Home » Intelligent Design » Dawkins undermines the Royal Society statement

Dawkins undermines the Royal Society statement

Why was Richard Dawkins battering away at his keyboard before breakfast on Tuesday morning (16 Sept. 08), before his toast, marmalade and English tea were cold? The statement later published on the New Scientist website, apparently received just before the formal announcement from the Royal Society, contradicts the official reason Reiss was removed.

Richard Dawkins in the New Scientist

The official reason was that Reiss had been misrepresented by others, thus apparently leading to damage to the Royal Society’s reputation. But from Dawkins statement:

+ Dawkins didn’t think Reiss’s comments were inappropriate, and Dawkins has debated creationism in schools himself for his own documentary.
+ Dawkins thinks that the call from some RS Fellows to remove Reiss because he was an Anglican priest was ‘close to a witch hunt’ and ‘a bit squeamish.’
+ But Dawkins did not think that Reiss, or any other minister of religion, should be allowed to hold such a post, and Reiss should resign for that reason, or resign his holy orders.

In other words, the reason Reiss was forced out was because of calls to remove him from Kroto, Roberts and Dawkins, and possibly others; this based on Reiss’s ordination, not on what he had said, or the fact he had been misrepresented. And Yes Richard it was a witch hunt.

Dawkins digs himself in deeper – at Science and Values

 

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

11 Responses to Dawkins undermines the Royal Society statement

  1. Dawkins is a dinosaur on the verge of extinction.
    His views have been proven wrong, his theology is wrong, even his biology is wrong and he deserves the boot himself for his atheist proselytism passed under the guise of science.

  2. No Religious discrimination here…

  3. I don’t understand why the churches and individual clergy members are trying so hard to appease the Darwinists. The Church of England is apologizing to Darwin for nearly nothing, scientists who criticize evolution are not being invited to a Catholic conference on evolution, and the Methodist church has adopted some pro-Darwinist resolutions. There are the Clergy Letter Project (there is now even a separate letter for rabbis), Darwin Sunday sermons, and Darwinist scientists who have volunteered to be on-call “technical consultants” to the clergy. Winston Churchill defined an “appeaser” as someone who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.

  4. To my mind there’s never been a better time to be pro ID or a creationist. The more the scientific community stamp on the necks of those who express even a whiff of sympathy for YEC or ID the more fodder they’re providing for the history books of 100 years time when the “creationism witch hunts” of the early millennium will be compared to the spirit of 17th Century Salem and Joe McCarthy’s HUAC.

    I’m kind of excited.

  5. …(cont)

    Salem was because of fear of a return to Romanism, HUAC was communism and the creationaphobia is driven by a fear of theocracy.

    It’s all just a little bit of history repeating.

  6. Larry Fafarman: ……”scientists who criticize evolution are not being invited to a Catholic conference on evolution”……

    Larry, tell me more about this. I am an ID catholic and I am furious with the TE Catholics for just this kind of thing.

  7. StephenB,

    Here is a new blurb about it

    http://www.catholicnews.com/da.....804713.htm

    This it what you get when ID doesn’t distance itself from creationsism and when people such as Steve Fuller are set out to defend ID.

    They also seem to be distancing themselves from the hard core natural selectionists. Hey there is a new term ‘selectionist.’ Maybe we can add selectionism.

  8. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC or HCUA,[1] 1938–1975) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives.

    The committee’s anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, as a senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.

  9. Thanks for the correction. Still, don’t miss the point =)

  10. 10

    Perhaps I should have said McCarthy’s activities with the HUAC

  11. Having spent many hours ‘debating’ with Dawkins admirers on the richarddawkins.net website (and sadly eventually being ‘banned’ no less) I am of the firm opinion that Dawkins is causing real damage to science education.

    His narrow mechanistic approach to knowledge is at odds with how most real scientific progress has ocurred throughout history.

    He seems to have taken it upon himself to play the role of “Professor Science” and deceive the unwary public into considering him the primary authority on what science is.

    I think it is very important to scrutinize Dawkins’ true credentials because in my view his expertise in zoology, his role as assistant Prof. in California and later as lecturer in Oxford (both in zoology) does not in my opinion demonstrate a particularly significant contribution to scientific knowledge in zoology or any other field.

    So I see no grounds for him to suggest that he is an authority on science and science education. Most if not all publications are devoted to often personal views on evolutionary theory, genetics and more recently speculative views on existentialism.

    I have never seen Dawkins as an educator of the public and certainly not a science educator, since his focus is to restrict the scope of conceptual thinking rather than expand it.

    True science education will automatically encourage the growth of a critical, thinking population that are able to decide for themselves what is an acceptable belief and what isn’t; Dawkins seems to be afraid of such a programme and I suspect I know why.

Leave a Reply