Darwinism Evolution Science

Dawkins vs. Sheldrake

Spread the love

This sort of behavior from Dawkins cannot withstand the light of day.

“Sheldrake Exposes Dawkins as Fundamentalist Pseudoskeptic”

In a commentary on his website, biologist Rupert Sheldrake recounts his experience in — almost — appearing in The Enemies of Reason, a British documentary written by well-known biologist and public advocate for atheism Richard Dawkins. He describes how he was recruited to appear in the documentary with promises that there would be an opportunity for scientific discussion. But when he tried to engage in such a discussion, both Dawkins and they director made it clear that they were not interested in discussing evidence. The TV programme was intended to debunk, not give a fair view of the scientific evidence:

“Richard seemed uneasy and said, ‘I’m don’t want to discuss evidence’. ‘Why not?’ I asked. ‘There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.’ The camera stopped. The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.”

Dawkins has of course every right to promote his religious views — in this case, the religious views of atheistic materialism, which considers evidence for presumably transcendental phenomena a mortal threat to its belief system. However, when Dawkins and people like him promote their views in the name of science, they commit labeling fraud. Dawkins may be a scientist by trade, but when he acts and argues as a fundamentalist believer in materialism, ignoring evidence that challenges his belief system, then he commands no more credibility and scientific authority than any other kind of religious believer. . . .

13 Replies to “Dawkins vs. Sheldrake

  1. 1
    bFast says:

    Sheldrake is an intriguing guy who presents some intriguing evidence. He certainly isn’t of the classic Christian persuasion, but he causes one to consider that there is much more than is dreamed of by scientists.

  2. 2

    William Dembski wrote:However, when Dawkins and people like him promote their views in the name of science, they commit labeling fraud.

    Worse in my view—they use the color of authority to mislead others.

    From the beginning, evolutionary bulldogs have been using evolution as a club against religion. From Ernst Haeckel asserting that nothing spiritual exists, to T.H. Huxley arguing that science shows faith to be mere superstitious hope, evolutionists are interested in evolution more as a weapon than a theory to be rationally evaluated.

    In my view, macro-evolution is a quaint metaphysical story molded to fit sparse observations, brilliantly illustrated with artist’s renditions (such as Huxley’s Gibbon to Haeckel ‘s embryos) as proof.

  3. 3
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    Curious title for that production – The Enemies of Reason. Seems to me that a man like Dawkins, who denies the essential axiomatic truths that establish reason as something more than a mere sequence of happenstance events in a happenstance universe, is the real enemy of reason.

  4. 4
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    Let me say that a with a little more alliteration:

    It seems to me that a man like Dawkins, who denies everything that makes reason reasonable, is the real enemy of reason.

  5. 5
    howard says:

    This event reminds me of a BBC programme I viewed some years ago, where Richard Dawkins hammered a group of ‘theologians’ about their belief in theistic evolution being untenable. He thought everything was going his way until the production introduced a previously unannounced ‘guest’ to the proceedings – British historian David Starkey, who proceeded to savage the scientist with the fact that his devotion to evoultion and atheism was equally as fundamentalist as the religion he sought to dismiss.

  6. 6
    StephenB says:

    —–Gerry Rzeppa, writes, “It seems to me that a man like Dawkins, who denies everything that makes reason reasonable, is the real enemy of reason.”

    I wish this point was raised more frequently. Darwinists reject the rational universe and the rational mind that comprehends it in the name of rationality.

  7. 7
    joob44 says:

    I went to Sheldrake’s website and looked in to his so-called scientific papers. Believe me there is nothing scientific about these papers. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever for these “morphogenetic fields.” They come from a paper published in 1981, and there hasn’t been any advancement in that field since. If this were a real phenomenon, it would revolutionize the way scientists look at human and altogether biological interaction. No such thing has happened. Also, this article completely misrepresents Richard Dawkins. Don’t be afraid to think for yourselves boys and girls. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. In my opinion, it should be a crime for Sheldrake to describe his writings as scientific papers, with no peer-reviewed content and huge holes in his research methods. He more or less hypothesises and considers any rambling thought that enters his mind to be evidence.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    Bruce David says:

    Stephen,

    I wish this point was raised more frequently. Darwinists reject the rational universe and the rational mind that comprehends it in the name of rationality.

    Exactly whose rational mind comprehending the rational universe are you referring to? Aristotle? Plato? Aquinas? Augustine? Berkeley? Hume? Spinoza? Kant? Descartes? Leibniz? Whitehead? Bergson? Santayana? (And this list is only a sample.) They all used their reason to apprehend the nature of the universe, and they all came up with different conclusions.

    So how can you claim that reason has the capability of comprehending the universe when the greatest minds of Western Civilization could not agree on what reason tells us is true?

  10. 10

    […] history, which is why his views are worth noting. He had to throw celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins out of his lab at one point, because Dawkins had come there to try to make a fool of him just for doubting Darwin, […]

  11. 11
  12. 12

    […] and subsequently much ridiculed (he once had to throw celebrity Richard Dawkins out of his lab for trying to do a hit piece on him), has done careful, interesting work on dogs who have an uncanny ability to know when their masters […]

  13. 13

    […] of fun Richard Dawkins gets thrown out of Sheldrake’s […]

Leave a Reply