Richard Dawson
Posted on 08/24/2009 1:41:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.
Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.
If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
Richard’s arguments grow more hysterical as he gets closer to death.
I loved Richard Dawkins in Hogan’s Heroes. On Family Feud, he mostly just creeped me out.
Dicky’s grasping at straws.
It’s a shame that an otherwise respectable newspaper will print this fanatic’s drivel.
Even if you are an atheist Dawkins regularly goes beyond any discussion of religion and wants to turn it all into a culture war.
Richard Dawson
Andrew Sibley at the website : Uncommon Descent, after reading Dawkin’s article, comments :
“I am sure Richard Dawkins is aware that Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries; perhaps it is his aim to make evolution denial illegal in those countries where there is a resistance to Darwinism. ‘If evolution cannot win in the market place of scientific ideas, then we’ll sure win in the courts once it is a mandated belief’ would appear to be the direction of his rhetoric. What is Dawkins afraid of? Can’t evolution hold its own in the science arena?
Next Dawkins thinks he ought to tell the Vicars and Bishops how to preach. He notes of course that all the leading clerics accept evolution, as if the authority of theologians will establish a truth in science.
But what of Dawkins’ scientific smoke and mirrors?
Nowhere in this article does he seek to qualify what he means by evolution. Evolution is a fact he asserts, a statement that even Henry Morris would have agreed with in part, but what type of evolution is ‘fact’? Natural selection of pre existing genetic information does not explain causally where that genetic information came from. Dawkins peddles the simplification that the process that gave a dalmatian spots is the same process that turns a bacterium into an ostrich, or a fish into a hippo. But Dawkins knows that neo-Darwinism is more complicated than that. The problem for Dawkins is that belief in evolution is dependant upon such over simplifications, because if people really understood the complexity of organic life and what is being claimed then they would not accept unguided molecule to man evolution. In other words evolution is rejected because people understand it too well, not too poorly, and Dawkins has to keep to the simple text to keep the illusion going.
So we may ask – why cannot Dawkins and others conduct the discussion of origins in a more rational manner without the type of smoke and mirrors and fear-mongering rhetoric that is being engaged in with his article? What is at stake really? Is it science or is it his atheism?”
He sounds disgusted with ALL religions (is there any faith that exists with a belief in a God that believes that God had nothing to do with “creation”)? So why does he single out all of his venom over Christianity?
Why does he set up straw man arguments?
Why does his own supremacist theology in the no-god god (he doesn’t just hold this worldview for himself, he wants everyone onboard HIS faith) trump a universal right to religious belief?
bkmk
The ones the Darwinists and evolutionists have not aborted presumably.
Frankly, an atheist Darwinist complaining about people "coming after children"
is ridiculous and absurd in an extreme degree considering their track record here.
“Imagine that...”
Imagine that Dawkins were an ass. Then he would be an ass, QED.
What an ass.
Unlike homosexuals, who just want to be left alone, right? /sarc
Was it an Alinsky ys’’v rule to accuse your political opponents of the sins you commit?
Richard Dawson with his former wife, Diana Dors. Yow!
Dawkins is the ignoramus. Jesus had many Roman followers, and St. Paul was a Roman himself.
This atheist is not very bright.
Are Muslims creationists? Somehow I doubt this will apply to them.
"Who loves you and who do you love?"
For a supposedly intelligent man he really is a wanker!
Mel
Who kept all of that great Latin history around for 2000 years? Oh that’s right, the monastic schools and later the christian Universities.
For every Galileo, there is an Isaac Newton, a Georges Lamaitre, and a Michael Faraday. Christianity has produced giants in the hard sciences. Too bad, just imagine what they could have accomplished if they hadn’t been Christians, right Dawkins?
Only one response to this article; you better believe we are after your children. Somebody has to tell them the truth, and it won’t be Richard Dawkins.
bookmark
I didn’t understand a single word of that.
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
– Richard Dawkins River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.Dawkins signed a petition in the UK to “ make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16”. .
