The Richard Dawkins Rap

He's smarter than you, he's got a science degree.

Comments

[Rose Tinted Hetero]

Can we assume Mr Philistine ..whoops... Mr Finkelstein, does not have a science degree? Poor thing.

Prof Dawkins can lecture me on biology anytime.

[Rose Tinted Hetero]

Can we assume Mr Philistine ..whoops... Mr Finkelstein, does not have a science degree? Poor thing.

Prof Dawkins can lecture me on biology anytime.

[John McD]

There are many ways to critisize Dawkins and Hitchens et al..........

this is hardly the most trenchant.

[kevin]

The Atheist Pope maybe needs cutting down to size however this might just backfire, at least in the UK, so maybe we should just let God make his point? Afterall a Science Degree over here is a good thing isn't it? I presume Expelled is aimed at the intellectualy challenged who make up the greater mass of the American people these days?

[Mike Wales]

The new creationism

[beansnrice]

Too bad stupid people without science degrees think none of it matters. I guess you have proven how pointless and myopic your thoughts on the matter are.

If you are trying to back up intelligent design then you need look up the definition of science because nothing in intelligent design suggests the use of the scientific method.

Consider this comment in the judgement of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

[Mat Dryhurst]

A couple of months ago I wrote angrily of how Hannah Strange posted clearly defamatory Fox News coverage of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright, with no commentary to put the matter in context. I received an apology.

Are you aware that this is a video created in support of the Creationist propaganda film 'Expelled'? Would you perhaps like to put this video in that context for your readers?

This film not only paints the scientific community as being elitist and untrustworthy, it intentionally misused interviews with both Dawkins and PZ Myers to elaborate it's fallacous claims for intelligent design.

Is this the level of journalism I can continue to expect from the Times, simply passing on messages from clearly biased and politically motivated movements like Fox and the Creationists, with no attempt to put them in context?

I despair at this prevalance of the cheap laugh over enlightened information. If you need someone to actually do some journalism for you, you have my contact information.

I fear another apology like the kind offered by Hannah Strange will not suffice in restoring my confidence in this paper.

What is your editorial policy for such matters?

I encourage others to find better sources of information. This is a joke in more ways than one.

[Alison]

I love it! You've got him off to a tee! Exactly what he does think, bless him! Obviously smarter than Newton and Pascal and etc, etc, etc...

[Rob, Paris]

Yet another reason why I lean more and more to reading the FT than this increasingly dumbed-down "life-style" magazine...

[Adrian Drummond]

Hummm ...not particuarly impressive. Daniel, you are giving the impression that you are insecure about Dawkins.

[Diagoras the Atheist]

Is this a very bad skit at Dawkins or a very good parody, created by some of his supporters, of the many extremely poor, over-simplified and repetitive attacks he receives?

There are so many videos and so many speeches attacking Dawkins like this that seem at first to be jokes and later turn out to be genuine that one can no longer tell which are parodies and which are not.

[phil durrant]

I have an chemical engineering degree, F I Chem E and an MBA... commonsense and humility are often so much more important and useful...

[Desmond Taylor]

I have seen Dr Dawkins discussing intelligent design, and quite frankly he did not come across as very intelligent. Maybe the design was flawed!

[Boggled]

The person who they had as Aristotle was in fact Plato. I guess they don't have a humanities degree or even one in art history.

[paul]

Great - richard still doesn't prove god or religion doesn't exist ... and evolution is just as pointless - now we don't have any species to compete with we can all relax and put our feet up ?111

[Roque Nuevo]

Funny! Thanks a lot.

[MattVauxhall]

Alot of work went into this video. Quite slick. But whats the argument? Dawkins uses science and reason. Great so he should. You shouldnt have to defend faith? Sorry Mr Finkelstein times have changed.

[Jens]

The only reason for bringing this pointless video to Timesonline would be to mock Professor Dawkins without comitting to a an argument that would have been lost before it was begun. Even by Mr. Finkelstein's standards, peddling this sort of gibberish without explanation is pretty weak.

[Thomas]

So attack the messenger, not the message. Dawkins was once a Christian, so doesn't think anyone who is religious is an idiot, just that they are wrong.

[Ian Kemmish]

Hey, I've got a science degree (even though Cambridge insist on calling it an MA). And I created a (small) multinational business. And I can play the harpsichord (well, almost).

And I'm writing a science fiction novel about how monotheistic religions are inevitably doomed to become the tool of politicians....

[jonathan lewis]

Yo!

Great video - (and speaking as an atheist science graduate) - am a bit perplexed why others may feel offended at this.
It's usually the religious who fail to laugh at themselves, i had thought.

