Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins on Hannity & Colmes

June 13, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Unfortunately Richard “Girly Man” Dawkins doesn’t have the cajones. At least he’s bright enough to know when he’ll get ripped up like a paper doll. 😆

Comments
Thanks Mark and I appreciate your reply. I think Anne Coulter is a great marketing machine. I believe that she could make her points without being invective, but the big question is, would anyone listen to her? I do not think that she is further out ahead of him on the abusive scale (they are both abusive); I just think that she has much more exposure. DanDan
June 14, 2006
June
06
Jun
14
14
2006
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Re #16. Dan I saw "Root of All Evil" and also his series on Science he did a few years ago (I forget its name) and many of his appearances in other programmes - e.g. he was recently on Jonathan Miller's history of atheism. I have read the "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and parts of "The Ancestor's Tale". I have twice heard him speak live. I also strongly disagree with much of what he says. I am not an acolyte. I have accepted above that I was wrong and you were right - I forgot some of his comments that could be taken as being personal abuse. My main point was to compare him to what I hear about Ms Coulter. Would you disagree that she is far head of him in the personal abuse league?Mark Frank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT

"What on earth are you babbling about with the “four exes” remark? -ds"

Well babbling it is. I've been too hasty basing my comment on just one slanderous remark derived from the book's forum on Amazon. Too bad for me. She's apparently single.

Family values anyone?

Take a hike. Make it a long one. -ds SBlank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Mark, These are a few quotes he is well known for. If you are unfamiliar with these quotes, I think you most likely have not read any of his books, watched any television appearances or have read any of his newpaper articles. I recommend that you consider spending some time reading these. Also, if you disagree with a person, it is recommended that you read their work so you can know what you are disagreeing with. Best DanDan
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Re #13 and #14. Fair enough. He clearly does go in for some abuse. My main point was to compare him to Ms. Coulter. Although I have never read anything she has written, and don't intend to, I feel confident that personal abuse is far more central to her persona and book sales than it is to Dawkins. Re #9 - I don't understand your argument. That was to make a TV programme for a UK audience. Many people in the UK are aware of, and somewhat interested in, the US religious right. He talked to a number of other people in the US at the same time. It was clearly a good use of his time. (Incidentally we have lots of churches but are rather low on congregations). Re #12 - well, of course, I don't know all the details of his life. These fist-pumping rallies don't appear in his public schedule - have a look at the link Dave has kindly provided. But maybe you have another source of information.Mark Frank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
And of course there is this infamous quote: "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)." Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9. But GilDodgen's reference is more recent.Patrick
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Re #8: In Dawkins’ TV special, “The Root of All Evil?” Dawkins tells pastor Haggard that his church services are reminiscent of the Nuremburg rallies and that Joseph Goebbels would be proud. From Wikipedia: “The primary aspect of the Nuremberg Rallies was the almost religious focus on Adolf Hitler, portraying Hitler as Germany's savior, chosen by providence.” So Dawkins compares Haggard to Hitler and says that Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda would be proud. I’d say that’s a pretty good example of personal abuse.GilDodgen
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Dawkins regularly flies across the Atlantic to appear at campuses that most Britons know nothing about in order to attend and lead fist-pumping rallies that promoter his world view. Besides, most people appearing on Fox News don't travel to the Fox studio. They appear on broadband video from their own location. Stu Harris www.theidbookstore.comStuartHarris
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
"Why on earth would he fly across the Atlantic to interview a pastor of a church in Colorado that probably no one in the UK has heard of? Don’t they have churches in the UK?" - Mung Well, yes and when making the video in which he portrays American Christians as dangerous zealots, Dawkins could edit the tape to his advantage and his opponents disadvantage. Can't do that on someone else's TV show.russ
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
With all due respect to Coulter, I eagerly await the day when a more levelheaded conservative like Hannity comes to our defense--or better yet, a liberal like Colmes!crandaddy
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Why on earth would he fly across the Atlantic to appear on a show that hardly anyone in the UK has heard of...
Why on earth would he fly across the Atlantic to interview a pastor of a church in Colorado that probably no one in the UK has heard of? Don't they have churches in the UK?Mung
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Re #6. Dan - if he is well-known for personal abuse you should have no problem providing a reference.Mark Frank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: Google "dawkins wilder-smith" 1986 debate. A.E. Wilder-Smith was a brilliant man.jacktone
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Mark, Richard Dawkins is well known for personally abusing people that disagree with him. DanDan
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I admit I can't really defend Dawkin's courage. I know nothing about his personal motivations. I was moved to respond because I was at his session in Salisbury on Sunday where he read from his books and then answered questions and I was hugely impressed by his eloquence and the quality of his writing - much better than how he comes across on television which often sounds shallow and immature. I think that he will continue to be read in 50 years time - not so much as great scientist or intellectual but as a great communicator and teacher. He is also someone of intellectual honesty who will tell it how he sees it - but without recourse to personal abuse. Re #4 - what event in Oxford are you talking about?Mark Frank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Dawkins hasn't been willing to be in a debate ever since he debated Wilder-Smith in the 80s. At _Oxford_, the creationists got well over a third of the votes. I think it scared the bejeebers out of Dawkins. It was very amusing because the creationists were continually talking about science, while Dawkins was continually talking about theology.johnnyb
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT

"Which of the two authors will still be read in 50 years time? "

Neither. I hope.

BTW., could anybody provide me with a direct qoute, where Coulter encourages to christianize by the sword? It's baffling what applause this "lady" (four exes - how christian) receives right here on this blog, whereas f.e. E.Pianca - in a somewhat similar situation - gets torpeded with every invective imaginable.

What on earth are you babbling about with the "four exes" remark? -ds

SBlank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT

Dave - are you saying that Richard Dawkins was invited to appear on Hannity and Colmes with Ann Coulter and declined?

Why on earth would he fly across the Atlantic to appear on a show that hardly anyone in the UK has heard of (I just had to look it up to find out what it is) with someone who hardly anyone in the UK has heard of, to have abuse heaped on him? This isn't lack of courage - it is just a sensible use of his time.

Although controversial, Dawkins is a senior academic with an international reputation and an outstanding science writer. For example, The Selfish Gene is still selling robustly after 30 years and has been translated into 20 languages. It contains no personal attacks on anyone, but deals solely with ideas. Ann Coulter is almost an entirely a US personality (have any of her books been translated into any languages?). From the little I know about her it appears that she is primarily famous for heaping abuse on people and relishes being known for this.

Which of the two authors will still be read in 50 years time?

The Girly Man appears alone in far less popular U.S. venues often enough. Hannity & Colmes would be the most widely watched program he's ever been on near as I can tell. See here for his schedule. He's notorious for refusing to appear in a debate format of any type. That's why his middle name is Girly Man. Dawkins is a coward. Courage = 0. Hannity & Colmes guests are often teleconferenced. Little Dick could appear from the comfort of his home so that particular dog of an excuse you made up for him won't hunt. I doubt all of his books put together have sold more than a small fraction of Coulter's but I could be wrong of course. The Selfish Gene is still selling robustly? What exactly does "robustly" mean in number of copies? -ds Mark Frank
June 13, 2006
June
06
Jun
13
13
2006
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
I LOVE HER. She says everything I want to say but that would probably get me fired since I work in Hollywood.chunkdz
June 12, 2006
June
06
Jun
12
12
2006
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply