Crackpot Gets Richard Dawkins Award

by Guts

Bill Maher, primarily known for his anti-religious views, also harbors deep seated anti-science views. From medicine to HIV, and yet he is apparently being given a Richard Dawkins Award.

Note one of the major criteria for the award: “Advocates increased scientific knowledge.” Certainly Maher earns an EPIC FAIL on that aspect, at least. Given that Richard Dawkins made an excellent two-part documentary about pseudoscience for the BBC, entitled The Enemies of Reason, the second part of which was primarily about quackery and medical pseudoscience, you’d think that he’d be unhappy about having an award bearing his name be given to a person who would not have been out of place as one of the quacks that Dawkins skewered in the second half of his documentary, The Irrational Health Service.

From here He is also apparently part of the Reason Project

This echoes a common theme that is written about much here in this blog, with regard to Animal Rights activists .

This entry was posted on Friday, September 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pm and is filed under Bioethics, Biology, Media, Richard Dawkins, Shoddy Science, The Critics, The New Atheists, Threatiness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

31 Responses to “Crackpot Gets Richard Dawkins Award”

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
That was an interesting site. Some of the commenters sounded familiar. Is Old Gene any relation to Mike?

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

chunkdz Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Weird thing is, Maher isn't even an atheist.

Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

Guts Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
If that's true, that would make Dawkins an accommodationist

Comment by Guts — September 11, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
It's almost as if Dawkins couldn't care less about science or reason, and that he's primarily occupied with social/political causes. To the point where he'd give the skeptic equivalent of Deepak Chopra his seal of approval, so long as the guy railed against (the right kind of) religious believers enough.

Crazy theory, I know.

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

olegt Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Seal of approval? I don't think so.

Here is da man himself:

The Richard Dawkins Award (RDA) has no connection with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS). The RDA was instituted by the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) several years before RDFRS was founded, or even thought of. This year, the committee of AAI took the decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher. They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny. I know nothing of any stance he may have taken on medical questions.

Comment by olegt — September 11, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

Guts Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The blogger I linked to commented on that:

In essence, the great Richard Dawkins, the man who is viewed as standing up for science and reason against the forces of superstition and pseudoscience, the man who made a documentary largely about medical pseudoscience (The Enemies of Reason) that contained one of the best illustrations of why homeopathy is nonsense I’ve ever seen, in essence pled ignorance. That in and of itself wouldn’t have been so bad. What was so shocking to me was that, given his history and prior stances on medical pseudoscience, Dawkins showed such an utter lack of curiosity over whether there was anything to the allegations against the person receiving an award that bears his name. In other words, he came across as simply not really caring much about whether Maher promoted anti-vaccine views and quackery or not, as long as Maher was against religion.

Comment by Guts — September 11, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
As Guts' link helps illustrate, olegt, that excuse don't fly. Of course, if you want to play the "Dawkins is ridiculously ignorant" card, be my guest. Da man himself apparently knows jack about the people he gives his namesake award to. Or he just doesn't care, for the reasons already mentioned.

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

olegt Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
nullasalus,

Dawkins does not "give his namesake award." He has nothing to do with it. He neither came up with the idea, nor participates in the selection of candidates.

Comment by olegt — September 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
olegt,

Dawkins does not "give his namesake award." He has nothing to do with it. He neither came up with the idea, nor participates in the selection of candidates.

Olegt, did you even read what you yourself quoted?

This year, the committee of AAI took the decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher. They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny. I know nothing of any stance he may have taken on medical questions.

Da man himself was asked if he approved of who they were giving the award to. Da man himself approved – and was delighted to. Da man himself pleads ignorance to knowing anything else about Maher aside from him being funny (And Maher keeps his views on medical science so well hidden, it only now and then comes out in interviews on Larry King Live or Letterman's show, etc). Rather looks like da man himself couldn't care less so long as the recipient bashes the right shields.

Hey, I have an idea. Why not say Dawkins was totally helpless here? The AAI, they're loose cannons! The last person they're going to listen to about who they give the Richard Dawkins award to is Richard Dawkins!

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

olegt Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Or maybe we could infer that Richard Dawkins does not take himself—or the award named after him—too seriously.

It's fun to watch you, guys, get worked up about a mere mention of Dawkins, as if he represents all the evil in the world. Carry on.

Comment by olegt — September 11, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
olegt,

It's fun to watch you, guys, get worked up about a mere mention of Dawkins, as if he represents all the evil in the world. Carry on.

Ahhh, there it is. A little bit of Dawkins hypocrisy is pointed out, and suddenly I'm treating him "as if he represents all the evil in the world". And that high school level "you guys are getting worked up not me!!!" cut-n-run.

Never change, olegt. You're so damn reliable.

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

olegt Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
nullasalus,

Dawkins is on at TT 24/7. Computerist and Bradford have been beating the weasel for ages on that thread (347 comments so far). We are positively observing a collective man crush here.

Comment by olegt — September 11, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
olegt,

Aww, you're keeping track? That's so sweet, olegt. And you said you didn't care.

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

chunkdz Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Olegt: Or maybe we could infer that Richard Dawkins does not take himself—or the award named after him—too seriously.

Lol! Now you're catching on, olegt. Like every culture warrior Dawkins will do whatever advances his cause – reason be damned. Maher attacks religion therefore he is useful. Who cares if he believes in God and is a science denier?

Ben Stein, however, must be stopped because he believes in God and is a science denier.

The irrational mind is something to behold, is it not?

Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

olegt Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Of course I keep track, nullasalus! I am studying the ecology of TT.

I am furthermore the last member of teh swamp who is allowed to comment here, so my mission is doubly important.

Comment by olegt — September 11, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Computerist and Bradford have been beating the weasel for ages on that thread (347 comments so far). We are positively observing a collective man crush here.

Olegt getting kinky about weasel beating. Like domination Olegt? Try the Fox version. Pelosi, dancin, shootin… Have a ball Olegt.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
olegt,

I am studying the ecology of TT.

Who says physicists don't have a wild night life.

Comment by nullasalus — September 11, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Olegt, have you not read the publication of the swamp?

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Why not study the ecology of the swamp? All that hot air they throw out adds to global warming.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Olegt: I am furthermore the last member of teh swamp who is allowed to comment here, so my mission is doubly important.

Ya gotta keep the ambassador around. Too much fun.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

Alan Fox Says:
September 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Olegt: I am furthermore the last member of teh swamp who is allowed to comment here, so my mission is doubly important.

Apparently incorrect!

Comment by Alan Fox — September 12, 2009 @ 7:08 am

Alan Fox Says:
September 12th, 2009 at 7:14 am
I also take issue with oleg on the importance. Something new, maybe a theory of ID, a meaningful calculation of FCSI/CSI/active info., would inject a bit of life.

Comment by Alan Fox — September 12, 2009 @ 7:14 am

olegt Says:
September 12th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Don't hold your breath, Alan.

The ID crowd is neither willing nor able to carry a program of positive research. It's so much more fun to tear into a dead weasel, pretend that ducks are rabbits, or call Darwin a puppy beater.

Comment by olegt — September 12, 2009 @ 8:45 am

Rob R. Says:
September 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Olegt:

Dawkins is on at TT 24/7. Computerist and Bradford have been beating the weasel for ages on that thread (347 comments so far).

Just to put things in perspective. With respect to Dembski, via The Swamp (at time of posting):

1,507 pages/45,198 comments! That's not including, the absolutely pathetic, obsession with out of work housewives, refrigerator repair men, etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum. The pinnacle of on-line douche-baggery. But, it's important work y'all are doing there; I'm glad you've found a cause. Keep fighting the good fight!

Olegt:
It's fun to watch you, guys, get worked up about a mere mention of Dawkins, as if he represents all the evil in the world. Carry on.

[...]

We are positively observing a collective man crush here.

You're projecting, Olegt.

Comment by Rob R. — September 12, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

MikeGene Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
olegt: It's so much more fun to tear into a dead weasel, pretend that ducks are rabbits, or call Darwin a puppy beater.

Translation:

It's a Duck, dammit!

Comment by MikeGene — September 13, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

dantedanti Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny.

anyone who found that movie even slightly amusing, should be shot. i have highschool and college-age students cite it as a source far more often than i would like.

It's fun to watch you, guys, get worked up about a mere mention of Dawkins, as if he represents all the evil in the world. Carry on.

the man uses the terms "science" and "reason" as propaganda tools. he and his buddies are evil as far as i'm concerned; they are little different than their creationist enemies.

Comment by dantedanti — September 13, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

The Pixie Again Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 5:37 am
he and his buddies are evil as far as i'm concerned; they are little different than their creationist enemies.

So do you think his creationist enemies are also evil?

Comment by The Pixie Again — September 16, 2009 @ 5:37 am

Alan Fox Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am
anyone who found that movie even slightly amusing, should be shot.

Good grief! Do you mean fatally? Even just for one little smile. Doesn't sound very Christian.

Comment by Alan Fox — September 16, 2009 @ 8:42 am

Alan Fox Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
i have highschool and college-age students cite it as a source far more often than i would like.

You are in charge of high school kids? And you advocate people should be shot for being even slightly amused by a particular comedian. Unbelievable!

Comment by Alan Fox — September 16, 2009 @ 8:45 am

dantedanti Says:
September 20th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
yes alan, unbelievable. im a deather, what can i say.

pixie, what creationist do is evil; ive always thought it low, silly, and shameful. unfortunately, since dawkins et al use "science" and "reason", they are doing something i consider worse: making it nearly impossible to have a reasoned and scientific discussion by distorting those concepts that allow us to have such a dicussion.

Comment by dantedanti — September 20, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

COTLC: Carl Sagan Sings Beautifully; the Forevertron Machines of Baraboo, Wisconsin and Bill Maher’s Endorsement of Quackery, Woo and Pseudoscience | ICED BORSCHT Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
[...] Richard Dawkins is coming to town. I'll see you there, perhaps. Not sure if I'll marshal the courage to ask him why it's OK for Bill Maher to receive an award best reserved for genuine scientists, skeptics and critical thinkers. [...]

Pingback by COTLC: Carl Sagan Sings Beautifully; the Forevertron Machines of Baraboo, Wisconsin and Bill Maher’s Endorsement of Quackery, Woo and Pseudoscience | ICED BORSCHT — September 26, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

Crackpot Gets Richard Dawkins Award

31 Responses to “Crackpot Gets Richard Dawkins Award”

Featured Books