I reckon (hope, anyway) humour is generally favoured by natural selection.

[Mcnash]

Perhaps not the most trenchant, but fun - the man does take himself far too seriously

[Andrew]

Is this the Times or the Sun!
Dear oh dear Daniel,
Some perspective - a video of a guy stuck in an elevator for 41hrs (youtube "TRAPPED IN AN ELEVATOR FOR 41 HOURS") is watched by 11 times as many people as the above rap.

Perhaps we could invite Richard Dawkins to do this column.

[Mark Farber]

Congratulations on presenting the crudest, ugliest, stupidest, most ignorant and arrogant aspects of our current culture in a single YouTube download.

Four billion years of evolution for this?

[Dan]

Perhaps life on Earth is just a science experiment by God to prove to his teacher the theory of evolution?

[daniel finkelstein]

Three quick points. First as regular readers will be aware I am passionately pro science and think intelligent design is bonkers.
Second Comment Central links do not bring with them a personal endorsement unless I offer one. I post noteworthy, intelligent, insightful or amusing things.
Third this video us clearly funny. It just is. Dawkins argument against creationism is clearly correct. But his self confidence and rudeness demands to be parodied.

[Timopheus]

It's very disappointing to see that human technology evolves much faster than human cognition. And that these technical miracles serve narrow-minded religious zealots.

[Malcolm McLean]

Insults merge imperceptibly into schoolboy humour, into sophisticated wit.

Whilst it's possible to parody Dawkin's public school / Oxford culture, the clip isn't really on target. Its intellectual criticism of Dawkins is non-existent, except for one, wrong, point about dissenting scientists being expelled from the academy. Dawkins has just got no association with rap music; the fact that Dawkins as a rapper can raise a smile is an acknowledgement that Dawkins is cleverer than the average rapper.

In short, I'd say the clip is really in the insult /schoolboy humour end of the range. It doesn't deserve serious discussion in The Times.

[Barry Pearson]

This was posted and discussed on Richard Dawkins' website a month ago. It was also posted on YouTube about then, with 182,000 views.

Search YouTube for "Beware the Believers", and you can see who produced it.

I'm an atheist, and enjoyed it a lot!

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey MALCOLM MCLEAN.
Although I agree that this sort of frivolity has no place in a serious newspaper, (nor, indeed, in life itself), you say
" Dawkins has just got no association with rap music; the fact that Dawkins as a rapper can raise a smile is an acknowledgement that Dawkins is cleverer than the average rapper."

Patently untrue, I'm afraid, and showing that you have no knowledge of rap music.; otherwise you would doubtless be cognisant of the artist " Snoop Dorky Dawkins".
This does not detract from your argument of course; in fact, it may well strengthen it.

Mr Finkelstein, please desist from posting these fripperies.
I come to the Timesonline site to interact with like-minded, naturally intelligent people, not to have humour forced into my throat.

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey MAT DRYHURST

Good post, though I fear your offer of journalistic experience may come to nought. It is my understanding that the Times will hire only those who know how to not actually split an infinitive.
Grammar seems to be more important than the scientific method.
I know; for I am one what have applied and failed.
I believe the majority on the Times staff hold Arts degrees, which somewhat proves your earlier point about stupidity!

[Nessie]

I have watched Dawkins argument against religion and God with hope of getting an intelligent and logical argument from him; instead he sounds more like the religious fanatics he was criticising. The only difference is that he is on the opposing side. He sounds more dogmatic than the religious fanatic as he keeps begging the question. He also admitted that evolution is just a theory. When he was asked in one of his seminars the simple question 'what if you are wrong he rambled about and ended up throwing back the question back to the student 'what if you are wrong in a very aggressive tone. To think avoiding questions and going aggressive are some of the thing he accused the so called religious groups. I wonder what his argument is all about. All he has been able to prove is that he is as fanatic, irrational and inability to neither hear nor accept any other person’s view as the same people he is attacking. In fact he is worse off. I wonder why he is deluding himself as one with special intelligent to deliver the whole world from religion

[Nick]

This is funny, but Im a huge fan of Dawkins. I do not believe he should feel bad or apologize at all to anyone for his work. If it comes across as harsh, deal with it or sit down. The real world isn't as fuzzy as most people would like to think it is. He is honest, and sometimes honesty is harsh. It's 2008 AD, not 8 AD.

[David]

The only thing correct about this video is that Dawkins is a blowhard. That doesn't invalidate evolution or validate intelligent design. It is a shame that one of the most annoying people on the planet is one of the most visible spokesperson for the scientific worldview. The satire on Dawkins' personality presented in this video has been well earned. Many other scientists have done just as much to promote science, but with a much lighter touch, and certainly with less antagonism against those who choose to disagree with him.

