Never let the facts get in the way of damning MikeGene
by MikeGenePZ Myers lashes out at me as follows:
I was suspicious immediately. For one thing, Mike Gene pulls a bait-and-switch that Ed fell for without question: he claims that Dawkins endorsed this petition on his website. This is not true. There is a different petition from the same group that is endorsed at richarddawkins.net, which encourages the removal of government support for faith-based schools. There is no link anywhere on that site to the controversial petition. When an ID creationist pulls something that sneaky, it's a good idea to think twice.
Of course, it is PZ Myers who got it wrong. It seems that everyone but Myers knew that there was indeed a link to the petition that asks "the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." In fact, at the time of this writing, it is still there; Dawkins has not removed it from his web page. Myers somewhat acknowledges he was wrong by later crossing out the sentence, "There is no link anywhere on that site to the controversial petition" and adds, "(Wait"”there is a single link without comment in a list of petitions)." The single link is the link that supposedly did not exist and is found at the top of the page among a list of two petitions. But if Myers is going to lash out at me with knee-jerk accusations, it's not a good idea to do something like this from a position of complete ignorance.
To paraphrase Myers:
Mike Gene also does not have horns and a forked tail. Some people, though, are awfully quick to use their ignorance to impose outrageous beliefs and actions on the man.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Re: the petition not yet having been removed:
In fairness to Richard Dawkins, one of his loyal fans actually runs the website and perhaps he is currently occupied.
Comment by obrienr — December 30, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW, since Dawkins is an influential voice in a developing socio-political movement, and his web page has probably solicited many of the signatures to that petition, does anyone think Dawkins should make his retraction and apology on his own web page?
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
does anyone think Dawkins should make his retraction and apology on his own web page?
Yes. It's the logical place to do it.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Even after having acknowledged that he got the facts wrong, PZ is still arguing as if he hadn't:
Accept what at the word of an "ID creationist" (sic)? That Dawkins signed the petition? That he promoted it on the front of his webpage? All of that has been shown to be correct. In fact, the only one who got easily verifiable facts wrong was PZ himself, when he denied that Dawkins was linking to the petition.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Again, this shows how phrases like "ID creationist" are used more often for gaining a rhetorical advantage than anything else. The strategy here is to link Brayton to an "ID creationist" in order to make whatever he says automatically suspect.
Comment by macht — December 30, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
The fact that Mike, by all objective standards, is an evolutionist, is another of those annoying facts that PZ isn't too burdened by.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
PZ Myers is just a good soldier in the Anti-Religion Movement. Since he is politicking, there is little concern for truth. And this is the guy who will preach to others about "evidence" and "reason."
It should be clear that both Dawkins and Myers are guided by their emotions.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Hang on - so are they guided by shrewd politics, or raw emotion? Make up your mind.
I actually think Dawkins' and Myers' public statements are guided very little by their own emotions, but more by their desire to inspire emotion in others.
Comment by Mesk — December 30, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Over at PZ's site, KC gets a few things wrong. He writes:
First, consider this notion that Dawkins "contradicted" his own previous writings with his own signature. Can KC point to the place where Dawkins unequivocally affirms the legal right of parents to indoctrinate and label their own children? Those who have closely followed Dawkins' writings for years failed to point out such position statement over the last two weeks.
Dawkins has been spreading memes (he calls it "consciousness-raising") where he portrays religion as something that is evil and he likens a religion to an illegal narcotic, and likens a religious upbringing ("indoctrination")to child abuse or worse. For example (borrowing from Orac in comment section):
Since Dawkins thinks it is worse to bring a child up as a Catholic than sexually abuse a child, and sexual abuse of children is illegal, there is not much in that petition that contradicts Dawkins' views.
As for my delusion, there is nothing hidden about the fact that Dawkins is playing a lead role in a developing socio-political movement and thus has an agenda. His web page makes this obvious. The "authoritarian" label was added after the petition became common knowledge. Thus, does he have a "hidden, authoritarian agenda." Not that I know of. He simply has an obvious socio-political agenda that does seem to appeal to authoritarian types. After all, given that Dawkins admits he was wrong, why is it that this petition did not create a big stir on Dawkins own site? The petition has been up for weeks. Why did Dawkins have to learn about his mistake only because of us at Telic Thoughts?
KC:
Let's think it through. Consider Ed Brayton's blog. How could one reply to such observations? You can a) ignore it; b) defend your position; or c) back off your position. Since reasonable people recognize Ed's case is so strong, option b) is not available. And since Ed's blog is so big, option a) is not available. That leaves only option c) and this is the one Dawkins wisely chose.
Anyway, I'll repeat my question from above.
Since Dawkins is an influential voice in a developing socio-political movement, and his web page has probably solicited many of the signatures to that petition, don't you think Dawkins should make his retraction and apology on his own web page?
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Hi Mesk,
I don't think I have ever asserted that Dawkins and friends are very "shrewd." I'm more in line with Joy and find his transition from science to socio-political advocacy to be amusing. In his apology, he admits not giving much thought to the petition, not reading it carefully, and relying on his passion. I'd say that's emotion talking.
As for Myers, his emotional outbursts are legendary.
Here's a question everyone who values freedom can ask. And you don't need to answer it here; just be honest with yourself and answer it privately. Just how likely is it that YOU would have made the "mistake" of signing that petition and then linking to it on YOUR web page?
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Hi Mesk,
I don't think anybody sees Dawkins as a shrewd politician. Offering a non-apology when having made an unpopular decision is the oldest trick in the book, not evidence of any political prowess.
Comment by Krauze — December 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Mike wrote:
Mike,
It's not that we think you're the devil incarnate. We just think you're all too human in the way you've let your hatred of Dawkins overwhelm your better judgment.
Consider:
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.
2. The Dawkins posts are loaded with bile and snark, light on substantive criticism.
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.
When you automatically, unthinkingly take the side of Konner, simply because he opposes Dawkins, without noting his far greater offense against Dawkins, it's a strong sign that your emotions have gotten the better of you.
Wonders of Oyarsa said it well on the other thread, quoting C.S. Lewis:
Comment by keiths — December 30, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
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
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 30, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Hi Keiths,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
After watching the bruhaha develop yesterday and literally explode today between Brayton and PZ - after and about the mea culpa from Dawkins - I may start calling the evolutionary corner of ScienceBlogs 'Testosterone Acres'.
Not places for polite company or people interested in learning anything about science, but entertaining in a WWF sort of way… §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Joy,
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.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Hi Mike,
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.
Comment by KC — December 30, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 1:45 am
Hi KC,
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.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 1:45 am
December 31st, 2006 at 9:43 am
KC,
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.
Comment by Douglas — December 31, 2006 @ 9:43 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
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.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 31, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 6:17 am
M .P. Zeyers loves to "lash out." My one and only message at Pharyngula was met with - "Your stench has preceded you."
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
Comment by John A. Davison — January 1, 2007 @ 6:17 am
January 1st, 2007 at 6:37 am
Salvador
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
Comment by John A. Davison — January 1, 2007 @ 6:37 am