“If you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is stupid, insane, (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Yeah, I guess he would know about hysteria, wouldn’t he?

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism?

Dawkins asks all the right questions. Gee, something wrong with them? Who’da thought?

Who is to say their vitriolic character, if left completely unimpeded, would not lead to a more successful society?

Actually, I’m beginning to see some shrewdness on Dawkins’ part. I think he understands that the tone of his own blog did not help his cause. It’s a shame he didn’t notice this earlier, and I agree, that he contributed to the tone in a large way in his writings and public appearances. Question is, will this be a lesson learned? Let’s face it, his ‘moderators’ did not do him any good.

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode. ~ Richard Dawkins

Dawkins Responds

I don’t quote it here because the language is a bit graphic.

HT:Mike Gene