[mike rigby]

Dawkins is an even bigger bore than the Archbishop Of Canterbury, and that is a fact.

[Paul J.]

I'm a fan of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and PZ Myers but hell, this is entertaining satire.

Yes it was commissioned by the creationist loonies behind "Expelled", but the guy they hired to do it is on a completely different level talent-wise than they are.

Makes me chuckle at least.

[Mark]

Just a case of "intellectual short man syndrome" on the part of Mr Finkelstein, I surmise.

Those who claim Dawkins is arrogant about his superior understanding of the evidence have, sadly, shown themselves to be doubly ignorant: both ignorant of the facts he presents, as well as ignorant of how he presents them, with great humility and with clear explanations understandable by pretty much anyone.

[ozburg7]

I dunno.... I think Dick's science is probably O.K. In a nutshell, he basically teaches that everything in the universe just made itself. Seems logical enough.

[Laurence]

Very very funny... & yet very sad. If you wish to prove Dr. Dawkins wrong better take the challenge, and present us with rigorous proof of the existence of god. Instead of making creative video's... Or perhaps the ID theory requires very creative people to justify its space in this newspaper, and is making a funny video more in their nature then rigorous science?

[Bruce]

Excellent! I have there degrees and speak several languages two fluently. So it is not a question of intelligence. So I find Richard Dawkins both patronising and wrong in his absolute denial of christianity. In 30 years time when Richard Dawkins has passed on that the central tenet of Christianity - treat your neighbour as yourself as expressed by Jesus Chirst will be just as a strong and in 50 years time it will be equally so with Richard Dawkins long forgotten.

[Matthew Alexander]

Very Amusing clip!
These "new" atheists are a funny old bunch.. I have a feeling that collectively they are going to provide us with many more laughs over the upcoming decades. Hopefully once the laughing dies down they will return to being "Quiet" atheists, happy in their own little delusions without the urge to ridicule others.

[valerian rand]

there is not god suckers if you want to use him to define yourselves and your place in the cosmos so be it, keep proving your insecurities and fear of death.if attacking dawkins because he holds up a mirror to your foolishness and emotional weakness is the best you can do, then pity your god for his followers are as smart and insignificant as chimpanzees.

[Godfrey Wind]

"He's smarter than you, he's got a science degree."

How exactly is that a controversial statement? Science degrees are very difficult and require lots of intelligence. It's no use stating as if it were a clever ironic observation. It's simply a fact. If anything, this just further demonstrates how much smarter he is than his critics.

If you want irony, consider the mountain of scientific and technological achievement that has piled up over the centuries, just to allow some morons to globally distribute a hilarious video about how they prefer to stay in the dark ages.

[michael]

Could please provide the context for this video? In that it was made in support of a film that attempts to paint the scientific establishment as prejudiced against religion and unreasonable towards creationism? Because the links to it all over the Times website sort of imply a vauge level of support, which is worrying. I think the humour of the video perhaps makes it worth posting but without context you have set the Times u to look as if it is a supporter of "Intelligent Design", which I sincerely hope is not the case.

[Tam Earl-Aine]

It seems that many of the Dawkins fans who have attacked Daniel Finkelnstein aren't as bright as they think they are. This column is clearly headed "guide to opinion on the web". That doesn't indicate to me that he agrees with it all. The unpleasantness of the atheist lobby is what turns many of us off them, not their argument.

[alex]

Daniel, it's quite obvious what this is about, innit: you've obviously bought into the whole ID load of claptrap.

[tommy]

LOL this very funny.

Lighten up atheists - are you all insecure or something?

Oh btw, I have a humanities degree and science degree.

[Barry Pearson]

Paula Kirby said elsewhere "You will no doubt have heard the ... joke about there being two versions of The God Delusion: one of them moderate, reasonable and utterly convincing and only bought only by atheists, and the other vicious, aggressive and offensive, and exclusively bought by Christians."

In all the books and video-appearances I have seen from Richard Dawkins, he has always been reasonable and well-informed. Yet I have seen contradictory views from other people about the same material. Accept the fact that we see Richard Dawkins through a filter of our own beliefs.

If we step back from Richard Dawkins, and directly examine the key entities here, surely most of us accept that normally "science works". (Otherwise how would we now be communicating?) The Science of Evolution is no exception - it works. "Darwinian evolution in the wild" is currently costing "the "western world" many billions of pounds/dollars each year, with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, fish-stocks evolving towards smaller sizes, and crop-parasites becoming more resistant to pest-control. The evolution of bird-flu may kill millions of people. The Science of Evolution is part of our armoury against these problems. We deny it at our peril.

