Dawkins Still MIA
by MikeGeneAn AP story from late last month describes the way Oxford University is turning out to be the focal point in battle between science and the animal rights movement. According to the article:
They firebombed an Oxford University boathouse, planted explosives beneath cars and appear to have stolen the remains of an 82-year-old woman.
Now animal rights activists are vowing to turn Oxford into a battleground in order to stop construction of a new biomedical research centre "” and the university is promising it will be built.
To give you a feel for how big this issue is becoming, considering the following observations:
Britain is facing increased pressure to deal with radical animal activists, who analysts say could cost the country billions of dollars a year in lost investment.
Activists claimed a victory this week when a family-run guinea pig farm in northwest England announced it would no longer breed animals for medical experiments "” and appealed for the return of the remains of the co-owner's mother-in-law, which they believe extremists stole from a churchyard grave in October.
Attention has now turned to a construction site on the edge of Oxford's science area, where animal rights activists have stalled a university project to build a new Biomedical Research centre to replace aging laboratories.
Medical experiments on animals are to be conducted in the $32-million (U.S.) building as part of research into treatment for diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
"Oxford is going to become a big battleground," said Mel Broughton, co-founder of Speak, the group leading the campaign against the facility. "The government has said they will draw the line in the sand over construction at Oxford. We've kept the same view, this is something we won't back down from."
The animal rights terrorists have targeted Oxford University as the battle ground. They have already succeeded in carrying out acts of violence and destruction against Oxford, have shut down a facility that provided model organisms for scientific research, and have stalled the construction of the new laboratory at Oxford.
Oxford University is the home of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins considers himself the "drum-banger" for Science and even has the title, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. So has the prolific Richard Dawkins finally said something about about this? Has he explained to the public the importance of animal research? Go to Google News:
Your search - animal rights oxford dawkins - did not match any documents.
He's been too busy complaining about British troops in Iraq and complaining about teaching ID in the United States.
This "drum-banger" of science obviously doesn't not have it within him to defend the practice of science against terrorists. Even when the buildings are burning around him.
September 18th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
That makes this ("His Fingers In So Many Pies") even more ironic than before.
Comment by TomG — September 18, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
If the animal rights terrorists were mostly Catholic, and doing their deeds because of some explicit Catholic doctrine, I think then Sir Richard would find time to posture as the Defender of Science.
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 8:20 pm
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 pm
And where is the outrage from Bill Dembski? Has he picketed the animal rights advocates' offices?
It's just another indication that ID is opposed to science, the startling and striking silence from ID advocates . . .
Or it's all a teapot tempest.
I mean, why aren't nuclear physicists complaining about the shenanigans and vandalism of animal rights advocates? Where is the Republican Party? What has Dick Cheney said about it?
As little reason as there is for Dawkins to take the lead in complaining about animal rights advocates, your reason is less. Is there a purpose to your diatribe?
Comment by edarrell — September 22, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:46 pm
The animal rights terrorists have targeted Oxford. Dawkins is the most famous professor at Oxford. The animal rights have targeted Oxford because they want to build a new science lab. Dawkins is the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:31 am
There, there, Mike. I'm sure firebombing university property isn't nearly as dangerous to science as quoting scientists out of context.
Comment by Krauze — September 23, 2005 @ 12:31 am
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Read my analysis as to why he is MIA. My sources of information helped me uncover who Dawkins really works for, and this will explain why he is MIA. He is not interested in science because he is part of a sinister plot.
But you would never guess who he really works for:
Who Does Dawkins Really Work For?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2005 @ 8:43 pm
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Well, I wish I was a cartoonist. I can imagine a cartoon of Dawkins typing away at his computer in his Oxford Office. On the wall hangs a fancy plaque: "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science." Out his window, a science lab is going up in a flames and a scientist (in lab coat) is being chased by a man wearing an ALF t-shirt with an axe in his hand. Dawkins? He's absorbed at his computer, typing"¦"The public needs to understand that intelligent design poses a grave threat to science and civilization."
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 1:12 am
Dawkins' being at Oxford doesn't get Dembski off the hook. Dembski's not responsible for Mt. St. Helens all by himself, either.
Your poking at Dawkins isn't particularly funny, and it makes very little sense. Even if Dawkins is employed by people who, having been burned with the first one, refused to publish Dembski's second book.
Is there some great reason Dawkins needs to be upset?
Comment by edarrell — September 24, 2005 @ 1:12 am
September 24th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Mike,
What a wicked thought! I hope someone out there with artistic ability will draw the cartoon. As soon as it's drawn, post it on this website!
My only change, since it would be easier to picture would be Dawkins on the phone with a reporter saying those words.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 24, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Hi Salvador,
"My only change, since it would be easier to picture would be Dawkins on the phone with a reporter saying those words."
Or simply have Dawkins sitting at his computer, with the text, "Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, writing another essay on why intelligent design poses a grave threat to science and civilization" underneath.
