In the 70's Richard Dawkins with his pal Douglas Adams went around heckling Elaine Morgan as she lectured on Aquatic Ape Theory. Nowadays AAT is arguably the main belief since Philip Tobias declared "The Savannah Theory is Dead" and has major proponents such as David Attenborough.
In the 90's Dawkins decided to take on postmodernism.
Now admittedly there are a lot of idiots calling themselves postmodernists, just as there are a lot of idiots calling themselves atheists. There are so-called postmodern artists, historians, political scientists and so on, all mostly characterised by the fact they haven't a clue what postmodern is behind the trendy jargon. In philosophy the people who created postmodernism and are arguably the only people who genuinely understand it, there is no such thing as a postmodernist, only postmodernism.
When a creationist decides to have a go at cosmology or biology we all do one thing, laugh. Without any study and practically no understanding of even the basics, creationists lecture authoritatively to their flock nonsense, my favourite example has to be Ray Comfort and the banana intelligently designed for the human hand to hold. Or rather intelligently designed for a porn movie in my opinion.
Now Dawkins chose as a laymen with a poor understanding of the topic (philosophy), getting much of his research from the misinformed cranks, chose to take on philosophers on their home ground, and to them appeared little more than Ray Comfort would to an evolutionary biologist.
Now Richard seems to have turned his attention of the Religiously Abled, (my PC term for them). After failing two times against intelligent educated people, he is now going for the softest of soft targets, the people on the whole earth with the lamest, weakest, most ridiculous position there is. My grandmother could outdebate these guys, and she's been dead over a decade.
There seems to be a pattern emerging, in the first example he sought to stifle debate and science out of small minded prejudice, in the second he sought to preach authoritatively from a position of poor understanding and in the third he sought to target the weak. Does this sound familiar?
It seems to me Richard Dawkins seems to just be looking for ways to promote Richard Dawkins Ltd and little more.
In the 90's Dawkins decided to take on postmodernism.
Now admittedly there are a lot of idiots calling themselves postmodernists, just as there are a lot of idiots calling themselves atheists. There are so-called postmodern artists, historians, political scientists and so on, all mostly characterised by the fact they haven't a clue what postmodern is behind the trendy jargon. In philosophy the people who created postmodernism and are arguably the only people who genuinely understand it, there is no such thing as a postmodernist, only postmodernism.
When a creationist decides to have a go at cosmology or biology we all do one thing, laugh. Without any study and practically no understanding of even the basics, creationists lecture authoritatively to their flock nonsense, my favourite example has to be Ray Comfort and the banana intelligently designed for the human hand to hold. Or rather intelligently designed for a porn movie in my opinion.
Now Dawkins chose as a laymen with a poor understanding of the topic (philosophy), getting much of his research from the misinformed cranks, chose to take on philosophers on their home ground, and to them appeared little more than Ray Comfort would to an evolutionary biologist.
Now Richard seems to have turned his attention of the Religiously Abled, (my PC term for them). After failing two times against intelligent educated people, he is now going for the softest of soft targets, the people on the whole earth with the lamest, weakest, most ridiculous position there is. My grandmother could outdebate these guys, and she's been dead over a decade.
There seems to be a pattern emerging, in the first example he sought to stifle debate and science out of small minded prejudice, in the second he sought to preach authoritatively from a position of poor understanding and in the third he sought to target the weak. Does this sound familiar?
It seems to me Richard Dawkins seems to just be looking for ways to promote Richard Dawkins Ltd and little more.