[Barry Pearson]

In response to Matthew Alexander: I don't believe there are such people as "new atheists". (Examination of Jack Huberman's "The Quotable Atheist" shows that nearly all the themes in the recent set of books were present in earlier works. Also, the language of many of those earlier expressions were at least as disrespectful of religion).

Instead there is a "new context" ("new audience" and "new media") which has changed the perception of "existing atheism". The same material published in earlier decades would have been discussed differently, if at all.

For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.

Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11". That influenced some of the recent material published by atheists, and surely changed the audience.

Given that, how far would people have taken an interest in these recent books? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of them, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate them? Would people even have been talking about "new atheism"?

Rather more speculative, how will the current books be viewed in 2016, 2026, ...? And what will new books about atheism, sometimes written by a new and less restrained generation, be like in those years? Will the "conversational climate" have changed so that the current books will be seen as quite mild, with new books being more aggressive?

[mefirst]

Nice one, about times someone put a stop to Dawkins and his silly money-making religon attacking business

[John Francis]

It's fairly commonplace to lash out at the messenger, but you it's usual to read the message first.

[David]

I must agree with the tone of some of the most recent comments here - that the stance of many of the earlier ones is weird beyond belief.
When I used to work in science most of my colleagues were a joy to work with because not only were they highly intelligent but also they possessed a sense of humour.
The apparent failure on the part of so many of the posters here to comprehend that this very clever piece of rap is an example of 'satire' is surely cause for concern? Just how 'dumbed-down' has the UK's intellect become for these people to be so 'up themselves' that any future remarks about German humourlessness, or the inability of Americans to 'get' irony, must inevitably now invite a response relating to pots, kettles and blackness?
Or could it be that many of the contributors here ARE American? I hope that does not sound racist, but, purely as an aid to our better understanding each other, perhaps city & country of origin should be a requirement for posters' details here, as for comments on other Times web pages.
Meanwhile, although no creationist, I am capable of recognising that this rap does make a valid criticism of Dawkins. While he may well be a competent biologist, he has made it abundantly clear that HE certainly does not 'get' religion. So, no matter how impressive his scientific qualifications may be, he is qualified neither to comment on nor to criticise matters spiritual that are manifestly beyond his understanding.
His appalling arrogance in nevertheless setting himself up as some sort of world authority is thus as insupportable as any refusal on the part of his adherents to acknowledge the fact. The Bible in general, and the Book of Genesis in particular, were not written as scientific textbooks - to subject them to critical review as such is therefore completely to miss their point and purpose.
What I find most difficult to understand in Dawkins’ approach is his apparent inability to take on board the fact that the mainstream orthodoxies of most of the world's major religious groupings, as expounded by their faith leaders, have no difficulty reconciling their creeds with modern mainstream views on evolution. Hence there is no inconsistency on the part of the many scientists who adhere to a religion. Except possibly in parts of the US 'Bible Belt', creationists constitute a small, if vociferous, minority.
I have, with some puzzlement, gained an impression that biologists seem particularly prone to this religion blind spot, while physicists are much more likely to be of a religious bent. (Not sure where other disciplines fit in.) Other people’s impressions (and explanations?) in this regard would be of interest.

[Egbert]

Slow down a moment, Kevin 25 APR 2008 18:55:29 - do you know what a comma is? Any ordinary American can teach it to you, science degree or no.

[Max]

Pathetic. One would have to be either pretty malicious or pretty dim to find this film amusing. It certainly is not instructive or thought-provoking. The only message seems to be "He thinks he's a big cheese but he's not." Something as feeble as this ought not to be on the weblog of a serious journalist on a serious newspaper. May be Richard Dawkins does get up your nose, Mr Finkelstein: it's still a pity the intellectual debate has flown over your head.

[Lauren]

Richard Dawkins absolutely does have a science degree. I would hope to never be presumptuous or arrogant enough to delude myself into thinking I knew more than a man who has spent his life educating himself in his chosen field (and contributing to its advancement). My B.S. cannot hold a candle to what he has done. "Dick" Dawkins most certainly IS smarter than me.

Aside from that, I'm surprised by this attempt to popularize a hatred for Mr. Dawkins through a catchy internet meme. I never took Jib-Jab as a mouthpiece for the Creationists. Then again, I never took Ben Stein as one either.

[Dr A Caldicott]

Finklestein is an idiot, as proven on this blog time and time again. Why does the editor of the times keep him on?

[Julian Blackwell]

Religious institutions have representative and enormous symbols of their belief throughout the world, Dawkins simply offers a little atheist balance at the other end of the seesaw, it doesn't matter either way whether you believe in it, your belief is not required, however religion requires belief to exist, science simply is, the greatest weapon against illogical religious belief is indifference.