Comment by Krauze — September 24, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Hi Krauze!
How about Dawkins under the desk trying to hide from the flying debris, while he types on a laptop or talks on the phone…
Sounds like this could be material for another video game!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 24, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Hi Salvador,
Considering that Dawkins is member of a project trying to secure human rights for monkeys, I think he has more sympathy for animal rights activists than having him hide under a desk would convey.
Comment by Krauze — September 24, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
What! Seriously! I did not know that! That certainly puts a twist on it that I did not know.
Wow!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 24, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Yes, Dawkins is quite the animal lover. Check out this article, in which he criticizes the bigotry of speciesism that prevents the cross-breeding of a human and a chimpanzee.
Comment by Krauze — September 24, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
People here are so busy burning poor old Richard at the stake that they miss an intriguing, even insightful question that arises from one of the linked articles.
Which is (very approximately) the following: Suppose you discover a colony of any of the following in the last deep dark wild place on earth. Do you put these in a zoo, or do you treat them more like people than like, say, lions or tigers or chimps? Please answer for each, if you would. Justification for your answers would be nice, as well. (If you're really ambitious, feel free to add more to the list. But keep your additions relevant to the point.)
Australopithecus afarensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Enjoy.
Comment by Art — September 24, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Art:
No one is burning poor old Richard at the stake. We're simply chuckling at the corner he has painted himself into. The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science can't say anything when terrorists attack and threaten his school for planning to build a new science facility. Why the silence from a man with a printed opinion about everything? You seem to have found it:
Like I said back in February, "Might Dawkins actually be sympathetic with those who want to shut down these labs and put an end to such science? The thought might sound blasphemous to many of Dawkins' fans, but that does indeed seem to be the most likely explanation for such silence."
But the issue is not about zoos. What if experimenting on some of those species would provide the cure for Parkinson's Disease?
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2005 @ 11:11 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
So, Mike, which of the listed species would YOU sacrifice to cure Parkinson's? Answer for each, please. And explain your answer.
Comment by Art — September 24, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
I see. So you would like to rip me from my family and throw me in jail for the rest of my life for experimenting on one of these species to find a cure for Parkinson's Disease?
Tell us, Art. Do you support the animal rights agenda of preventing the construction of this new science lab?
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
OK, apparently Mike hasn't the stomach to answer my questions. Anyone else here want to give 'em a shot? Or is the possibility of admitting that Dawkins may actually be posing some interesting questions something that gets one banned from this blog?
Comment by Art — September 24, 2005 @ 11:34 pm
September 24th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Art, Your questions do not upset my stomach at all. I am indeed a true humanist who greatly values humanity. From the perspective of DawkinsThink, you'll just have to excuse me and blame my selfish genes (and natural selection). But would you? You seem to lack the stomach for my questions. So here's another. Would you sacrifice the life of a human baby to save an adult member of one of these species? If so, which species and why. Explain your answer.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
September 25th, 2005 at 6:15 am
Hi Art,
I agree with Mike; no one's "burning poor old Richard at the stake". Do you think Dawkins is entitled to make silly statements without having them criticized in public forums?
"Suppose you discover a colony of any of the following in the last deep dark wild place on earth. Do you put these in a zoo, or do you treat them more like people than like, say, lions or tigers or chimps? Please answer for each, if you would. Justification for your answers would be nice, as well."
My answer is the same for all of your examples: I don't know. At the moment, our data about these species is fragmentary, being limited to bones and, in some cases, artifacts. If your scenarios ever became reality, we'd obviously have access to much more information, including direct observation of their behavior, responses, and neuro-anatomy. At that point, we'd have a firmer basis for answering your question.
Now, I've provided you with my answer to your question, as well as my justification. Would you be willing to answer this question of mine: Is speciesist prejudices the only thing that prevents us from attempting to breed a chimpanzee/ human hybrid?
Comment by Krauze — September 25, 2005 @ 6:15 am
September 25th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Australopithecus afarensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
As with all species what we did would most likely depend on how many there were (are). I am sure we would first attempt to get to know and understand the "new" (to us) species. I am also sure that such a discovery would send evolutionists reeling as what they expected to see would again be refuted by reality.
But here is a suggestion- instead of experimenting on other species why don't we just use criminals on death row or those in for life? That would be the best way to pay their debt to society.
IOW leave the critters alone and pick on someone your own size…
(yes, I am a vegetarian)
Comment by Joe G — September 25, 2005 @ 9:48 am
September 25th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Two brief comments:
1. The silly statements being attributed to Dawkins by the inquisitors here bear almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed by Dawkins.
2. Be that as is may, Krauze, your question betrays a distinct double standard, as it is clear here that ID supporters are most definitely entitled to make all manner of silly, stupid, outrageous statement, without fear of criticism or even comment.
