Coyne is soliciting questions for Dawkins to answer on his book tour, but Coyne will not allow certain kinds of questions to be passed on:
Please, though, avoid questions that involve the following:
• Extremely technical questions about genetics or evolution.
We all remember what happened the last time someone asked Dawkins a technical question:
Ok, so can anyone formulate dumbed down questions for Dawkins? Ok, I’ll give it a shot, and readers are invited to try.
Question: “Do you think society ought to allow married men to sleep around? If so, can you please convince my wife that it’s all right for me to have some fun?” (See: Richard Dawkins defends the idea of having a mistress and lying about it).
Question: “Do you think its wrong to award a PhD in science or MD in medicine if one is a creationist? Should a science diplomas be denied to creationists lest more scientists like Behe come out of the school system?” (recall Richard Smalley is creationist Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Ben Carson is famous surgeon, John Sanford a pioneer in genetic engineering).
“You said several years ago
By all means let creation science be taught in the schools.
Have you changed your mind?”
Question: “Are men naturally better at math than women? Some brain studies suggest this. Thanks”
Question: “How come you didn’t endorse PZ Myers book that Happy Atheist. Was it a lousy book?”
Question: “You’ve condemned the damage done by creationism to science, but what about the damage done by activists terrorizing medical research centers that use animals in their research. I’ve not heard you condemning the animal rights terrorists like ALF. Why is that?”
Here are some cartoons from coxandforkum and telicthoughts on the matter:
And one cartoon of Dawkins. Notice the Animal Liberation Front Terrorist in Dawkins own back yard of Oxford attacking scientists with a hatchet and bombing buildings, but not one word from Dawkins condemning it! See: Dawkins Still MIA.
Some speculate this means he regards animals more highly than humans, like Eric Pianka and John Reid
And this cartoon of the relative non-reaction to animal rights terrorism by Darwinists. Could it be that deep down, Darwinists hate humanity?
Actually John Reid suggests that Darwinists hate humanity
The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.
and that we need to reduce population size immediately by several billion
When we consider ways to reduce the human population there is a natural dichotomy between ways that kill a very large number of people and ways that control the growth of the population, that is, ways that prevent people from breeding.
War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill. Consequently, let us consider the alternative.
The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding,
Question: “Dr. Dawkins, John Reid says we need to reduce the human population by several billion. Are you in favor of this goal and would you recommend some sort of Eugenics program? We can’t keep breeding like rabbits and expect to arrest global warming after all. Thank you.”
But the best dumbed-down question I can think of was based on Dawkins appearance in an episode of South Park.
Question: “if you’re so smart, how come you didn’t figure out Mrs. Garrison was a guy?”
But one good question related to the Elevatorgate Scandal came from Ray “banana man” Comfort: Dawkins, Elevatorgate, Ray Comfort.
Readers are invited to try their hand at dumbed down questions.
1. HT Mike Gene
2. To Dawkins credit, I was very very impressed with his answer to a Christian girl’s question: “What if you’re wrong?”. His response was clever, not that I agree, but it was clever, dare I say brilliant. It was his time to shine:
3. photo credits
4. by the way, any bets Dawkins might be heckled by Feminist Atheists (FAs).