[Duncan Clark]

Finkelstein degrades himself by association with this Punch and Judy nonsense.

[w. a. carr]

I do not have a science degree, but unlike most I have always been interested in science. ID does not need intelligence to understand it any more than it takes intelligence to posit it. It is like believing the Ark is still on Mt Ararat, common sense tells one that it could never have been there.

[Mike]

What no smear of 'anti Semitism' this time? Finkelstein clearly has a grudge with Dawkins political views - particularly on Israel - and this is his real crime.

[CT]

So Finkelstein has basically sunk to the level of posting youtube videos instead of writing anything.

Can we get a proper columnist who's not an idiot, Professor Dawkins perhaps?

[Grayswandir]

A subversion of the ground broken by the legendary MC Hawking and DJ Doomsday, in which the esteemed professor engages in irony-free, earnest discourse not only on his opinions regarding intelligent design and its proponents but also on the daily life associated with the world of theoretical physics and academia, including thermodynamics and revenge killings.

[Charlie]

Anyone who finds this video amusing is missing the point. This isn't satire, it's a personal attack on Professor Dawkins in support of the creasionist propoganda movie 'Expelled'. The producers of this film have nothing of substance in support of their premise, so they continue the tactic of demonising anyone who questions religion. However, this is nothing new. What is disgraceful here is the lack of context in which this video is presented, certainly not the jounalistic standard I would expect to find in the Times. One conclusion that may be drawn is that the Times supports the views expressed in the film; the tactic of misinformation is consistent with the 'arguments' in the movie. Or perhaps it's laziness on the part of the columnist; either way, it's shoddy journalism. And since the Times won't help, for those interested in the context a list of links can be found at www.expelledexposed.com

[Eos Pengwern]

Beansnrice (25 Apr 2008 19:47:46) invoked the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. The same judgement contained the statement "we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science".

It's an interesting definition of science that makes it mutually exclusive with truth. If this is what Darwinism has brought us to then it doesn't bode well for the future.

[Eos Pengwern]

Barry Pearson (27 Apr 2008 21:13:34); the fact we know that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environments, while still remaining the same species, is nothing to do with Evolution. It has been recognized for thousands of years, and put to good economic use in breeding the many domesticated plants and animals on which we rely.

"Evolution" is the claim that species can morph into other, more complex species without relying on anything except chance. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence for this and if it were proper science then I expect it would have delivered some economic value (to someone except book publishers) by now.

[Eos Pengwern]

The really interesting thing is that, when this video first came out from an anonymous source (it was posted on YouTube by 'Randomslice'), it was almost universally hailed on the various Darwinist blogs as a devastating piece of anti-ID invective. It took a couple of weeks for the truth to dawn, and provided a good example of the Darwinist propensity for seeing what they want to see rather than what's actually there.

To his credit, Prof. Dawkins himself (on his own blog) was one of the few Darwinists to smell a rat. He's smarter than most of his hangers-on, at least.

[e skelton]

Of all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters doubters this man is undoubtedly the cleverest. However, Pastfarians like myself still fear for his immortal soul and I pray daily that Richard will be touched by His noodly appendage.See the light brother, I beg you.

[iain carstairs]

If the "scientific method" had any real superiority over intuition and genius, it would have solved or foreseen the problems facing the world. Instead, the world gets closer and closer to disaster and the scientists all think it's funny. Starvation for 2 billion people, wars or terrorist rebellions in almost every country, crime and degeneration, addictive behaviour, suicide, drug-resistant bacteria, biological mechanisms so complex that nobody has yet figured them out.. and science still claims to be the only ones to have all the answers! If all it can do is bash the natural spirituality of the human race, it is not much better than a teenage bully in kindergarten. What difference does it make how we evolved, if most of the race is suffering from tension, fear and disease?

If science has solutions to any of the problems facing mankind, can it please step forward and offer them? Because spending billions on missiles and space telescopes isn't improving life on this planet for those most needing help. If science has the answers, we're all listening.

[Tony B]

Who cares what anyone thinks. The only people who get wound up,as usual, are the religious types. "Dawkins has so far failed to prove that God doesn't exist".
Do me a favour,you muppet.

[RW]

not only does Richard Dawkins hold honorary degrees at the university of Westminster, the university of Hull, the university of Durham, the open university, the free university of Brussels, the university of St Andrews and the Australian national university, he is a fellow of the royal society and also holds two PHDs.
I also find it funny that at one of the opening nights of the creationist film, Expelled (which is about the expelling of scientist because of there religious views) the biologist and atheist P.Z Myers was promptly kicked out of the showing.
Expelled form Expelled haha
you creationists make me laugh.

