Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Dawkins. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Odds and ends

I'm pretty sure he only has one daughter (Juliet)

Moved from the main article because of severe lack of coherence (Can anyone make sense of this?):

He uses biology as a tool to propagate his belief system. He bases his thinking on the assumption that there is no God as this would mean that the world would is in a better shape (cf. theodicy).

snoyes 20:34, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ignore it, it sounds like a common misunderstanding of scientific rationalism (then applied to humanism) and religion. To the author, "To call atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour".

A Knight?

Around the web, there are a few references to "Sir Richard Dawkins". Has he been knighted recently? -- 128.232.242.11 21:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, not as far as I can tell.

James F. (talk) 18:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And never likely to be, I'd bet (he's an avowed atheist and a multiple divorcee - these things still 'count' so far as our beloved Royal Family are concerned!) Jerry 22:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His scathing observations about the mystical flights of Prince Charles are probably even more of an issue! -- Alan Peakall 17:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sir Mick Jagger .... need I say more. However, I too heard rumors of a knighthood.152.34.179.2 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC) James Butler

A quick Google shows that Discover magazine and The Guardian both refer to him as "Sir". I would think that these are reputable sources that would use fact-checkers to make sure he really was knighted. If so, let's give him credit where credit is due. Alienus 17:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Discover [1] refers to him as "sir" in the headline, possibly making him a knight in the context of being a "champion". There are references on other websites to Guardian articles or letters by "Sir Richard Dawkins", but the only reference to "Sir Richard Dawkins" on the Guardian's own website is a letter from someone else [2] (about 3/4 down the page). I think I would have remembered if he had been knighted. -- ajn (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, the easiest way to confirm this authoritatively is to check his CV, which available at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml. (You may find that the PDF is unreadable until you save it to disk and open it.) It doesn't say anything about knighthood, unless it's in some acronym that I don't know. Also, it confirms that he has one daughter. Alienus 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've checked and it appears as if he isn't knighted. But that doesn't mean he hasn't been offered any, as he could have turned any honours down, something which is usually kept confidential. However as stated above, his comments may have reduced the chances of receiving an honour, although he may not care about that. --Dumbo1 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to go with "not a literal knight". Alienus 10:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, his name doesn't appear in the PM's recommendations for the 2006 Birthday Honours List (17 June). Although the PDF runs to 96 pages, the names are in alphabetical order, which makes it easy to check. --Chris 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasels

Even when answersingenesis.org has no standing *whatsoever* on anything related to biology, neither has Dawkins's Weasel example. :p --ZeroOne 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I'm fond of most of what Dawkins has written, I agree about the "weasels example" being off target. But please try to find a more reputable source for a critical piece on it... Mortene 22:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, so how about The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design? Feel free to add it for me. --ZeroOne 00:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? ISCID is just a creationist outfit, with Dembski and his cronies doing their cargo cult science. At least the "Answers in Genesis" guys are open about it. Mortene 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Open and ignorant, yes. I sent them the following email:

"Your article at http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp contains:

"Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

"The people who contributed this piece might like to be informed of something I learnt at school, namely that the different forms of carbon mentioned - carbon black, diamond and graphite - are allotropes, all having the same atomic weight and just differing in atomic arrangement. Isotopes, by contrast, are something different. I'm sure your contributors Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten could look up the difference elsewhere if they wanted to learn more about this area of elementary science taught to children at school.

"However, such an elementary mistake in an article which is presumably portending to present the result of learning tends to make the whole thing rather unconvincing, I'm afraid. But perhaps that doesn't matter too much if your aim is not actually to educate."

