Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Suzan Mazur: Richard Dawkins heads for Mekong River in Viet Nam

Spread the love

We didn’t know that Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, had interviewed Richard Dawkinsin Manhattan (2008) let alone that Dawkins is now headed for the Mekong:

It is not enough that British biologist Richard Dawkins‘ foreign interference promoting Darwinian natural selection in America’s schools via TIES and NGSS has infected school systems in 26 US states. Running out of places to spread scientifically discredited natural selection and selfish gene dogma—on January 6-18, 2020, Dawkins will attempt to further introduce the malaise to traditional villages along Southeast Asia’s Mekong River.

Suzan Mazur, “The New Southeast Asia Invasion: Dawkins, Krauss & Uncle Sam” at Oscillations

Not only that, but—of all people—Larry Krauss (who “doesn’t feel tarnished” by his relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein) is part of the organizing committee.

But you really must read the rest for yourself at Oscillations.

See also: Astronomer Martin Rees, who is always fun, reacts to Suzan Mazur’s Darwin Overthrown.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Suzan Mazur: Richard Dawkins heads for Mekong River in Viet Nam

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    There must be a shortage of paradigms that need shifting if Mazur is having a fit over Richard Dawkins invading southeast Asia all by himself.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    I would love to get Dawkins in front of an audience and expose his stupid remark about how 1/2 an eye is better than 49% of an eye. His answer is stupid because the argument is- What good is 50% of a vision system when it takes 100% of a vision system to have vision? Then sit back and watch him choke in front of everyone.

  3. 3
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    I would love to get Dawkins in front of an audience and expose his stupid remark about how 1/2 an eye is better than 49% of an eye. His answer is stupid because the argument is- What good is 50% of a vision system when it takes 100% of a vision system to have vision? Then sit back and watch him choke in front of everyone.

    Ask any legally blind person whether their very limited vision is better than no vision.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    STRAWMAN ALERT:

    Ask any legally blind person whether their very limited vision is better than no vision.

    True, but that has nothing to do with what I said. If you already have a legally blind person you already have a complete vision system, just one that is defective. Dawkins does the same thing. He ignores the fact that in a gradual evolutionary scenario that any (whole) system requiring multiple parts, there will be a time when said system is incomplete. That is true even in the existing metazoans that have light sensitive spots. But then again Dawkins doesn’t have a mechanism for producing eukaryotes starting from given populations of bacteria, so the question of vision systems seems moot.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    Before many of his ‘groupies’ went sideways on him , turning into deranged critics – and yes, it is a theoretical possibility, if outlandish gnuff – I could see Dawkins surrounded by his kindred minions of the moon, like that mad character, Kurtz, in Apocalypse Now, played by Marlon Brando.

Leave a Reply