[Mike Bennett]

Great video, nicely made and good for a laugh. Perhaps some of what counts as serious in the States translates as ironic humour over here, but that's all the better for those of us who like to laugh. Which makes some of the comments here all the more puzzling - this is the rolling guide to opinion on the Web isn't it? Made oi larf anyway.

[Erik from Redneckville]

Note to DAVID from a US residing person:

Sorry to dash your hopes, but your comment does indeed sound racist, assuming you mean that word in the broadest sense. Though I'm not sure you do, after all you Brits have such a funny way of using English. Why can't you just talk normal !
No worries really, I'm not offended, I've had plenty of opportunities over the years to use similar silly stereotypes to poke fun at British (and even Scottish ! ) friends. Though I will say some African-descended people I know might take offense at references to darkly colored kitchen implements.
I would agree Dawkins is arrogant, and I'd add self-aggrandizing, self-righteous and annoying. Kind of reminds me of Jerry Falwell, just not so folksy. Of course unlike Falwell, Dawkins is also right, at least as far as ID is concerned. Plus the video is funny, on two levels once you know who paid for it.
What does cause me some concern however is your lack of concern over the rise of creationism, and implicitly its parent fundamentalism. As a US citizen residing in "the Bible Belt", I constantly see its warping of everything from school curriculum to electoral politics. What is really going on, from the perspective of one who has to deal with these folks day-to-day, is a direct attack on rationality, effectively stating that if one sincerely believes in their heart something to be true, logical argument based on facts from the objective world are irrelevant. Before you write off my concern to parochialism, consider how the movement's base and power are both continuing to grow, and is hardly limited to our region - for example the current US President is apparently a creationist, the apocalyptic movement has substantial influence on Mideast policies, and for that matter you can hardly get more fundamentalist than this guy:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/declarationofwar.htm
It's a serious and deepening world wide problem, one which western Europeans seem to have been largely spared direct experience of, but if my understanding of current immigration issues there are correct you may not be so isolated much longer.
Fact is, someone has to do the work Dawkins & his cohorts do. Unfortunately, the media love a controversial figure who seriously annoys those who disagree with him, so we seem to be stuck with Dawkins as lead salesman.
Finally, I can only half agree with the concept of faithful scientists not being hypocrites. As an agnostic, I can see where it's possible to believe in a god or gods while holding to the principles of scientific method on a practical basis, but my experience working in a university environment for over a decade taught me most faithful scientists and teachers of science simply live with the dichotomy and choose not to seriously question said faith. This avoidance of inquiry allows them to continue to hold obviously irrational tenets of a belief system which brings emotional comfort, and that to my mind is more than a bit hypocritical.

[David Colquhoun]

Very odd. I can rememebr the days when the Times used to be a serious newspaper. This sort of stuff should be kept for Fox News.

[Mat]

Thanks Nosferatu_D2, and to Dr. A Caldicott, I don't doubt for a second that the editorial staff maintain this farce as this creates exactly what they would like.

They get to argue that they are posting 'objectively' in order to provoke 'debate', whereas in reality they are posting irresponsibly and catalyzing trench warfare between two belief systems.

The phrase 'Divide and conquer' comes to mind. The only news here is that they've got this whole charade stitched up. Pathetic. Next!

[John Q Eniac]

Finkelstein says in response:
"...I am passionately pro science and think intelligent design is bonkers...I post noteworthy, intelligent, insightful or amusing things...this video us clearly funny...Dawkins argument against creationism is clearly correct. But his self confidence and rudeness demands to be parodied."

The problem, Mr. Finkelstein, is that few people who view this will understand that you posted it as a jab at (what you assert to be) Dawkin's arrogance, and not at the validity of his arguments. They are happy to indulge in their own perverse anti-intellectual arrogance which ridicules his careful reasoning without even bothering to understand it. Dawkins' arguments are VERY good, and VERY hard to rationally refute. He has spent the last 30 years carefully and patiently refuting the same weak attacks against evolution over and over and over again, always with beautifully reasoned prose. One can forgive him for finally succumbing to a certain degree of condescension toward his relentless but blinkered and usually inferior attackers. Furthermore, you yourself say that his arguments are 'clearly correct', thus ironically opening yourself up to the very charge of arrogance that you say motivated you to parody him. Finally, I will believe your pose of erudite impish elf when you post the corresponding video parodying 'Pope' Ratzinger and the Catholic Church for an arrogance which dwarfs anything Dawkins has ever exhibited, for their absolute certainty not only in the existence of an unseen supernatural superintelligent Creator, but in their outrageous claim that they speak for Him (or Her). I doubt you will...

