As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?

Evolution is a simple and easily explained idea even if its details are more complicated. It isnt brain science. It is a damning indictment of the poor education of society that so many fil to understand it. Richard Dawkins is arrogant, smarmy, sneering, contemptuous even to top scientists (such as E.O.Wilson), to a British listener even the very way he speaks is pompous. I believe he causes more problems than any kind of education that he provides.Does anyone know of anyone who doesnt already understand science ever being enlightened by him?

CastBound Asked on May 25, 2015 in Health.
Add Comment
5 Answer(s)

I am no Dawkins fan, but this whole evolution vs creation discussion has gotten out of hand. Both sides insult the other. Civil debate is very difficult. Dawkins responds with his own insults and then rebuttal for what he considers insults.

Let me give you an example, with a link to the original question:

Original Question:

Woodpeckers: how do evolutionist/ atheists explain this bird?

My Response:

What do you find strange/unique about woodpeckers?

Their Response to my request for clarification of their question:

Oldpilot: your ignorance about these 3 creatures is self evident by your question + what’s more. You’re an intellectual WANKER! No answer from you just drivel, go away, come back with a formulated answer!

CastBound Answered on September 2, 2015.
Add Comment

It’s hard to say. He’s written some good books… but in less thoroughly planned and un-edited settings, he often comes off as arrogant and a complete jerk. It’s probably because he IS a complete jerk. I know people who have had to interact with him, and I get the general impression that he’s even worse in person. He also seems to love controversy and the attention that it brings, which means that he doesn’t always act in the best interests of whatever he’s promoting, whether it’s science education, or atheism (as an atheist myself, it drives me nuts that people seem to view him as sort of an “atheist pope”, especially since he has a history of being inflammatory).

In other words, yes, he sometimes does more harm than good. He should stick to writing books. That allows him to think his ideas through a little more thoroughly, and an editor can help filter out most of his arrogance.

Flying_Mouse Answered on September 2, 2015.
Add Comment

As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?

– He does not serve pablum, he is tenacious, assertive and sometimes angry, but at least he is not nuts or psychopathic like fundies.

Evolution is a simple and easily explained idea even if its details are more complicated.

– Yes, change over time, but fundies have a problem with just that.

It is a damning indictment of the poor education of society

– BINGO, and fundies want to make it worse.

Richard Dawkins is arrogant, smarmy, sneering, contemptuous

– Your opinion.

to a British listener even the very way he speaks is pompous.

– I thought that was the way all educated Brits sounded.

I believe he causes more problems than any kind of education that he provides.

– Go ahead, “believe” what you want.

Does anyone know of anyone who doesnt already understand science ever being enlightened by him?

– Yes, me, 7 1/2 years of university/college education and I can still learn from most people. Except the fundie/creationists. I try to listen to their youtubes, but anyone with functional brain cells can only take so much stupid and lies.

CastBound Answered on September 2, 2015.
Add Comment
Richard Dawkins misunderstands evolution and there was an ongoing battle between him and Stephen Jay Gould, while Gould was alive. I side with Gould on practically on issues. Dawkins have the tendency to take the opposite and the wrong side when disputing Gould.

MindProbe Answered on September 2, 2015.
Add Comment

It isn’t that they are incapable of understanding it, they refuse to do so.
Facts mean very little to the religious. Reality takes a back seat to pretense for them.
Dawkins for me is a non-issue, I never read anything he wrote other than as described and quoted here.
Even if he is a complete idiot, science can not be denies on those grounds.
Science is the real deal, religion is the pretend alternative.
I’ll stick with reality thanks, even without the likes of Dawkins.

Divine Answered on September 2, 2015.
Add Comment

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Related Web Results