Matt Stan 14:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Lol. As of today, the paragraph remains unchanged.→Encephalon | T | C 21:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... actually that paragraph does not say that diamond and graphite are different isotopes. It only explains what carbon is (diamond, graphite), then goes on to say that there are different isotopes. That passage can be read as trying to say that diamond and graphite are different isotopes, because of clumsy wording, but it's probably not intended that way. (I say that in spite of despising creationists for their arrogant ignorance - in that case I think they are innocent.) --Hob Gadling 14:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ach, darn. Does no one but creationists criticise Dawkins? --ZeroOne 22:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zero One is talking nonsense about AiG. There are Ph.D. biologists on AiG's staff. Conversely, Dawkins hasn't done any real experimental biology for decades. In any case, NPOV requires that criticisms be acknowledged not censored. And why is it wrong to criticise evolution from an religious/philosophical basis but not support it on an religious/philosophical basis as Dawkins clearly does? BTW, McGrath, the author of the book I just added, is a theistic evolutionist. 138.130.194.229 06:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which universities awarded the degrees of the Ph.D. biologists? Are they mainstream ones or non-accredited ones run exclusively by creationists? If the latter it would be like a flat-earth university awarding geography degrees! Autarch 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationist criticism of Dawkin's position shouldn't be taken out. However, it needs to be appropiate (so some of the criticism of books should go in each one), but a general creationist essay on Dawkins himself should be allowed, but it should be under its own heading in the external links. Do not censor. It is worth letting people read this bollocks to see its true colours. Dunc|☺ 14:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What would you know about whether something is "bollocks"? But you're right, it is not right to censor critical reviews of Dawkins' books.138.130.201.227 14:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh for some reason I come across a lot of creationist drivel. I'll tell you what, let's put the AiG reviews of Dawkin's books in each book's separate article eh? If you can find anything on Dawkins himself, then put that in the External linkss. Dunc|☺ 14:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see drivel, then hold your own writing up to the mirror. And how do you separate the Dawk from his writings? At the moment, this page is hardly NPOV, since almost all the articles are adulatory of this village atheist who couldn't philosophize his way out of a paper bag. 138.130.201.227 14:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Genuine discussions of Dawkins' work are welcome. Creationism, however, is bad philosophy, bad science and bad theology. Joe D (t) 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would you know? And it's just dishonest for an antitheist like you to spout forth about "bad theology". And you need to learn the NPOV rules, which don't make judgements on whether science or theology is bad. But this is par for the course for the likes of you — you obviously can't refute the Weasel problems so you censor them. The Dawk is your high priest who must be protected from criticism.138.130.201.227 17:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this is a talk page where we are supposed to discuss these things, it's articles that aim to be NPOV. And we do have to decide what is bad science, bad philosophy and bad theology because if we write an article presenting science overwhelmingly accepted by those who practice it as equal to pseudoscientific nonsense the article will not be neutral. There's nothing neutral about presenting an extremist fringe view as equal to other views. Your resorting to attacking anti-creationists as anti-theistic, your claim that Dawkins is my high priest, and references to him in derogatory terms show you have no interest in discussing this matter and no interest in NPOV. Joe D (t) 17:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your bias on this issue is highly apparent. Atheists, agnostics and secularists do not like to be referred to as 'anti-theists.' Nor does anybody which to 'censor' anybody. Whether you like it or not, creationism is pseudoscience - as numerous courts in numerous countries have found, and as the vast majority of scientists attest. We aren't squeamish about labelling astrology as pseudoscience and the numbers of the believers is irrelevant. But framing all this in term of the nasty, censorying 'anti-theists' with their 'high priest,' 'the Dawk,' kind of gives your game away. You're here to push an agenda. JF Mephisto 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Vardy (theologian) critisises Dawkins, because he's "not a philosopher", I don't know about his views on creationism though. -- Joolz 01:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same Peter Vardy behind the Emmanuel Schools Foundation? The Emmanuel Schools hit the news because they taught creationism. Joe D (t) 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, a different Peter Vardy. Dunc|☺ 15:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remove weasels ans. in gen. - it was about a specific computer prog in a specific book. Might be OK for an article about that program or book. Also removed belief.net stuff - full of adds and two noxious pop-ups, absurd. Vsmith 04:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Weasel Program itself does deserve its own article. The creationist criticisms of it can then go in there. I'll have to read the book again, (it's in The Blind Watchmaker isn't it?).

Yes, it's in Watchmaker. I just wrote an article on the Weasel program, please take a look and see if you can improve it! I will put a link in the Blind Watchmaker article.

--MFNickster 03:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You did a great job with the new article! Mortene 12:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the first substantial new article I've written. :)

--MFNickster 15:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, the book reviews are all now in the individual articles on the books, though we could do with a few other book reviews to make it a bit more balanced.

Anon does however have a point about the article being too complimentary of Prof Dawkins. from my experience in academia, he is respected for his ability to communicate with the public, but he's written the same book three times, he hasn't done any real research in a while (I know only of 1 important paper from around 1970), most of his books are based on the work of W.D. Hamilton and John Maynard Smith (and although he acknowledges this lay readers often miss it), and some scientists will object to his evangelising of atheism if it contradicts their personal beliefs on God or religious evangelism. He also commits some fallacies in evangelising (arguments against the existence of God are poor, but they are a lot better than the arguments for her existence). He is master of the over-the-top attack, which might be considered rude. phew/Dunc|☺ 11:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to find criticism of the selfish gene and stuff; he spends at least one chapter of the extended phenotype rebutting criticism, so all we have to do is find the articles he cites as critical (a lot of Lewontin stuff, some Gould stuff, some Eldridge stuff, if I remember correctly) and summarize their points. Maybe I'll do some of it after I'm done with final exams, but if someone wants to beat me to the punch, they're obviously welcome to it. Dave (talk) 13:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've added an interview by Simon Hattenstone that has both positive and negative remarks about Dawkins - he finds him intolerant of religious views, for example. As an atheist, I have to agree that Dawkins leaves a bit to be desired in the tolerance department. Autarch 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Publicity or legitimacy?

