Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reflecting on the cancel!ation of Richard Dawkins


Is this a symptom of the gradual cultural failure of Darwinism?

Way back when, one of life’s great certainties used to be that no matter how obnoxious, prejudiced, jaundiced or snooty Richard Dawkins, the Grand Poobah of Atheism, was, the accolades would continue to roll in.

Alas! Those were the Good Old Days for poor old Richard. Nowadays he is looking more and more like a bewildered T-Rex the day after the Cretaceous extinction event.

Earlier this year Richard was cancelled by the American Humanist Association. It revoked his 1996 humanist of the year award because he had expressed scepticism about trans people in one of his recent tweets…

It turns out that Richard needed his mouth washed out with soap for a very long time. The AHA board declared that he had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.

Amongst these are Down Syndrome children, although I doubt that the AHA had them in mind. Dominic Lawson, a columnist for the Daily Mail, reports that there have been calls for Random House to stop publishing books by Dawkins.

Ann Farmer, “Richard Dawkins is not just ableist, he’s unscientific” at Mind Matters News

Calls for Random House to stop publishing his books? As if he were Michael Behe or something? Clearly, Darwinism is losing its cultural teflon.

To his credit, Lawson does NOT think Dawkins should be Canceled. But he is only one journalist. There are mobs of Woke out there. People who could not provide an intellectually respectable critique of his work would be happen to see the publisher Cancel it. Stay tuned.

See also: Richard Dawkins goes after people with Down syndrome… again. It’s interesting that, for decades, Dawkins could say the most awful things and still be popular. But there’s some evidence, noted here, that he’s starting to lose his shine, along with Darwinism in general.

I would not call somebody who is woke Someone with a strong moral conviction That really kind of minimizes what they really are Many people can be considered people of strong moral conviction for many different reasons The woke that I have encountered have not been people of strong moral convictions certainly not by my standards There are people that pick and choose what they feel needs to be important People that I’ve encountered who will help rip down statues of abolitionist just because of the fact that they had something to do with slavery and they weren’t capable of googling history And then say Darwin was just a man of his time Which I find entirely hypocritical These are people that post ridiculous shit like a white woman with champagne glass complaining about the fact that she has white privilege and thrusting guilt upon people like myself who had it difficult all their life and have even experienced my own brand of racism I lost a job do to racist comments because the descriptor of the person who said them was a white supremacists who was tall and blonde in with glasses I was let go A week later I received an apology call from that job Saying that they were wrong and that the actual person was an individual by the name of Cameron who was tall blonde and had glasses. The customer they complained about it came in and noticed he was still working there and asked why he was still working there despite his awful commentary He was fired immediately and they just kind of pat me on the head and said oops But because I fit the description of a White supremacist physically I was accused first This is only one of many examples in my life Being tall and blonde and having a strong chin automatically takes you for being the third Reich The woke are a mixture of people Like any other group some are good some are really stupid some a really bad Almost all are liberal And most of the ones I have met are incredibly unreasonable And will grasp for straws or find any split hair to support their point of view and try to make you seem as guilty as you can for something that isn’t even your fault Which is the primary reason why I hate them I spent most of my life battling stereotypes for myself and other people I find people that categorize others and stereotype others is nothing more than bullies And now the woke are pretty much the evil version of what I’ve been done all my life and they have become the bullies And for my family which they often attack peoples history my family hasn’t been in this country for more than maybe 110 years My great grandparents moved here from Denmark and Luxemburg Half of my family has perished in wars we fought for this country But I am a racist according to this new group of people with strong moral convictions I resent the woke They are confused opinionated assholes that get violent with others if you don’t share their righteousness. they are not people with strong moral convictions A white supremacist can be considered somebody with strong moral convictions don’t confuse the two Ps. Sev blah Christianity do the same blah blah save your self the time we all know what you think and do not care. You purposely distort things to make Christians look bad AaronS1978
BobRyan -
Statues, in the United States, commemorate good and bad in our history.
I'm not sure that's how it works. If it was, there would be a lot more statues of Hitler. Actually, can you name one statue that was erected to celebrate someone because they were bad?
The rebel flag should be flown as a symbol of defeat by Union forces.
You should be flying the Union flag as well, then.
If they cared about slavery, they would actually do something about the slavery that happens in the United States today.
What slavery in the US today? And what are you doing about it? Are you working with law enforcement to stop it? Bob O'H
Statues, in the United States, commemorate good and bad in our history. There is no one denying slavery happened. The rebel flag should be flown as a symbol of defeat by Union forces. Among the statues vandalized was Lincoln, who put everything on the line to get the 13th Amendment passed. If the woke cared about slavery, rather than spewing racism based on all white people and Jews, since Jews are included as white, they would actually criticize those nations where slavery is still practiced to this day. The CCP enslaves much of their people. There are places in Africa where humans can be bought as property. If they cared about slavery, they would actually do something about the slavery that happens in the United States today. It would require them to actually use their brains, rather than repeating what they hear. 1619 is being taught as when slavery first came to the English colonies turned states in Virginia. 1619 was the year representative government was set up. 70 laws were passed, but not one legalized slavery. Later that month was when the English privateer showed up with cargo taken from a Portuguese ship. Angolans, who became the first Africans in the English colonies, but were never made slaves. Under the law, indentured servitude was allowed. it is hardly taught at all, since it cannot be called racist. Horrible conditions with a low survival rate with no shortage of European men, women and children. BobRyan
Sev, good comment: >"Do we do as Tulsa did with its Race Massacre of 1921, sweep it all under the carpet and try to pretend it never happened?" No, but the problem today is that we're in the other extreme mode, where every past tragedy/evil has to be enshrined in a holiday and our faces rubbed in it year after year with no end in sight. Even evils where everyone who committed the crime is dead and everyone who was wronged is dead. (I realize some from 1921 could still be alive. Talking about other evils.) I just want to know, how many centuries have to pass before such things can be put in the rear view mirror? If there is still an evil happening (and there always is), then let's address the real actual evil that is still happening, and where the perps and victims are still around. But once everyone involved is dead, it's time to move on. One might say, "Well, if it's forgotten, then it can be repeated." Things can be repeated even when we remember the prior occurrences. Remembering is no guarantee. And there is a difference between completely forgetting it (as some might want to do out of shame even), and rubbing people's noses in it when they had no hand in the evil because they weren't even born yet! *Not disagreeing with anything you said, Sev. Your comment was just a springboard for me to say all that. EDTA
Those who wish to cancel culture should begin with the Four Stooges: Freud, Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche. I propose that "Critical Stooge Theory" be developed to explain the historical origins and impact of these clowns. Battman
The political applicaton of materialism is socialism. There is left wing socialism, communism, and right wing socialism, nazism. So I have to predict that Dawkins must be going the way of right wing socialism. As he becomes a trans "realist", he would also become a race "realist". mohammadnursyamsu
How would you describe the woke? The woke are…. People who pull down statues?
It raises a good question, though. What do we do about the statues? They were raised originally to honor men who had fought bravely in the American Civil War or who had become benefactors to their communities But those brave soldiers fought to defend states whose economies were built on slave labor and some of those benefactors made their fortunes from the slave trade. Do we do as Tulsa did with its Race Massacre of 1921, sweep it all under the carpet and try to pretend it never happened? Seversky
BTW Bob, It's not enough to be anti-slavery and anti-racism. You should be pro-freedom and pro-all people are created equal, too. So, your petty posturing is pretty lame. Andrew asauber
I've read many of Richard Dawkins's books and thoroughly enjoyed them and learned a lot from them. He's a lucid and persuasive author. I've also read criticism of his gene-centric adaptationism from other biologists such as Larry Moran and learned a lot from them as well. What Dawkins and the other leading figures in the so-called New Atheist movement did in making atheism more respectable and giving it a louder voice in the public square was a fine achievement. That said, I also disagree with Dawkins's comments on Down Syndrome children, "elevatorgate" or the lack of Muslim Nobel Laureates. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote,
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Disagree with Dawkins all you like and say so but calls to stop his books being published are simply not justified. I disagree with the Intelligent Design and Creationism movements but I would oppose any attempt to prevent them speaking publicly about their views or publishing books, articles and videos or building theme parks. And, since we've been discussing Orwell's 1984, he wrote,
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Polistra -
When an author bashes low-status people, no problem. Bashing high-status people is a crime.
Part of liberal thought (at least what is identified as liberal in the US) is that one shouldn't bash low-status people, one should try to help them raise their status. I hesitate to ask, but what do you mean by "Downs"? Bob O'H
"if you think being anti-slavery and anti-racism is immoral" Bob, I don't think being anti-slavery and anti-racism is immoral. Andrew asauber
Well, asauber, if you think being anti-slavery and anti-racism is immoral, I think that says a lot about you. Bob O'H
The distinction between targets is informative. Muslims and Downs are low-status people. Trannies are high-status people NOW, even though they weren't earlier. When an author bashes low-status people, no problem. Bashing high-status people is a crime. What crime? Lese majeste. The aristocrats always defend their ranks, and an internal traitor is worse than an external traitor. What's new is the psychopathic need to change the rules every day. Muslims and Downs have always been low-status, but trannies are suddenly and thus ALWAYS high-status. Eurasia/Eastasia. polistra
"people who have strong IMmoral opinions?" Corrected the spelling error for you, Bob. Andrew asauber
Belfast - people who have strong moral opinions? e.g. they think slavery was bad, and it should be acknowledged but not celebrated? There are a lot of people trying to do what they think is right (e.g. restricting what can be taught in schools). You may agree or disagree with their moral values, and you may agree or disagree with their methods, but how does just dismissing them in the way Bob Ryan did help? Isn't it just tribalism? Instead why not first work out where you agree and disagree? Bob O'H
@Bob O’H @2. Really? How would you describe the woke? The woke are…. People who pull down statues? People who get others sacked? Virtue signallers? Belfast
I don't know, Bob. Calling people you don't like "mindless people who are incapable of any thoughts not given to them" is pretty ugly. Bob O'H
According to the woke, made up of mindless people who are incapable of any thoughts not given to them, Richard Dawkins is the wrong color and sex. it is tribalism at its ugliest. BobRyan

Leave a Reply