[Chris]

Rap is such a tedious form of music that it's entirely appropriate that it should be used by the new creationists. The video clip is so cringeworthy that I'm afraid any humour was offset by the repetitive strain of listening to it.

OTOH, the South Park episode starring Dawkins was hilarious.

New Scientist has a series of easy to understand articles on evolution online, which are available to all. eSkeptic has articles debunking Expelled. Or for youtube freaks, there's Sexpelled.

Dawkins is right to speak out against the teaching of superstition as science. There is a place for religion in schools, but only in comparative studies.

[Edmund Burke]

What amuses me about the whole philosophical fireworks display, initiated by Dawkins, is that Bertrand Russell settled the matter, as far as secular philosophy is concerned, a generation ago. Clearly Professor Dawkins has a deep-seated need to be acknowledged as a prophet - albeit a secular one - in his own generation.

[Liberal]

These atheists create a dilemma. Support their ranting and you support their philosophical wrongheadedness. But attack them and the fundies think they have won a victory. What to do? Try reading Antony Flew's There is a God in which he concludes that God exists, but hasn't spoke to him yet. The liberty resulting from this stance is worth defending. Read the appendices too.

[Tim Dempsey]

An excellent piece. It illustrates by way of crude popular medium of hip hop that:
1) That Dawkins is a popularist of the worst cast, trying to make his points by pillorying easy targets, and going for 'proofs' of his views by holding them up in contrast to some fairly dotty stuff. This is sophistry - clever but specious rhetoric.
2) That he has started playing the man not the ball. Don't like someone's argument? Make him out to be deluded religious nutter then. Easy. This is the basis for the God Delusion book - abuse disguised as philosophy.
3) Most importantly of all, right at the start it points out that science is now has as much dogma as any religion that Mr D loves to hate. Don't agree with any of the Climate Change machine? Out you go, no grant, no job, no prospects.

Science worries me when it tackles cultural, political and social matters because of this arrogant and dogmatic "smarter than you" attitude. Down this road lies extremism - the Nazis were big on science. (There, did you spot my Dawkin's argument? Mention something repugnant adjacent to what you are trying to discredit, and the association sticks, even if you didn't directly link the two).

I could go on, but you get the drift. And I am not being paid like Dick-ee Dee.

[nosferatu_d2]

Come on chaps, grow up!
You're allowed to think something is amusing or salient, even if the content strikes at the very heart of your faith, or you find it ridiculous and an insult to your intelligence.

I bet most of you still get up and gyrate around the dance-floor to "HI Ho Silver Lining" when you've had a few too many glasses of bubbly at a wedding reception, without worrying that you might have to claim the lyric as a central tenet of your belief system the next morning.
It's just a song...

Oh and btw, if you want to see someone being really unfunny, charmless and evasive, yet still lauded by the sycophantic sheep that simper in his wake, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Brilliant! Or maybe this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Hahaha!
Now don't get me wrong. I am as much an atheist as the next person (and I am writing this with the ghost of Friedrich Nietzsche sitting upon my knee), but you know, evolution and all that, it is bollocks.
Am I allowed to use words like that in the Times? Or am I thinking of the Guardian?

[Derek - Dartford]

Well,well all you atheists one would think that your current champion Professor Dawkins has no equal,that he is the pinacle of human intellectual development,the consumation of all evolutionary forces over billions of years the 'ineffable Dick' before whom all other disciplines must bow,and any who dare criticise him must be eradicated. Yet Dawkins' challenges have been met. David Stove,neither a creationist nor religious, but a Scientific Philosopher, meets Darwinism, Neo-darwinism and Dawkinsian pseudoscience on their own ground. In his book "Darwinian Fairytales" the suppositions on which Darwin based his theory are examined and it is demonstrated that as far as humans are concerned,the conclusions drawn by Darwin are just not tenable.Stove is precise in his use of the English language, and illustrates very clearly how Darwinists are very imprecise to the point of deceit in their own use of it.Stove cuts through the arrogant dogmatism of Dawkins like a hot knife through butter,while at the same time exercising a wicked sense of humour that could only come from a down to earth Australian.Something so lacking among many defenders of the ubiquitous Professor you would think it was faith and not science they are defending. The book is an excellent read and should be mandatory for every socio-biologist before writing another word.