Thanks for the reply, Krauze. That's my answer in a nutshell as well.
Of course, this answer is the one I suspect that Dawkins wishes to elicit from the reader of "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee". Which puts you in some peril, Krauze, as any hint of agreement with Dawkins on this blog inevitably brings with it an irrational tirade from MikeGene.
Krauze, noting that your earlier comments regarding "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee":
totally misrepresent the article, I'd answer that speciesist prejudices, the idea that humans are distinct from other animals, do indeed prevent such an experiment. Do you, Krauze, think that the essay by Dawkins raises interesting questions regarding this standard? Or are you of the opinion that the intersection of biology and ethics is something that is better left unexplored?
Also, do you agree with the following?
"Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be regarded as though they are cast in stone."
Comment by Art — September 25, 2005 @ 11:07 am
September 25th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Joe G said:
Whew! Thanks for the parenthetical clarification, Joe G. I was worried that we had a cannibal in our midst :-).
(Insert your favorite Soylent Green wisecrack here.)
Comment by Art — September 25, 2005 @ 11:26 am
September 25th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Art:
I think you are hallucinating again. Rather than simply lash out at me, do you think you can defend this accusation? It's the least you can do given that you obviously weren't able to address the questions I put to you.
Comment by MikeGene — September 25, 2005 @ 11:35 am
September 25th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Art:
Singer does a better job at this. What's more interesting is where Dawkins' metaphysics is leading him. He can't quite bring himself to condemn terrorists who attack science, but he does like to ponder animal experimentation if it could be used to create needless societal chaos for "the discontinuous mind." Dawkins really needs to address the issue of animal experimentation, because it's not clear if he has truly shed his "discontinuous mind." But since he won't, why don't you take his place, Art? I asked you, "Do you support the animal rights agenda of preventing the construction of this new science lab?" Is there a reason you'd rather not answer?
Of course not. Yet, since biology is not the source of ethics, we would need to explore the ethical source that you bring to the table.
Comment by MikeGene — September 25, 2005 @ 11:48 am
September 25th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Art:
That's funny. When 120 faculty members make noise about not wanting to be associated with Gonzalez, Art considers it an appropriate line of inquiry. But when three guys on an obscure blog begin to question why Dawkins refuses to defend science against terrorists, we're suddenly "the inquisitors." And as for bearing "almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed," that's an odd complaint coming from someone who imposes stereotypical spin on almost everything an ID proponent would say.
But yes, by all means, let's look more closely at Dawkins' "interesting" questions. Let's see what it teaches us. I'll do so with another blog.
Comment by MikeGene — September 25, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
September 25th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Hi Art,
"1. The silly statements being attributed to Dawkins by the inquisitors here bear almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed by Dawkins."
So you claim.
"2. Be that as is may, Krauze, your question betrays a distinct double standard, as it is clear here that ID supporters are most definitely entitled to make all manner of silly, stupid, outrageous statement, without fear of criticism or even comment."
So you claim.
"Which puts you in some peril, Krauze, as any hint of agreement
with Dawkins on this blog inevitably brings with it an irrational tirade from MikeGene."
So you claim.
Krauze, noting that your earlier comments regarding "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee" … totally misrepresent the article,"
So you claim.
"I'd answer that speciesist prejudices, the idea that humans are distinct from other animals, do indeed prevent such an experiment."
Undoubtedly speciesism lays behind some (most?) of the resistance to such an experiment. But my question was this: "Is speciesist prejudices the only thing that prevents us from attempting to breed a chimpanzee/human hybrid?"
If the notion that humans are distinct from other animals dissappeared tomorrow, would we carry out Dawkins' experiment? Should we?
"Do you, Krauze, think that the essay by Dawkins raises interesting questions regarding this standard?"
Interest is in the eye of the beholder. If one likes to engage in fact-free speculation, I suppose one would find Dawkins' questions interesting.
"Or are you of the opinion that the intersection of biology and ethics is something that is better left unexplored?"
No, I am not.
"Also, do you agree with the following?
"Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be regarded as though they are cast in stone.""
Considering that my ethical principles aren't based upon accidental caprice, I have no problem noting my agreement with this statement.
Comment by Krauze — September 25, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
September 25th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
[quote]Australopithecus afarensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Enjoy.[/quote]
First, I'd teach them English, some manners, and how to bathe. Then, I'd ask [i]them[/i] if they'd like to submit to experimentation, and decide based on their answers.
Comment by Douglas — September 25, 2005 @ 11:06 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Dawkins doesn't say anything, not because it is a tempest in a teacup, but because he agrees with them.
The dirty little secret is that Dawkins doesn't think you should test on aniamls and is one of the people trying to get the great apes categorised as having the same standing as people.
He is on the side of those who are a threat to scientific reasearch.
Comment by thesciphishow — March 3, 2006 @ 9:06 pm