Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

Tim Robbins

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

santing

Reading and listening to Dawkins, one get the impression that he is (negatively) obsessed with religion. He has his own crusade.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

As a Christian, I'm not concerned at all with Dawkin's assaults on my religion. At least he shows his true colours, the real motivation that drives the anti-Creation movement.

And it is honest enough for him to attack Christianity as creationist, for he knows that this is both the teaching of the Bible and the historic position of the Church. That many of its modern leaders have chosen to conflate God's account with Darwin's is a comment on their pliability, not on the religion. Christianity - the apostolic teachings - is just as opposed to evolution as ever, and Dawkins knows it.

I'm delighted to report that God has enlighted a good brother who had been intimidated by the evolutionary colossus:
Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5774

Puck

Here we go again. Anyone fancy a pint?

As for Dawkins, I think he's developed a taste for the camera and loves the attention this kind of stuff gets him.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As a Christian, I'm not concerned at all with Dawkin's assaults on my religion. At least he shows his true colours, the real motivation that drives the anti-Creation movement.

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

thebaldsoprano

I haven't seen him interviewed much, but what I have seen I don't like.
A lot of the attacks he uses on faith based religions could equally apply to atheism and agnosticism.

Dave147

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I haven't seen him interviewed much, but what I have seen I don't like.
A lot of the attacks he uses on faith based religions could equally apply to atheism and agnosticism.

How could it equally apply to agnosticism?

thebaldsoprano

Dave147 wrote: »

How could it equally apply to agnosticism?

Well, from one interview, he was arguing that religion is like a virus in the way that the main religions gain converts.

As an agnostic I'll happily argue my point and this also leaves open the possibility "gaining converts".

There was other fairly inflammatory and meaningless stuff like parents passing their religion on to their children because it was "the right one" and "it's always the right one".

Now if I do have kids some day, I'm pretty much going to tell them to go figure out the God question for themselves and find something that works for them. This is essentially leaving them without knowledge (a gnostic), which could be argued as passing the "right" religion to my kids.

All fairly meaningless really and I was less than impressed.

Flamed Diving

I don't like the way he portrays evolutionary theory as an alternative to god/s. This is very misleading and untrue.

The Mad Hatter

Does Dawkins annoy me? A little bit. Like many people, he seems to be a little too certain of his opinion as fact.

But he's not as annoying as, say, the misspelling of 'programme'.

amacachi

I had been told by a friend to watch the last episode and I really couldn't believe the smugness of the presenter. As was said, why not talk to Priests who do get evolution? Why treat the topic with the same fanaticism and the creationists? His point would've been gotten across even better had he spoked to a Catholic Priest or Anglican Vicar, to show that Christianity and Evolution can be compatible. There were just so many different things in the programme that annoyed me. Not least his constant use of "Darwinist". As if it makes him something.
I'm agnostic btw.

Dog Fan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Does Dawkins annoy me? A little bit. Like many people, he seems to be a little too certain of his opinion as fact.

But he's not as annoying as, say, the misspelling of 'programme'.

Ah, but we don't know if they learnt their spellings in the US of A.

Dawkins annoys me too, and for that reason my emotion over-rides anything he says. I'm automatically predisposed to ignoring him. I just feel that he's got a drum to bang, and he enjoys doing so.

I'm Catholic, and happy in my faith. Is it something I can prove logically? No.
At the same time it is something that I don't believe can be logically proven to be false.
Some of my teachers taught me that "faith is a gift", but I'm not sure how that pans out when one considers the billions of believers of other religions on this little world of ours.
Must open a thread on ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue sometime!;)

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Pro-reason agenda, eh? And yet he pushes this agenda - something that apparently isn't possible for people of faith - by misrepresenting the views of his targets.

I was going to watch the programme but I just knew it would be used as a platform for Dawkins to do his anti-religious thing. For many people, it isn't a choice between God and evolution - or God and science, for that matter. Apparently Dawkins doesn't get this simple concept. More likely he chooses to ignore it for the sake of scoring a few easy points.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Reason? That sounds like purpose, which there isn't any in evolution.