- Dawkins
Galileo too was working for the church. His “persecution” has been greatly exaggerated and had more to do with his mocking the pope than science/religion.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
If you turn your back on God and spurn His blessings, then yes, the universe does look a lot like that.
LMAO. Greatest “Awnold” movie ever.
For every Galileo...?
Galileo Galilei was put on trial by the Church for supporting Copernican astronomy. This was not all that long ago. It's scary when you give that much power to theocrats.
I’m pretty sure you have been exposed to more accurate history than that, right here on FR.
Writing from under Richard Darwkins bed...Ping!
“I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” (ELLEN GOODMAN
No change in political climate
By Ellen Goodman | February 9, 2007 The Boston Globe)
The Holocaust Deniers, HD’ers to the uninitiated, are everywhere, disguised as creationists and global coolingists and people who wear brown shoes with blue suits.
Poor Richard. It's scary out there in the colonies.
You’ll find that, almost exclusively, biblical Christianity is the only religion that is attacked...
It’s the truth, and that’s why the father of lies focuses his attention on it.
Don’t forget about the HIV denialists...LOL! I know you take the other side of the debate over what causes AIDS, but wouldn’t it be funny if all three groups labeled as “denialists” by the evo-atheists turned out to be correct?!?!?
The only sense to make of his article is that he is shilling a new book.
“And the survey SAYS....!”
“Goofball.”
There was nothing nice about the Punic Wars. Ugly, nasty affairs.
that being said, if Dawkins thinks this is a serious or legitimate argument against creationism, then he's even more of a mouth-breathing, brain-dead cretin than I'd thought.
While it's true that Galileo was tried for his support of Copernicanism, "theocrats" had nothing to do with it. In fact, Galileo's prosecution was engineered by his fellow scientists who supported the Ptolemaic cosmology (i.e. geocentrism). The pope initially sided with Galileo, but was eventually convinced, through several underhanded means, that Galileo's advocacy represented a POLITICAL (not theological) threat to the Church.
for the past 20 years I have been hearing various reasons Galileo was tried ranging from philosophical/theological beliefs about interpreting Aristotelian logic to political intrigue intertwined with the Church, but supposedly not on theological grounds. Maybe, but the Church still used their power to try him. For all the charity they professed in the name of Christ, they had little for Galileo.
Thanks for the ping!
Thus, Evolutionist rhetoric, juxtaposed against the facts of science and history demonstrates that they are totally incompetent, in addition to being angry and dangerous. In a truly sane society, e.g., the one to be run by God, evolutionists, at a minimum, would not be allowed to vote.”
Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is “What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudenceand merely mention possible solutions to the
“evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:
· Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
· Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent – Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
· Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
· An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
· A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.
· All options should include 24-hour sound system playing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, or the preservation of Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity. ~ Tom Willis, Creation Science for Mid America.
Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
CSA meets monthly at the Westbrooke Church, 9898 West 95th, Overland Park, KS.
As a Christian why have you not called out these outrageous comments made on behalf of all creationist?
By your silence I can only assume that you agree with his position.
If you wish to slap wrists, at least go to the right wrists. So have you written or called or faxed them to protest their outrageous statements? If not, doesn't that mean you agree?
And my neighbor does hard drugs, but I haven't protested to him so will you also assume I agree with his practices? And then there's a butcher I know who says he's communist......
You see my point, I trust.
Richard Dawkins is man speaking well out his level of his expertise. He is not a trained physicist nor is he trained in any serious form of hard biology.
You are mistaken my friend…………
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, author and outspoken atheist. He has established himself as a biological guru with the publication of books detailing and expanding upon Darwinian theory……… University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor of zoology, 1967-69; Oxford University, Oxford, England, lecturer in zoology and fellow of New College, 1970-90, reader in zoology, 1990-95; Evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University; Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in May, 2001
http://www.richarddawkins.com/
So you do not agree with Mr. Willis comments?
You are now aware or Mr. Willis and his outrageous comments is it not your duty as a Christian to rebuke your brother in Christ, or do you just have a problem with hate speech when it is directed at you?
I am aware of Dawkins. I am not a big fan of people taking a few classes in soft sciences calling themselves a “scientist.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.