When are you folks over at Uncommon Descent going to rise up, show some guts and demand the removal of David Springer as blog czar? The man is a one man reign of terrror, a transparent sociopath, banning anyone who dares question his absolute authority. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially Dembski and O'leary.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh way."

"Doctor Davison is no longer with us."

"You're outta here"

etc, etc.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

As for Dawkins, he is living proof for my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, a "Born That Way" irreversible atheist. He is to neo-Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to neo-Lamarckism. Dawkins is either the perfect charlatan or he is clinically insane or of course both. Kammerer killed himself when he was finally exposed. God only knows what Dawkins has in mind. I certainly don't want him to do himself in as I can't wait to see his next book. They become progressively more delusionary.

The Selfish Gene? The Blind Watchmaker? Climbing Mount Improbable?
Who does this guy think he is kidding?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

Dickie Dawkins is the perfect example, a helpless, hapless, hopeless victim of his "prescribed" fate. We are all victims. He happens to be one of the very unlucky ones.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

How, for example, could he advocate the teaching of comparative religion in schools and knowingly sign a petition forbidding such without being a complete hypocrite?

Dawkins a complete hypocrite? Nah. Impossible, the thought never crossed our minds. We view him as having the impeccable integrity of Paul Mirecki and PZ Myers.

How, for example, could he advocate the teaching of comparative religion in schools and knowingly sign a petition forbidding such without being a complete hypocrite?

The petition did not, does not, forbid the teaching of comparative religion in schools. The petition seeks to make illegal the indoctrination with religion of children. I doubt either you, Dawkins, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, or Mike Gene would consider the former an instance of the latter. Thus, Dawkins could knowingly sign the petition without being a hypocrite, though unknowingly revealing himself to be a fascist of sorts.

Yes, we can round and round on this type of thing, but here are the facts.

Dawkins did sign off on a petition that would "make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

Dawkins' official web site did prominantly link to this petition for weeks without causing any controversy at his site.

Dawkins did acknowledge that he was wrong and apologized.

All that remains to be seen is whether he will repudiate the petition and apologize on his own web site.

First, I pointed out here earlier that that the complete petition contradicts Dawkins own stated positions, in his book and elsewhere. How, for example, could he advocate the teaching of comparative religion in schools and knowingly sign a petition forbidding such without being a complete hypocrite? That should have raised a warning flag in anyone's mind, regardless of their position on Dawkins. But did that give you or many at TT pause before hearing the sound of jackbooted thugs emanating from Oxford? Nah.

Secondly, when you put the phase "regrets it" in scare quotes, that implies more than just the simple statement that Dawkins regrets signing the petition. You could have just said he regrets it. The use of the scare quotes implies he doesn't regret it because it contradicts his true feelings, as he wrote on Ed's blog, but for some other reason, which you appeared to oh-so-carefully omit coming out and stating. Why do you think he "regrets it", Mike?

There is more than just a "jumping the shark" metaphor here, however. Over on ARN you have specifically mentioned how big and famous and rich Dawkins is compared to TT, and how he is apparently barely aware you exist. That hasn't stopped you though, like a tiny remora fish, from obtaining much blogic nourishment from the scraps ole Sharky Dawkins sends your way, and for which you post here about him. Kinda sums up the relationship pretty well.

It's fun to read through the comments section of Ed's blog as the EA's fantasize about ways to use the government to restrict relgious indoctrination. They seem to be saying it should remain legal to teach the Bible from an atheistic perspective, but I can't find many places where people reaffifm the LEGAL right for parents to religiously indoctrinate their children.

Not places for polite company or people interested in learning anything about science, but entertaining in a WWF sort of way… §;o)

I appreciate the comments, but you are misinterpreting me here. When talking about Dawkins, I have primarily focused on two major themes. First, his complete silence about the way the animal rights movement has been attacking his own university and threatening his colleagues. Second, his attempt to link a religious upbringing to child abuse. I focus here because Dawkins is an influential person who postures as an Ambassador of Science and claims to be led only by reason and evidence. Dawkins thus becomes a very useful symbol for the myriad of little dawkins that he has influenced, people who, like Dawkins, act as if they are champions for science and care only about reason and evidence. They may actually believe this about themselves or it might be an act, but either way, it's a hall of mirrors.

A true Ambassador of Science would use his large microphone to condemn the animal rights extremists and educate the public about the importance of animal research. Someone truly led by evidence and reason would not be making the poorly thought-out, unsubstantiated, inflammatory accusation that a religious upbringing is like child abuse.

Okay, let me turn to your points.

1. You've posted 23 times on front-loading, which is the centerpiece of your ideas about intelligent design. How many posts about Dawkins? 37.

Yes, and what has happened during much of this time? Dawkins has come out with a best-selling book that undercuts the Dover decision, declares metaphorical war on other ID critics, and furthers his "˜child abuse' meme. Those all seem like legitimate topics of discussion to me. Add to this the fact that he signed and effectively circulated a petition to make it illegal for parents to take their children with them to church.

As for front-loading, this will be discussed in significant detail in my book. As far as I am concerned, when the book comes out, Dawkins is old news. He and his book have been a great way to pass the time.

2. The Dawkins posts are loaded with bile and snark, light on substantive criticism.

That's a matter of perspective and opinion. I'm sure there are others here who see it differently. But at least I am not the one trying to publicly speculate why it may be that people like Richard Dawkins abuse their children.

3. You see the motes in Dawkins' eye while missing the beams in everyone else's. Perfect example: the "Dawkins misrepresents Konner" thread. Your post ignored the fact that Konner lied about Dawkins trying to "drive a wedge between a six-year-old and Santa Claus." You ignored the fact that Dawkins was entirely correct to be indignant at Konner's gross distortion of what he had written. You instead focused on the quibble over whether the word "indoctrinate" was too harsh to describe what Konner had accused Dawkins of doing.

Again, I would submit that this is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Keiths, you have made it clear that you greatly admire Dawkins. Thus, there is a chance your judgments about this topic and me are likewise clouded.

don't you think Dawkins should make his retraction and apology on his own web page?

Not if you're trying to cater to two sets of people separated by the Atlantic Ocean. I would suspect he realizes the American weblogs attract far more internet traffic over these issues than his does for USA audiences.

Furthermore, there is probably very little outrage over his proposal in the UK compared to that in USA. Recall, Brayton is not even an evangelical, and he found the petition very objectionable. If it bothered Brayton, Dawkins inferred it would bother probably a very vast number of Americans. Dawkins is a celberity in the UK, not in the USA. He can get away with stuff in the UK that would cause a riot (so to speak) in the USA.

So, my speculation is that Dawkins is making this withdrawal under duress. I accept his sincere "regret" (cough). And perhaps he'll be awfully slow in saying something on his weblog. That would be the politically savvy thing to do, imho. He might ask a rewording of the petition, and then re-sign it, or something like that.

We will see…..

Sal