gotta deal with it
Humanity
Humanity
Goodbye
Goodbye

Run and hide there's fire in the sky
Stay inside
The water's gonna rise and pull you under
In your eyes I'm staring at the end of time
Nothing can change us
No one can save us from ourselves

You're a drop in the rain
Just a number not a name
And you don't see it
You don't believe it
At the end of the day
You're a needle in the hay
You signed and sealed it
Now you gotta deal with it
Humanity Goodbye