Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution News and Views on Dawkins dumped from Berkeley: Did it serve him right?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words,” neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and editor David Klinghoffer weigh in:

Egnor:

Dawkins gets expelled: You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh

Why, one asks, is it fine to criticize Islam, but not Darwin? Dawkins has fought mightily to “de-platform” intelligent design scientists and anyone who harbors even a shimmer of doubt about Darwinian theology. But now he’s shocked — shocked — that defenders of another religion get to silence heretics too.

Atheism and its Darwinian creation myth have gained ascendancy in the Western world over the past century, and in several unfortunate nations, have grasped state power. It’s been an ugly ascent, complete with gulags and holocausts and inquisitions. But there are other forces in play, and other religions in ascent as well, and they have a history of centuries of conquest.

Klinghoffer:

Dawkins banned in Berkeley Well boo hoo

Fellow atheists are in an uproar, including one past holder of our Censor of the Year award. Well, boo hoo, but Dawkins has fallen into a trap that he and his pals helped set. Why do I say that?

You have no doubt observed yourself that our culture is riven by a conflict pitting two irreconcilable views of the world. I’m very interested in the way that a range of seemingly unrelated opinions – on science, politics, religion, etc. — tend to hang together, at least in the American context.

One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage.

While laundering the crying towels (News): Well yes, come to think of it. If human consciousness is an illusion, so is learning. Then why does Dawkins’ view matter more than that of a rioting punk armed with pepper spray?

Naturalism, meet logical conclusion.

There’s something else to see here too: When Dawkins was young, intellectual heft and achievement mattered on campus. Today, overwhelmingly, what matters is victimhood and entitlement.

Whether or not you think his product is any good, it’s not a product many current universities even feel they need in any form. Support them at your own risk and expense.