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey JOHN Q ENIAC

What's your point exactly?
Is it that no-one should write, publish, or present anythng if there's a possibility that it may be misunderstood? I don't get it.
Why would it be up to Finkelstein to separate the wheat from the chaff? He's simply pointing us towards some interesting and/or controversial stuff on the internet.
Furthermore (and ironically), your claims about Dawkins "careful reasoning" and his arguments that are "hard to rationally refute " open you up to the very charge of arrogance up to which you say Finkelstein has opened himself by parodying that of Dawkins.

Oh dear, I think I can't follow my last sentence. I should have realised I was going to read it back to myself, and dumbed it down a bit.

Even furthermore, just putting the word 'very' in capitals doesn't prove the point you are making. For example, I think that his arguments are VERY bad, and VERY easy, rationally, to refute.
See? Doesn't prove a thing.
That split infinitive of yours bothers me too, right in the middle of your spiel about ' intellectual inferiors' and the probability of others not being able to, or not 'bothering to', understand him.
I know, it's a tedious little point, but I'm a tedious little person.

Going back to the subject of capitalisation for a moment, I would have thought that someone like you, so supportive of atheistic thinking, so scathing about religion, would avoid using capitals when referring to a 'Creator' or to 'Him (or Her)' - meaning, presumably (G)(g)od. (I'm not even sure that the Catholic church believes that (H)e might be a (S)he, so you lost me again there.)

Ah well. There are none so blind as those who deliberately sick red hot pokers into their eyes. Well, there are, but they don't sound as blind.

So far i have scored this
creationism 0 evolution 0

[Johanna]

What is the point of putting this in a 'serious' national daily?

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey DEREK - DARTFORD.
Exactly!

Creationism - nonsense.

Evolution - utter nonsense.

And it's about time we realised and stopped trying to fit five fingered theories onto six-toed feet, whilst destroying or hiding evidence that disproves one or the other.

Evolution was thought up by a man with a long grey beard, whose birth date avoided the 18th century by a paltry nine years. Stop pretending there's something modern and relevant about it, for god's sake.
Whoops, force of habit...

Now, where can I get this book?

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey JOHANNA!

It's called 'fun'.
It was quite popular in this country a few years ago.
Dying out a bit these days, especially amongst 'serious' people.
But try not to worry about it too much. No-one is trying to offend you.

[Derek - Dartford]

Re Nosferatu enquiry
Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution (Hardcover) by David Stove (Author), Roger Kimball (Introduction)
ISBN-10: 1594032009
ISBN-13: 978-1594032004
Amazon or any good bookshop

[nosferatu_d2]

Hey TONY B | 28 APR 2008 23:31:17

You write "The only people who get wound up, as usual, are the religious types."
I don't think you understand. Evolutionists ARE religious types. And there's not much evidence of Dawkins supporters not getting upset here.

Next you object to a comment by someone who claims that "Dawkins has so far failed to prove God doesn't exist" and you finish by saying "Do me a favour you muppet."
Er... you do know the muppets weren't real, don't you?
(Except Fozzie Bear of course, who became Bill Clinton. Don't believe me? Just look at the fundamental scientific evidence.
1)The Muppets came off the air just as Bill Clinton made his bid for the White House.
2) Have you ever seen Fozzie Bear and Bill Clinton together?
3)They look EXACTLY the same. Apart from the hat.

A little off topic, but a hazelnut in every bite, I think you'll agree.)

[Barry Pearson]

In response to nosferatu_d2:

The science of evolution doesn't depend on Darwin. It has a life of its own. It is pointless to attack Darwin, and misleading to refer to the science as "Darwinism" as though he is still the authority for it.

For example, I am reading an undergraduate textbook on Evolution by Mark Ridley. It refers to 700+ books, articles, and papers, by 100s of authors. Only 3 of those references are to Darwin, and they are there because Mark Ridley's book summarises the history of the science of evolution.

Darwin kick-started the science of "evolution by natural selection" in a brilliant way, but the current content of the science is more up-to-date and based on evidence and methods and other sciences that Darwin had no knowledge of. Recent examples of methods include genomics, chemical paleontology, and protein comparisons of T. rex and birds.

[Dov Henis]

What is the "Selfish Gene" thing?

Genes Are Primal And Genomes Are Evolved Organisms

A. In view of the information we now have about life and its evolution:

Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere.

Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.

Gene: a primal Earth's organism.

Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of its member genes.

Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms.

B. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently desirable:

- Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a form of constrained
energy pocket.

- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.

- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms, with genomes' organs.

- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and functional membranes, organs.

- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell membranes shapes and
functionalities.

This conception is a scientific, NOT TECHNOLOGICAL, life-science innovation.

It is tomorrow's comprehension of life and its evolution.

IT EVOKES INTRIGUING DARWINIAN IMPLICATIONS.

IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALS.

Suggesting,

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1