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
ET @34, my point is that if the only threat preventing this tidal wave of anti Darwin academics from speaking is losing their jobs, then they are not the kind of people that one could describe as having the courage of their convictions. Think of all the people in history who have spoken and published in risk of losing their life or liberty. Your heroes are silent in case they lose their jobs!Pindi
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
“Their cup of snark was full”Mung
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
I love reading this site and enjoy the back and forth. But the snark of this conversations seems to serve no useful end. In a sense you are speaking past each other just taking jabs. I think you can do better. 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. There are assumptions here, but not unreasonable one. I don't think so much snark is necessary though.Allen Shepherd
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
News @ 9: je suis Daniel King. "Unsupported and unproductive snark"? King's comment # 5 is 100% supported by your failed attempt at coherent thinking in comment # 4. You claim to be a journalist, then you use a quotation expressing solidarity with the innocent journalists who were murdered in cold blood by religious believers in the name of their religion. Then you complain that secular people won't do the same for their beliefs! If you can't learn to think coherently, then please find a profession more suitable to your talents. Surely there are some ditches that need to be dug in Canada.MatSpirit
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
ET, Please, don't expect any serious explanation from the politely dissenting interlocutors here, because they don't seem to know even what they are saying and don't seem to have the desire to understand it well. In another discussion thread that was started by a very technical article written by gpuccio, only a couple of politely dissenting interlocutors dared to argue against gpuccio's technical ideas, but it seems like they did not have any strong scientific counterargument that could withstand gpuccio's detailed concepts. Some of the comments by Darwin's fans seemed incoherent and sometimes even void of substance. We should feel compassion to those confused folks. Here's a link to that interesting thread that gpuccio started and maintains: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-proteins-dna-binding-proteins-satb1-and-satb2/#comment-636372Dionisio
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
rvB8- Irreducible Complexity in biology has been fully examined and guess what? You and yours don't have any scientific explanation for it. And that is why you act like you do.ET
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Pindi:
So the anti Darwin academics are too scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs?
It has happenedET
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Seversky:
Are we talking about Darwin, the man, his original theory or the current theory of evolution?
What current theory? Please link to it. Thank you.
The evolutionary pathways that led to current visual systems stretch back millions – eve billions – of years.
That is your opinion and an untestable opinion at that. Also hiding behind time is an admittance the claim is not scientific. Also no one knows if any evolutionary pathway could produce vision systems. The claim is totally untestable.
We never get to hear the Amalekites, Midianites or Canaanites side of the story, do we?
True, your whole "argument" is based on ignorance, just like your "theory" of evolution.
Even the small children? Nice sort of God you believe in.
Except I never said anything about believing in God.ET
July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Daniel King @5, have you posted here before? If not, great effort to get a banning threat on your first effort.:) Dawkins was dumped from a speaking engagement at Berkley because the 'snowflake' brigade that infests US academia at present, didn't like him saying, 'Islam is a disgrace!' Now, we could spend eons discussing liberal Islam, or Western Islam, or Sufi, Shia, and mild denonminations, but its religion, so logic goes out the window. Dawkins criticised Islamic narrowness, its tendency to be absolutely intolerant to all and any examination. This anti-examination policy of this religion fits perfectly with ID's, 'don't ask don't tell' policy in education. Don't question the prophets, Dembski, Wells, Behe. Don't examine the tedious ideas; IC, Specified Complexity, (please somebody, sometime, give me a one sentence definition of this weird idea). Don't look too closely at the bare emperor; he has no clothes you know? Pindi @30, I worship my dead cat, 'Snookums'. He demands nothing, expects nothing, gives nothing, and does nothing; sound familiar?rvb8
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
Seversky @28: You did not respond correctly the question you quoted. A 'yes'/'no' answer is obviously required. Either "Yes, I knew it" or "No, I didn't know it". Try again.Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Seversky@ 28: "What do others think?" I think if I was going to invent a god myth I would do way better than what is on offer from the Christian god.Pindi
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Seversky @27: Your commentary seems to denote your apparent lack of attention to details. But perhaps it was just an exception, not the norm. Maybe you rushed to respond. Take your time. Every word has contextual meaning. Did you read carefully the text you quoted? Did you sincerely try to understand it well? Can you briefly explain what you understood?Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Dionisio @ 10
Did you know that the greatest crime recorded in human history was committed by very religious people with very strong religious motivations?
Okay, I'll bite. What was that?Seversky
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Dionisio @ 8
God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes.
Do parents have the right to dispose of their offspring as they choose? Do you have the right to kill your children or grandchildren if you choose? I say you do not and neither does your God. What do others think?
Try again.
Think again.Seversky
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
ET @ 7
All of academia should be too, yet it isn’t. And that is the point.
Are we talking about Darwin, the man, his original theory or the current theory of evolution? Not that it matters. There has been criticism of all three and there is still vigorous debate inside and outside the field of biology about the current
Geez the “evidence” for the alleged evolution of vision systems is the same now as it was in Darwin’s day. And it doesn’t even count as evidence to the educated.
The evolutionary pathways that led to current visual systems stretch back millions - eve billions - of years. You're complaining because science hasn't cracked it in 150? If you're that desperate, ask your God. He should be able to explain it easily. Otherwise you'll just have to be patient like the rest of us.
Those peoples squandered it
Says who? We never get to hear the Amalekites, Midianites or Canaanites side of the story, do we? All we get is the killers' version of events as being the truth, which sounds more like the verdict of a Soviet-era show trial.
Squandered
Even the small children? Nice sort of God you believe in.Seversky
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
TWSYF, maybe God decided that the aborted babies, like the Amalikite babies, had squandered their right to human dignity.Pindi
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Seversky @6: Since you referenced a NT verse at the end of your comment...
Judge not. Jesus prohibits one kind of judging, but approves a different kind. Condemning others for their faults is failure to exercise forgiveness (6:14, 15); only a gentle and humble criticism that first recognizes one’s own greater faults can help. There is also a necessary, discerning kind of judgment that does not condemn but distinguishes unbelief from belief (v. 6). The method of discernment is given in v. 16. ....... [Commentary from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. John 7:6
what is holy. A reference to the evidences of the kingdom, such as the healings and the exorcisms, which may explain why Jesus did no miracles for unbelievers. But “what is holy” would also include the preaching of the kingdom; believers should not continue to preach to people who have rejected the gospel with contempt and scorn (10:14; 15:14). The Book of Acts illustrates the principle in practice (Acts 13:44–51; 18:5, 6; 28:17–28). ....... [Commentary from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Abortion sure has killed a lot of babies. No doubt about that. Unless, of course, you refuse to admit that they are babies...which is the usual a/mat position.Truth Will Set You Free
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
John 9:27 (ESV)
He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?”
John 9:31 (ESV)
We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, God listens to him.
Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
The comment by News @4 seems clear to me, despite the fact that my reading comprehension is relatively poor. However, if somebody doesn't understand it but wants to, perhaps a way to look for clarification is by asking specific questions. I noticed they don't charge any fees for asking questions in this website. :) If someone doesn't understand a comment, but doesn't care about it, then just skip it and move on.Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Dionisio @19: so I guess the answer to my question is "yes". It's extraordinary to me, the things that Christians force themselves to accept in order to preserve the notion of God. Somehow the slaughter of an innocent baby is deemed to be an example of God's love and grace. Extraordinary.Pindi
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes. None of us has any right whatsoever to judge our Creator. God is absolutely sovereign. God is patient to let us get away with our own rebellious attitude for some time. But not forever. God is gracious to offer us the way to reconcile with Him and thus enjoy His glorious presence eternally, through saving faith in Christ. But many will reject God's gracious offer, because they don't want to be in His presence. Hence God will let them follow their own chosen way leading to eternal absence from God's grace. Perhaps this world is the closest to God's amazing grace that many people will ever be, because the grace of God still manifests in this spiritually lost world. However, that shall end along with the current age of grace. Then those who choose to reject God's gracious offer to reconcile with Him will remain without God's grace eternally. Only those who genuinely repent and thankfully accept God's gracious offer for reconciliation, by grace alone through saving faith in Christ alone, enjoy God's glorious presence eternally.Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Hi ET, So the anti Darwin academics are too scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs? Wow. Just wondering, on the Amalikites, Dionisio and News, do you agree with ET that the babies had squandered their right to human dignity?Pindi
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
News:
Daniel King at 5: Unsupported and unproductive snark gets people banned around here. Say something or get lost.
News had an opportunity to post a substantive reply to my challenge that she explain her comment @4. This was her reply. Power corrupts.Daniel King
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Pindi:
What is stopping academia from criticising Darwin?
Retribution, ie losing one's job.
How did the Amalekite babies squander their right to human dignity?
By being AmalikiteET
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
ET: "All of academia should be too, yet it isn’t. And that is the point." What's the point? What is stopping academia from criticising Darwin? How did the Amalekite babies squander their right to human dignity?Pindi
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
chris haynes @12: I agree that's a horrendous crime. However, I meant another, which helps to explain the crime you pointed at and all the others.Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
The greatest crime recorded in human history? based on the numbers, that would be abortion, the deliberate killing of innocent human beings for purposes of convenience. 60 million, just in the USA, it dwarfs all other crimes put together, does it not? Of course, Dr Dawkins and his ilk support abortion, even putting out such ghoulish nonsense such as claiming that pigs are more human than unborn children.chris haynes
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
News, I saw the real trolls near the beautiful Norwegian fjords. Those creatures there seemed much nicer than their cousins here. :)Dionisio
July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply