The Blinding Ignorance of Atheistic Pride (Richard Dawkins)

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #18422

      "Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane." – Richard Dawkins

      Dawkins may be intelligent. He is of course learned. But unfortunately he is blindingly ignorant and has not wisdom, or else I would not be able to expose his lack of it.

      For a man of such fame, or to many minds, infamy, as well as fame, Dawkins maintains a singularly bad set of teeth. One might think that with the millions he has earned from the sale of his books, he would get his teeth fixed, to be more presentable on the rare occasions when he smiles, but no, Dawkins clearly doesn’t want to look normal or healthy.

      Now for many of us, selecting a mate is the biggest decision we make in our lives, as it has a powerful bearing on our future and our happiness. Richard Dawkins is a divorcee. He is so intellectual and so smart that he could not make perhaps the biggest decision of his life correctly.

      Richard Dawkins has publicly claimed that evolutionary success is determined by one and only one factor: the amount of offspring produced. By his own reckoning, atheists are abject failures, falling by the wayside as Muslims outbreed all other humans on earth. Osama bin Laden produced more children than Dawkins, Carl Sagan (also a divorcee and an agnostic), Christopher Hitchens, Isaac Asimov, and several other atheists combined.

      Now we proceed to his writings.

      From Climbing Mount Improbable

      Page 101 -“(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

      (Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. )

      Page 287 – “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

      (There you have it. An elephant is simply one big infection. So says the "intelligent" atheist, blinded by pride.)

      Now from The Blind Watchmaker

      Page 37- “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”
      (Ah yes, that “modern” hypothesis – evolution. 1859.)

      P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

      (Mark well Dawkins’ words, "You have to do it right." A scant 5 pages later, Dawkins repeats this nonsense we have all heard and may even have accepted.)

      P. 46 – “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”
      (No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:
      From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power. Actually there are over 60 keys on even a typewriter, counting numbers, figures, and case, so 60 to the 301 power represents the impossibility of monkeys "bashing away" even a short paragraph, much less "all the works of Shakespeare.")

      I could go on, to quote Dawkins, "multiplying up examples" of his errors of ignorance, but to what end? His followers will only make up any excuses necessary to pardon Dawkins.

      However it is illustrative to provide readers with a quote from an e-mail Dawkins sent to me on February 25, 2000, in response to my critiques of his written ignorance. Sad, but illustrative.

      I am reminded of a lovely sentence of P B Medawar:

      "Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for
      by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly of
      tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with
      well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated
      far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought."

      Dawkins thinks it "lovely" that "a large population of people… have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought."

      1. It is not "lovely" and,
      2. Dawkins is one of them.

      His ultimate "gotcha" argument is, "If God made everything, then WHO made God!"

      Dawkins obviously never considered the prospect that if someone else made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He.

      We don’t know everything there is to know here on earth. Surely we can never know everything there is to know everywhere.

    • #116666

      Almost three years old and nobody has posted a sentence of disagreement. Incredible.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.