See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

Comments
rvb8, Again you are sadly mistaken. Dawkins couldn't even last in a debate against anyone who knew half of what Dawkins claims to know about science. Geez all someone needs to ask him is how can we test the claim that natural selection or any other blind and mindless process produced any bacterial flagellum and watch him squirm, then lie or BS. And BTW, you will never see any Pearly Gates. But I am sure that God isn't worried by your willful ignorance.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Apparently Dawkins has been re-invited. I hope he accepts. He is an extremely eloquent debator, patient, and willing to give just enough rope to his opposition before pulling the rug from under their feet. I have seen him on too many youtube vids to know the radio staff at Berkley are in for a dour time; Heh:) As for judging God? That's easy. I sincerely hope He does exist, so that when I confront this halfwit at the pearly gates, I will ask; 'What the hell were you thinking? Snakes? Heaven? Hell? Eternal damnation? Sex is bad? Only one truth? etc etc. Oh, yes, God is going to get an earful from me!rvb8
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Pindi:
I specifically said it was a human being.
Which human? And how do you know? Also by saying what you think it was you are also saying what it isn't.
I just want to know, now ID has established that life was designed, when its going to start with the who, when, how, where and why like archaeologists are doing with Stonehenge.
Those questions have nothing to do with ID. And the current paradigm is supposedly all about the how and yet it cannot answer that- nor the when. However I am sure once ID is the reigning paradigm people will take up the challenge to try to answer those questions. Right now IDists have more important questions to answer.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
ET, I didn't say what the designer of stonehenge was not. I specifically said it was a human being. Please tell me what the ID designer is/was. I'm not interested in falsifying or refuting ID. I just want to know, now ID has established that life was designed, when its going to start with the who, when, how, where and why like archaeologists are doing with Stonehenge. It was your example and I think its a good one.Pindi
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
And Pindi- if your position could just step up and demonstrate that natural selection, for example, could actually perform as claimed then ID would be falsified. The point being is you are never going to refute ID by continuing on your path.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Pindi- ID is not on your agenda. There are more important questions to answer. And saying "human beings" is a what not a who. However if that is OK with you then it is OK to say the designer of life on earth was not a human from earth.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
ET, ok, but ID has studied life and determined it is designed right? That job is done. Now are you are going to move on to the who, how, when, where and why? And yes, we do know who the designers of stonehenge were. They were human beings. What can ID tell us about who the designer was?Pindi
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
On the other hand evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how and yet no one knows anything about that.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Pindi:
we don’t know what we know about Stonehenge by studying it as an artefact
Of course we do. Humans have studied it as an artifact and all knowledge has been gained in that light.
We know what we know because we ask questions and develop theories about who the designers were, and when, where, how and why they did it.
Nonsense. We don't even ask those questions until we have determined intentional design exists and it is studied. And we don't know who the designers were. We don't know how they did it. And we don't know why. The when keeps changing. And that is a structure we can duplicate. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. Those other questions don't need to be asked to determine if ID exists.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
ET, we don't know what we know about Stonehenge by studying it as an artefact. We know what we know because we ask questions and develop theories about who the designers were, and when, where, how and why they did it. Does ID apply that approach to the design of life?Pindi
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
It looks like atheists/materialists have found the best evidence available for the origins of life and evolution by attacking God's right to execute justice... What's the next step? God doesn't exist because some people have homosexual tendencies? Maybe God doesn't exist because you have a hard time believing that he exist? What a pity...J-Mac
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Pindi- Nothing is as ludicrous as the materialistic position. As for ridiculous, well that is all I see in your posts.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
critical rationalist:
Humans exist because “that’s just what some designer must have wanted” doesn’t add to the equation.
Clearly you are not an investigator as saying something was the result of intentional design tells us quite a bit. Do you think we could learn more about Stonehenge by examining it as an artifact or as a natural formation? If living organisms are the result of intentional design that means there is a purpose to our existence- at the very least.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
@ET
Too bad that you don’t have anything that can account for the existence of humans. And that means you have faith that somehow materialistic processes produced us.
Humans exist because "that's just what some designer must have wanted" doesn't add to the equation. It just pushes the problem up a level without improving it.critical rationalist
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
ET, its not a matter of judging God. How can one judge something that doesn't exist? What we are doing is pointing out the ludicrousness of your god hypothesis. An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being, who created the whole universe but can find no better way of dealing with a tribe of people fallen into bad ways than by committing genocide. Come on, you've got to see how ridiculous that is?Pindi
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Your #8, Dionisio : 'Seversky @6: God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes. Try again.' And what about the Blind Watchmaker, Areopagite ? Wouldn't He have kind of sponsored God in some kind of naturalistic way... ? Hmmm .... ? And who says Darwinism isn't a scientific theory ? Empirical evidence only appears to be empirical and evidentiary...Axel
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
If I understand the situation correctly, the radio station which invited Dawkins decided to disinvite him because they discovered public statements of his with which they felt uncomfortable. They don’t have the right to disinvite him? What I find ironic is that Dawkins fans and defenders think that Dawkins has had his rights violated. Says who? What is their basis such rights? Is Dawkins the person who gives us our rights? How does one derive universal human rights from a naturalistic/materialistic world view? Can someone who embraces such a world view give a rational argument for grounding interpersonal morality and human rights? On what world view is our society based? According to Klinghoffer…
…our culture is riven by a conflict pitting two irreconcilable views of the world… One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage. Mixed with this rage is a certain characteristic spiteful preening, a pride in its superior sophistication in scorning the idea that there’s anything exceptional about humanity. This goes along with an intolerance for competing ideas, especially notable on campuses now — a readiness, almost an eagerness to take offense. Such attitudes come packaged together with a remarkable predictability.
It is irrational to express outrage over rights that you cannot justify or ground rationally based on your world view.john_a_designer
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
I love how atheists think they can judge God. But the funniest part is they actually think their flawed judgement means somethingET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
rvb8:
I have faith in human curiosity, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have fith in human justice, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have faith in human science, (unless hamstrung by religion), and I have faith in human music, art, and creativity.
Too bad that you don't have anything that can account for the existence of humans. And that means you have faith that somehow materialistic processes produced us.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Pindi #18 Not all. Look here for example: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ In your pass time, count the number of biologists on the list.Eugene S
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
RVB How do you logically explain to yourself the existence of world-class scientists who believe or believed in God? Were they all fools or liars with some hidden agendas or were they suffering from split personalities or identity crisis? Is your world view too narrow to accept the fact that there exist world class scientists, who believe in God not in spite of being scientists but because of it? Ask yourself if you really accept a logical possibility of being in error yourself on this account?Eugene S
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Too funny, rvb8, as it is clear that you don’t understand science nor do you know what it entails. Science definitely doesn’t support materialism so that is where your faith lies.ET
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
ET @46, well, I have faith in my family, my friends, not so much my country, but it's not so bad. I have faith in human curiosity, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have fith in human justice, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have faith in human science, (unless hamstrung by religion), and I have faith in human music, art, and creativity. ET, if this is more 'faith' than Chrisitians have then so be it, I'm happy, however, I strongly doubt my faith in these things is greater than your faith in a mythical being. You must have faith that the character known as Jesus is God's son, as well as being God at the same time. You must have faith that the virgin birth happened, meaning incidently that Mary was a surrogate mother, and that Jesus had two dads. Your faith is streets ahead of any atheist's. It's just that atheists have faith in things that are worthwhile.rvb8
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
Allen Shepherd @ 38
I beleive God had a reason for the Amalikite destruction, as he said “Their cup of iniquity was full”. What might that mean? There were groups that practiced child sacrifice and other more ghoulish acts, etc. It is not completely clear, but apparently God had his reasons. I beleive the other destructive events could be explained in a similar fashion.
You should hope that these acts were done for a good reason because it would be far worse if they were done on a whim. The problem you face is that the God of Christianity is presumed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, which means that He has the power to do otherwise. We know from Exodus that he had the power to harden Pharaoh's heart, in other words, He has the power to influence how people think or feel. If He was displeased with the way certain peoples behaved or even almost the entire population of the world, why not simply change that behavior with a Jedi-like wave of His hand? What possible justification can there be for mass-killing on the scale described in the Bible?Seversky
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
rvB8- Being an atheist materialist means you have more faith than any Christian could possibly have.ET
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
A question, for Mr Shepherd, and others defending that egregious charcater known as, God. He had His reasons for killing babies? Really? Any guess as to what those Godly reasons might be? Let's not even go into, 'the flood', where apparently everyone was guilty of something, even the babies. Thank god I'm an atheist materialist, imagine praising such a being as God?rvb8
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Pindi- you don't have a point. Why does any academic support Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian evolution? It definitely isn't because of science. Your heroes are forced to lie and threaten people in order to "win". sad, reallyET
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Waiting for the Ban Hammer to fall on MatSpirit @37Daniel King
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Dionisio @17:
DK @16, Be glad News is gracious to let your posts remain for so long. Other moderators would have rightly removed them immediately without notice. No one would have known you ever posted anything, unless you play by the rules and do it correctly. If one doesn’t understand a comment, perhaps it’s better to ask specific questions about the text that is not understood. Perhaps that’s some homework.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.Daniel King
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Allen Shepherd, seriously, you are ok with saying God apparently had his reasons for wanting babies to be killed? You don't think he could have come up with a better solution for dealing with some bad men than killing their babies? Isn't he meant to be omnipotent? And following on from my comment above, how do you know he doesn't "have his reasons" for wanting babies to be aborted?Pindi
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply