Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Note to Gil Dodgen: Dawkins feels ENTITLED to blame his bad temper and poor taste on an obituary …

arroba Email

Gil, reflecting on Richard Dawkins’s spiteful outburst that Lynn Margulis is a one-hit wonder, challenges,

Professor Dawkins, why not take your own advice?


So why be grumpy? Or, is that how you enjoy your life?

Actually, Dawkin’s spite over Margulis’s sympathetic New York Times obituary is entirely in keeping with his advertised view of life. And anyone who thinks him a fit guide for children – as he thinks himself to be, and many agree with him – should consider soberly what this recent display entails:

Obituaries are not an objective assessment of the recently departed’s life and work. No civilized adult could wish that they were. They leave mourners with something positive to remember. Critical evaluation comes later, and Margulis will doubtless come in for more than her fair share. Scores of tenured mediocrities among the Darwinists – who hadn’t dared confront the formidable lady in life – will turn out to trash her safely in death.

Dawkins blamed Margulis’ obit for his “grumpy” response because materialist atheism makes no allowance for free will. He himself has drawn on the figure of Basil in the Britcom Fawlty Towers for yelling at his bust down car. He believes  that it’s not rational to blame people for their actions any more than it was rational for Basil to blame the car.

And, true to his beliefs, Dawkins does not blame himself. He didn’t do it, the review did it.

As new atheism catches on, we will – I fear – find plenty more where that came from.

They can't help it. Their genes make them whine about ID theorists. Gee, isn't this selfish genes stuff really useful?! I'm in awe of the explanatory power of Dawkins' selfish genes idea. Eric Anderson
Something mystifies me. According to Dawkins we are all just machines, the product of selfish genes that came about by purely materialistic processes that did not have us in mind. If this is the case, Dawkins and his ilk should stop whining about ID theorists and their claims. After all, we are just machines that could not have done otherwise. GilDodgen
How many new atheists would it take to run the world? Enough to make the required land bridges because as with the old atheists, the new atheists cannot run on water. :) Joe
They have not yet begun to fight, only to snarl about her obit's conventional praises. Can you imagine a world run by new atheists? News
I am surprised that Dawkins doesn't reject her alleged "one-hit" now that she is no longer around to defend it... Joe

Leave a Reply