New Atheist Richard Dawkins did it again. You know, the old foot-in-the-mouth maneuver! He told CNN, “I don’t think that religion has anything useful to teach us;” however, I suggest that, as usual, Dick is blaring out nonsense from the loud speaker in his ivory tower. Religion (or more precisely, Christianity) can teach Dick many things, especially not to lie which seems to be one of his persistent problems. Such a serious charge is easy to prove.
Dawkins seems to have problems telling the truth as seen in his lying about his debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. The Rabbi wrote, “Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two-hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds.” Dawkins lost the debate so he conveniently “forgot” about it.
If Dawkins were a Christian, he would feel guilt about being dishonest, disingenuous, and deceitful. Christians are taught to be real, not false, mean and cruel although we sometimes fall short. Atheism permits such things as lying; after all, who is to say what is right and wrong? To New Atheists, intellectual dishonesty is not wrong; it’s only a ploy to be used when one finds himself in hot water. This happens so often to Dawkins that his face is beginning to look like a well-used teabag.
I reported in The God Haters that he lied about a video when he was asked a question he could not answer and he paused for an embarrassing 11 seconds. He then asked for the camera to be turned off so he could think of an answer. Today, he is lying about that episode suggesting he was set up–even if true, what would that matter? However, the film’s pro¬ducer wrote: “I asked [Dawkins] for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did. After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded; the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question.” It is rather embarrassing for a scholar (who calls himself one of the “brights”) to not have an answer and then to lie about it! But New Atheists are shameless.
Unbeknown to Dawkins, the interview team was try¬ing out a new camera that was not turned off, and it reveals that the 11-second interval amounted to 19 loooong seconds showing clearly Dawkins’ uneasiness and embarrassment. He didn’t have an answer, and the answer he finally gave was a non-answer. I read the transcript after watching the video, and Dawkins is caught in many lies about that interview. He continues to lie about that episode.
If Dawkins knew the Bible, he would know that God forbids lying. But Dick continues to deal carelessly with the truth. I think he must have inspired the saying, “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” I report in my book that some of Dawkins’ atheist friends are embarrassed and have declared they are opposed to his stupid grandstanding. Dawkins is a scientific jerk; after all, if we have religious jerks, we can have scientific jerks. A good scientific dictionary would have a photo of Dawkins beside the entry, “jerk.”
Dawkins, a famous proponent of diversity, balance, fairness, and civility opines that creationists are “ignorant, stupid or insane–or wicked.” He calls us feeble-minded, pathetic and intellectual cavemen in his book The Blind Watchmaker. In the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins calls us a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” There, isn’t that kind, fair, and civil? If Dawkins were convinced that a judgment day was coming, he might mitigate his vicious attacks.
He might even repent!
Part II tomorrow
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.