I think reason is one of the weakest points of Dawkins! If you eliminate a reasonable God, than "sense" is as good as "nonsense"!

sdep

I rather prefer Steve Jones. In communicating his enthusiasm for all things Darwinian, he generally keeps clear of religion. When, as in this recent public lecture, he does discuss it, he points out that he has no time for creationism, but says he takes no issue with the late Pope's position that humans evolved from a common ancestor with all other species, yet were divinely infused with souls somewhere along the way.

My personal feeling is that evolution is too important to see it reduced to a weapon in arguments over religion.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

Memetic selection is 'Pseudoscience'? In all branches of sociology and anthropology that I'm aware of, memes (or mild variants) are accepted pretty much universally.

Which anthropologists from what university reject the idea of memes and memetic selection?

.

thebaldsoprano

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Galvasean

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Well he's certainly a militant atheist anyway. So yes, I suppose he could be described as a fundamentalist.

bus77

PDN wrote: »

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

I don't know who would get the 'pro-reason' job in this whole scenario.

But I do know Oxford making Dawkins, who describes himself as a Polemicist (As Gaeilge: Messer) head of public relations for science at the college is very, very queer.

santing

robindch wrote: »

Memetic selection is 'Pseudoscience'? In all branches of sociology and anthropology that I'm aware of, memes (or mild variants) are accepted pretty much universally.

Which anthropologists from what university reject the idea of memes and memetic selection?.

From Wikipedia ...

The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise understanding of what typically makes up one unit of cultural transmission remains a problem in debates about memetics.

It seems that indeed everybody accepts them, but nobody knows what they have accepted!

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions. Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

Flamed Diving

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Coooool, see what he did there?

thebaldsoprano

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Coooool, see what he did there?

I'm not even sure I see it myself. If it's of an inflammatory nature, I actually didn't mean it this time

PDN

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I'm not even sure I see it myself. If it's of an inflammatory nature, I actually didn't mean it this time

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

FWIW, I agree. Dawkins is simply awful when he tries to go outside of his discipline. If he wants to contribute to the creation of a secular society he should simply stick to making the contribution that he is very well qualified to make - to explain what evolution is about, and what the evidence for it is. I was terribly disappointed in the first programme. He was practically an example of life imitating parody, as all I could think of was the title of Oolon Colluphid's bestseller in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "Well, I Think That Just About Wraps It Up For God".

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Indeed, but in fairness there is a bit of a gap between the 'we haven't a clue' position and the 'God decided to communicate to us in what seems to be a quite convoluted fashion, best accepted without worrying too much about why'.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin".

His next program will be called "The Genius of Dawkins"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion.

Apart from his incredible arrogance, this is what bugs me most about him. This man for all intents and purposes is an anti-christ. I'll bet he's ruined the last shred of faith for hundreds of people. I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

He may be an expert on evolution but he knows feck all about Christianity.
God have mercy on him.

thebaldsoprano

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Ah, now I see. Yes this is a bit of a touchy subject for these sensitive souls alright. I'd better not say any more on the matter, tempting as it is...

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

Would you not blame Christianity for that, rather than Dawkins?

Of course not. Each side has its view point Kelly.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

If you eliminate a reasonable God, than "sense" is as good as "nonsense"!

I think it is comments like that that keep Dawkins working away day after day

Schuhart

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

In fairness, I think this is a statement he makes himself.

I didn't have the same reaction to the Selfish Gene, which I simply found to be a good book about evolution. But, indeed, I have noticed a disquiet in some other folk I discussed it with. The idea of people being gene-perpetuating machines is something that, indeed, seems to strike to the core of some folk.

But that's just a tool for understanding how evolution works. Its not the sum total of what we are. If it was, we wouldn't be contributing to this thread.

I think this marks a potential break. There are those of us who take what I've termed in other posts as the atheist leap of faith. That's the idea, encapsulated in a quote of Carl Sagan's, that we're better off trying to use reason to explain reality. The other is the idea that reality is too awful to contemplate, so we'd better pretend its not there. Its all about, if you can recall, being a child in trying to get in sleep after seeing a horror movie. Are you going to look under your bed to see if there's anything there, or convince yourself if you keep your eyes closed it won't eat you.

And, in fairness, reason does not necessarily lead to atheism. It just does for a lot of us.