Anglican Samizdat

October 17, 2009

Richard Dawkins and his merry band of bigots

Filed under: Richard Dawkins — David Jenkins @ 12:16 pm
Tags: ,

English eccentricity is a time-honoured and necessary part of what used to make Britain such a likeable culture. Patrick Moore, whose TV programme The Sky at Night I enjoyed many years ago, is a typical eccentric: he is an astronomer who was a member of the Flat Earth Society.

This impulse for self-mocking comes from a gentler time when people who held strong opinions (Patrick Moore doesn’t believe the earth is flat) still had a sense of humour. Oh that Dawkins and his ilk were as civilised. Here is a typical Dawkinism:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Now the assertions of young-earth Creationism may have the appearance of being scientifically untenable – and I don’t subscribe to them – but Dawkins consistently lumps anyone who questions evolution’s dogma into one category, that of mindless folly.

Dawkins enthusiasts take their cue from their master:

By the way, the reason biologists ridicule and insult creationists is because they are too lazy to learn anything, and too bloody stupid to understand anything.

That’s funny that a believer in magical creation would call the basic facts of evolution “pseudo-scientific nonsense”. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

Humourless, arrogant, unreasonable, tedious and bigoted.



  1. I do wish these moronic creationist would have the good taste to forego the benifits of modern biological science, to make a convincing statement of their fidelity to their sacred ignorance. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens rightly refuse to respect that which deserve none. Let us work towards a sane world shall we, that necessarily means letting go of magical thinking and dark supersitions. Our ancestors paid a high price indeed to bring us to this point with eons of suffering and survival. Good grief that gold ring of reason, of rational thought has been paid for in full, grab it!

    Comment by boagie — October 17, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

  2. Boagie,

    When you say these moronic creationist[s] are you referring simply to Creationists who believe in a young (10,000 years) earth? If you are you just called Isaac Newton moronic.

    Or perhaps you are referring to those who believe in an old earth but not common descent? Or perhaps theists who believe in common descent guided by God the designer? Anyone who believes that God had a hand in producing humanity through any mechanism whatsoever also believes in an Intelligent Designer and a Creator. If you include such people you have also written off the following scientists as moronic:

    Nicholas Copernicus
    Sir Francis Bacon
    Johannes Kepler
    Galileo Galilei
    Rene Descartes
    Robert Boyle
    Michael Faraday
    Gregor Mendel
    William Thomson Kelvin
    Max Planck
    Albert Einstein

    Comment by David — October 17, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

  3. Einstein was a creationist? What a lying pig. Apologize mister. Admit what a liar you are.

    Comment by bobxxxx — October 17, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

  4. bobxxxx,

    Thanks for making my point so effectively.

    Comment by David — October 17, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

  5. Yes and for the rest of his list he might take into consideration that he has falsified others beliefs as well as having failed to take into consideration that some of those names represent people of another historical era where the evidence for evolutionary biology was not available never mind overwhelming. Being dishonest for god are we, he can use all the help he can get these days.

    Comment by boagie — October 17, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

  6. Hmmm – God doesn’t need any help at all. He’s perfectly capable of looking after Himself and His reputation. And I think He has some interesting mechanisms to do it up His anthropomorphic sleeve.

    Comment by Margo — October 18, 2009 @ 1:24 am

  7. “Hmmm – God doesn’t need any help at all. He’s perfectly capable of looking after Himself and His reputation. And I think He has some interesting mechanisms to do it up His anthropomorphic sleeve.” quote Margo

    How very very profound Margo, how insightful of you, thank you for sharing that.

    Comment by boagie — October 18, 2009 @ 2:04 am

  8. boagie,

    When you respond to others, please try to say something cogent and don’t be rude.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2009 @ 8:04 am

  9. The point I was trying to make was the lack of substance to Margo’s statement, it was tongue in cheek. I could have made fun of her imaginary friend, but I refrained did I not? Actually it is not difficult to understand where your sympathies lay, it just remains to be seen to what extent you wish to control the opinions expressed here. No humour allowed——lol!! Say good night Gracie!!

    Comment by boagie — October 18, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

  10. boagie,

    “it just remains to be seen to what extent you wish to control the opinions expressed here”,

    Since you asked, I generally allow people to say what they want.

    I do moderate: those who insult other posters; overly profane or scatological posters; posters who insist on repeatedly making what I view to be meaningless or inane comments – I usually allow around 3 before pouncing.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

  11. I understand the need to keep it civil, but a little tongue in cheek? Granted it might, it could get out of hand if left unchecked, tit-for tat as an on going battle. Quality control is neccessary but I think perhaps you’re just a little to eager. “All things subsist by elemental strife and the passions are the elements of life.” I think that is it, if you expect people to express their opinions entirely without passion, it is then an unreasonable request. You do need to cut some slack, perhaps if there is repetition of a said offense it then would time to intervene.

    Comment by boagie — October 18, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

  12. boagie,

    Thank you for the advice, but, as you may have noticed, it is my blog and, as such, I don’t really need to do anything of the sort.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

  13. #11 Hummm… Someone who doesn’t know the difference between to and too really ought not to be calling other people moronic.

    Comment by Kate — October 18, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

  14. Well, at least he doesn’t have the unanimous support of his atheist adherents, however much it often seems that way…

    Comment by Chet — November 4, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

  15. David, I quite agree with your post. The weakness as I see it of Dawkins et al’s behaviour is that it so often descends to attacking people rather than arguments. He’s the one after all who mused about using displays of “naked contempt” when talking to people who have religious beliefs. He claims to mean “rapier wit” but that isn’t what displays of naked contempt are; they’re just the mark of the schoolyard bully. Do I adhere to a religion? No. Do I believe the theory of evolution is correct? Most definitely. Do I think adhering to young-earth, reading-the-Bible-as-history-instead-of-morality-tale creationism is very smart/informed? No, I don’t. But what would give me, or anyone, the right to start abusing someone who holds those beliefs?

    The most annoying thing about Dawkins is that he seems to equate any sort of religious belief with Bible-belt fundamentalism. Sorry folks, it ain’t so. If he looked at Biblical scholarship and the progressive churches, he’d see a rejection of OT morality and its savage God, and an understanding that human morality DOES evolve, and what works for one society will be cast off by another.

    And he is a humourless piece of work often enough. He didn’t get it at all when Andrew Denton mischievously ended his interview by asking “What star sign are you?”

    Comment by L&L — February 4, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: