Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Media

Richard Dawkins defends Trump’s Twitter ban. Huh?

Spread the love

We don’t want to get into the politics of that as such. Keep reading till you get to the punch line.

Anyway, holding forth, Dawkins has said:

Celebrated god-slayer Richard Dawkins has come out in favor of Twitter’s ban of President Donald Trump, insisting free speech is not in danger from Big Tech …

The British evolutionary biologist, who denies the existence of human free will and moral accountability, went on to attack the entire Republican Party.

Thomas D. Williams, “Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins Defends Twitter Ban of Donald Trump” at Breitbart

Ken Francis, who tipped us to this story, also writes to say,

The man who says free will does not exist defends Twitter’s CHOICE to ban Trump. But he was very angry about himself being banned from Trinity College Dublin a few months ago. He also doesn’t believe in morality but criticises the Republican party for being immoral.

Well. That prompted a trip through our vast collection of files, probably bigger than the Tombs of the Pharaohs at this point. And what did we see?

A Petition Is Going The Rounds Urging That Richard Dawkins Be Allowed To Speak At Trinity College. ID types are urging people to sign the petition. (October 10, 2020)

and

Richard Dawkins Is Getting Canceled Again Apparently, when Richard Dawkins said he was an atheist, some people didn’t realize that he rejected Islam along with Christianity (September 28, 2020)

So he was mad about censorship when it applied to him.

Funny how that works.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

13 Replies to “Richard Dawkins defends Trump’s Twitter ban. Huh?

  1. 1
    Eugene says:

    “A man entrusted with nuke launch codes is yet too dangerous to have a Twitter account?”. Yeah, right.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    The thought of a man as impulsive and delusional as Trump having access to the launch codes is certainly alarming.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Had President Trump been self-banned from twitter for the last 4 years, he would have won re-election.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    The thought of a man as incompetent, incoherent and delusional as Biden having access to the launch codes is certainly alarming.

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    Twitter has decided to lose the revenue from just two weeks of Trump’s output, in order to gain vastly more revenue from “both” “sides” arguing about the decision. Note that “both” “sides” are still on Twitter, which tells you that the argument itself is what Deepstate wants. Trump and Biden are just different-looking labels on the same bottle of universe-destroying poison.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    There is a difference between the freedom to express unpopular or offensive opinions and incitement to violence.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “There is a difference between the freedom to express unpopular or offensive opinions and incitement to violence.”

    Number 1, that’s rich coming from the left, especially after last summer,,

    Alleging a coup while attempting one
    Nancy Pelosi went further with the hyperbole claiming, “Yesterday, the president of the United States incited an armed insurrection against America” in a “seditious act.” That charge was repeated and even exaggerated through various reporters throughout the coming days.
    The hyperbolic charges are rich with hypocrisy coming from Democratic Congressional leaders like Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer. Trump condemned the violence and told protesters to go home that day. Yet, as Nick Arama of Red State noted about Democratic leaders including Pelosi and Schumer: “These are the same people who ignored attacks on federal buildings for the last several months because they were perpetrated by those on the left, ignored over 700 law enforcement officers being injured and over 32 people being killed. These are the same people who celebrated the BLM radicals at their Democratic convention. Kamala Harris and 13 Biden staffers even donated and encouraged people to donate to a fund to bail out rioters.”
    https://www.christianpost.com/voices/alleging-a-coup-while-attempting-one.html

    Number 2, Sev since you believe that, short of inciting violence, one ought to be free “to express unpopular or offensive opinions”, then I take it that you have a severe problem with the gestapo tactics that Darwinists themselves have used to censor any opposing viewpoints?

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,?”If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.”
    – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405?

    The Human Element in Science: Douglas Axe on The Eric Metaxas Show
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2017-07-17T16_56_35-07_00
    Eric Metaxas interviews Douglas Axe on The Eric Metaxas show. Axe,,, shares how he lost his research position in Cambridge over the evolution controversy.

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    And Sev please spare me your usual reply about Intelligent Design not being a ‘real’ science, and therefore it ought not be taught in science classrooms.

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, in their assumption of naturalism, are found to be adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Can you give any examples of mainstream science that isn’t based on methodological naturalism?

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    I thought of people overreacting to the president having access to the launch codes is laughable

    It actually is like an abuser it sits there and throws a knife at the foot of somebody and then says “what are you gonna do with that knife pick it up and kill me with it”

    It’s called building a false narrative by accusing somebody of a crime though they done nothing yet

    Abusive delusional people do that

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H since I stated that every nook and cranny of science is based upon the assumption of Intelligent Design, the better response from you would have been to give a single example of a field of experimental science that is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism.

    That there are even laws of nature for science to study in the first place, is a Theistic presupposition, not a naturalistic presupposition. So since every field of science is based on some law, or set of laws, then every field of science necessarily presupposes Intelligent Design.

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies – quoted from an address following his award of the $1 million Templeton Prize in 1995 for progress in science and religion.
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Thus, any field of science that is based on a law, or laws, of nature is making an explicit assumption of intelligent design.

    Interestingly, the one field of ‘science’ that atheists resolutely hold to be based explicitly on the assumption of ‘methodological naturalism’ alone, i.e. Darwinism, has no known law of nature to appeal to so as designate itself as a true and proper science,

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Moreover, the ‘law of nature’ that Darwin himself put forth so as to ‘supposedly’ establish his theory as a true and proper science is far more of a (a)moral statement about the world than it is a statement about any physical law of the universe that one could possibly measure in the laboratory:

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – (1861), page 266

    Darwinism, unlike all the other sciences, simply has no known physical law to appeal to, i.e. there simply is no ‘law of evolution’ for Darwinists to appeal to so as to establish their theory as a true and proper science,

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

    Of supplemental note, every piece of laboratory equipment every invented by man was intelligently designed as was not found laying on a beach somewhere, where it was ‘naturally’ constructed’ by nature,,

    Examples of scientific instruments
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument#Examples_of_scientific_instruments

    So Bob, can you give just one example of a scientific instrument that was not intelligently designed?

  11. 11
    News says:

    Ken Francis has asked me to post this vid link. I suggest, watch it before the author gets banned :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPqozTdo-so&feature=youtu.be

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    Bob O’H since I stated that every nook and cranny of science is based upon the assumption of Intelligent Design, the better response from you would have been to give a single example of a field of experimental science that is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism.

    No, since you stated “that every nook and cranny of science is based upon the assumption of Intelligent Design” it is up to you to substantiate it.

    That there are even laws of nature for science to study in the first place, is a Theistic presupposition, not a naturalistic presupposition.

    Irrelevant to my question, because methodological naturalism doesn’t necessarily pre-suppose philosophical naturalism. Christians still do science (R.A. Fisher springs to mind). Do you want to try again, and this time address whether there is any science that doesn’t use methodological naturalism?

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    I suggest, watch it before the author gets banned

    Better, download it. I have been using “Wondershare All My Tube” but there may better programs.

    Thank you Denise. I had not heard of Ken Francis. Now I have his audio book of the Terror of Existence.

Leave a Reply