Page 256 (chapter 5.5) of A Devil's Chaplain:

Instead, what they seek is the oxygen of respectability. We give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all. They don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.

Joe D (t) 19:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I put it in. It's a lot better than the quote I stuck in a minute ago. Wikipedia is so cool! Dave (talk)

You should take on the 'Fundamentalists' and use better arguments. There is no actual statement in the Bible that the world is 10,000 years old. Whereas Exodus has the well-known story about the Prophet Balaam having a conversation with his ass. (That is they grey and long-eared sort of ass, for those who don't know the bible.) Challenge 'Fundamentalists' about whether the Balaam story is the literal word of God.

The idea of a 'Young Earth' is bloody stupid. Alternatives to Dawkins' personal version of Darwinism is another matter. Strictly speaking, a rabbit is fitter than a wolf, and the grass under their feet is fitter than either, doing a better job of passing on its genes. Dawkins continuously muddles genetic success with dominance and power, which made him popular in the 1980s. --GwydionM 19:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh? Dawkins described himself as left-wing in the second edition of _The Selfish Gene_ - it was in reaction to comments he'd made in the first edition where he criticised British trade unions in the late 1970s as being selfish. Even if that was taken for granted, his outspoken atheism wouldn't have made him popular with, say, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Autarch 13:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The point of Dawkins quote is that he's recognized the futility of open debate with people who have no interest in the continued search for the truth because they're sure they already have it all. As True Believers, they benefit more from the illusion of legitimacy conveyed by the debate than they are harmed by their loss in the debate. In fact, they're not using the same standards, so they don't even recognize the loss. In particular, they don't understand where the burden of proof lies. As for the stuff you said about fitness, I don't see what it has to do with anything Dawkins has ever written. I suspect you're misunderstanding him. 02:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see Dawkins' point - the impression I've gotten of debates with creationists is that the creationist debater is going through the same old routine that they give every time - it reassures the creationists in the audience whilst not actually making any coherent argument. Autarch 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing non-objective editorialising

In the criticisms section, the commentary next to the link to answersingenesis.org contains this little gem of objectivity: "Deafening and revealing silence, an embarassing evasion, and an unanswered question when Dawkins is asked to provide one example of a genetic information increase." I've removed it. The link to Macromedia's Flash player has been retained.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html Dunc|☺ 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I altered the heading from "Criticism of Dawkins" to "Creationist critisicm of Dawkins", as non-creationists wouldn't make them. Also, I added a sentence about his manner alienating some atheists.

Autarch 17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis link

In the link headed:

Short interview with Dawkins seeking a most sought-after answer by Creationists (requires Macromedia Flash Player)

I believe I read in one of Dawkins' books that this interview was edited together to make it look like Dawkins was stalling and evading the question. If anyone can find this info, could they make sure that it's included next to the link so that people are aware that it may not be as truthful as it's cracked up to be. Thanks, Christianjb 13:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the link altogether. The "interview" is pretty clearly faked (Dawkins and the "interviewer" are not in the same room, and Dawkins gives a pretty good answer to a question the "interviewer" hasn't asked (the "interviewer" asks about genetic mutation introducing new information into the genome, Dawkins explains why you wouldn't expect to find intermediate species today). -- ajn (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the link shouldn't be left there as if it were genuine, but how about some way to keep the link while making it very clear that it's a fake?

Why? It might belong in an article about dishonesty by creationists, but not one about Dawkins. It doesn't illuminate his own views, and it doesn't represent a serious criticism of them. It's a crude forgery cobbled together by Dawkins's enemies to make him look stupid. -- ajn (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I did find this great article: http://tccsa.tc/video/creationist_deception_exposed.pdf This explains the whole story in quite some detail. I agree with Andrew that there's not much of a case for including the AIG link on the Dawkins page, even with the appropriate caveats. It might be worth though mentioning this story on the Answers in Genesis Wiki page. Christianjb 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, I have added a section to Answers in Genesis detailing this incident. Christianjb 14:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is relevant to the Dawkins entry, given that it misrepresents Dawkins and some people may come to the Dawkins page to check if there's a basis to it. Autarch 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just rearranged the links into sub-headings. I've removed one link, to Free Inquiry - firstly because the link moved, and secondly because it wasn't specifically about Dawkins (he has written an article for the most recent issue, but that's not online yet). I've put the Ruse article into "interviews and feature articles" rather than the creationist section, because Ruse isn't a creationist (indeed, he describes it as "pernicious nonsense"). He's from the rational "religion and science don't overlap" side of things (like Gould), not anti-science. -- ajn (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I need some help rebutting the rebuttal on the Answers in Genesis page about this video. Creationists have every right to put their side of the story- but I'd like the finished section to be reasonably factual Christianjb 20:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Memes

Although personally I think R.D.'s best work is in zoology, considering he was the person who came up with the idea of "memes", which has spawned a nascent, if maybe aimless, field of it's own shouldn't that part of his bio be featured more prominently?

REPLY: The idea has been around a long time. A book called The Lore And Language of School Children records how songs and sayings get passed on by young people almost unchanged, being found in separate literary sources centuries apart.

I'm not so sure that the section on memes should be more prominent - certainly they should be mentioned, but personally I don't think there is much to them - it's more a rhetorical innovation than a new field of thought. Autarch 18:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Germans refer to a catchy tune as an 'ear worm', or the German equivalent thereof. The process of fads and fashions is perfectly familiar from many cultures.

Dawkins fails to distinguish between different sorts of idea. Those we feel neutral about, those we want to acquire and those that get into our heads regardless. I can still recall advertising jingles from 40 years ago.

Names are another good example, but show a mix of selection, inheritance and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Thus two Germanic names meaning 'famous wolf' and 'noble wolf' have very different associations for English-speakers nowadays, Adolph and Rudolph, from a dictator and a red-nosed reindeer. It could easily have been the other way round.

Likewise Goths and Vandals, two tribal peoples who sacked Rome. Mediaeval architecture was called 'Gothic' as a term of abuse, and then people noticed later it was at least as good as the Classical Roman stuff. The Vandals, who had actually preserved parts of decaying Roman culture, got unfairly linked to mindless destructiveness.

--GwydionM 19:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Meme is listed in this encylopaedia. "John Laurent in The Journal of Memetics has suggested that the term 'meme' itself may have derived from the work of the little-known German biologist Richard Semon. In 1904 Semon published Die Mneme (published in English as The Mneme in 1924). His book discussed the cultural transmission of experiences with insights parallel to those of Dawkins. Laurent found the use of the term mneme in The Soul of the White Ant (1927) by Maurice Maeterlinck and highlights its parallels to Dawkins's concept".

I'd come across it under another name in a translated French book which I can't currently find. Still, the idea is plainly not new. --GwydionM 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that deserves to be mentioned in the meme article and perhaps very briefly here (it is worth noting that others had grasped elements of Darwinism before Darwin did but did not understand fully or publicise their findings). — Dunc|☺ 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you on the "very briefly" part, but it no longer seems short or relevant. Perhaps the paragraph could find a home in memes. Alienus 17:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Williams revolution

What is the "Williams Revolution"? I can't find it in Google. - unsigned by User:213.253.40.136 at 04:19, 2 September 2002

it is probably a reference to EO Williams, the founder of sociobiology, in the selfish genes Dawkins expose how kin selections and other "evolutionnary stable strategy" arise (how behaviours are subject to evolution). susano 04:31 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

oups, I confused Williams with Wilson... (BTW: should I edit my errors int the talk pages or let them stay as a proof of my stupidity :-)) susano 04:58 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

I also didn't know him, but after looking around with Google it seems that this is George C. Williams, an evolutionary biologist who originally came up with the idea that the gene was the unit of evolution. For some information see:

http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html (an on-line book he wrote the first chapter of)

There should be an entry on George C. Williams and The Williams revolution, but I am a bit busy at the moment. -- Jan Hidders 06:18 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

er, try Williams revolution (or should that be capitalised?) Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is being merged with gene-centric view of evolution - for reasons see Talk page of either Williams revolution or George C. Williams. It has been demonstrated that the term, Williams revolution, originated on wikipedia and is not known in the real world. Can someone change the entry in the Dawkins box at the bottom? - Samsara 15:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the Williams revolution mentioned in print actually, I'll have to double check but I swear I saw it in "Evolutionary Psycholody: The New Science of the Mind" by David Buss (a standard textbook) Mikkerpikker

MMMMmmmm... I can't seem to find "Williams revolution" in print, must have read the term on wikipedia & taken it as standard terminology but forgot where I heard about it for the first time... It seems 'we' did create it! (although, it is a good name...) Mikkerpikker 11:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Williams revolution has been put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Williams_revolution). See the extensive discussion in Talk:Williams_revolution. The content of "Williams revolution" has been incorporated into Gene-centered view of evolution.-- MayerG 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Dawkins/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*1 free image, 62 citations. Smee 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)