http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...kins+discovery

British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins
The investigation into science's public image didn't even ask about the atheist professor, but it got an answer anyway
Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin Monday 31 October 2016980 comments




22K
dawkins.jpg
Others were quick to defend Dawkins, saying that the public appreciation of science, reason, and free inquiry has benefited enormously from his work Getty
Most British scientists in a new study dislike Richard Dawkins, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.

As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.

Science news in pictures
20
show all
Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.

Other scientists did stand up for the evolutionary biologist, and the remaining 20 per cent were positive views. One said that Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” because of his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. The study was funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has traditionally opposed Dawkins' work.


READ MORE
Richard Dawkins responds to the suggestion atheists are violent
Some of the scientists interviewed as part of the exercise were religious, and so might be expected to take against Dawkins’ often vociferous opposition to religion. But even scientists who didn’t believe in religion at all said that Dawkins work tended to overestimate the borders of what science can and should examine.

“Scientists differ in their view of where such borders rest,” said David Johnson, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada in Reno and the paper’s lead author. “And they may even view belief in a deity as irrational, but they do not view questions related to the existence of deities or ‘the sacred’ as within the scope of science.”

The common criticism was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion, and one nonreligious professor of biology referred to him as a “fundamental atheist”. "He feels compelled to take the evidence way beyond that which other scientists would regard as possible. ... I want [students] to develop [science] in their own lives. And I think it's necessary to understand what science does address directly."

Another described his work as a “crusade, basically”, and said that though he was right his work is “deliberately designed to alienate religious people”.

One nonreligious physicist said that Dawkins is “much too strong about the way he denies religion”, according to Rice University.

How can we stop violence in the name of religion?
“As a scientist, you’ve got to be very open, and I’m open to people’s belief in religion … I don’t think we’re in a position to deny anything unless it’s something which is within the scope of science to deny … I think as a scientist you should be open to it … It doesn’t end up encroaching for me because I think there’s quite a space between the two.”

Supporters of Dawkins said that it was fine that some find themselves frustrated with his style.

“It was not so long ago that scientists were decrying the science popularisation of Carl Sagan, and even today there are some who take issue with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others,” said Centre for Inquiry spokesperson Paul Fidalgo, whose organisation is in the process of merging with Dawkins' Foundation for Reason & Science. “So it’s certainly not a breathtaking revelation that fewer than 40 scientists out of 137 – culled from a pool of over 20,000 – might not be fans of Prof. Dawkins’ particular approach to science communication. Comes with the territory.

“What is indisputable is that the work of Richard Dawkins has educated and inspired many millions of people around the world, spanning generations, cultures, languages, and beliefs. His life’s work has been to open our minds to the beauty of science, and to challenge all of us to question even our most closely held beliefs. He has been instrumental in demolishing the taboo around atheism, helping to bring nonbelievers into the mainstream of public discourse.

“It’s fine that some bristle at his style, no one can appeal to everybody, but I can say without reservation that the public appreciation of science, reason, and free inquiry has benefited enormously from the work of Richard Dawkins.”

Dawkins has been publicly criticised by colleagues before. In 2014, Harvard professor EO Wilson said that Dawkins wasn’t a scientist at all, instead calling him a “journalist” and implying that he didn’t do any work of his own.

“There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research,” said Wilson during an interview on Newsnight.

Dawkins tweeted soon after to say that he had actually done new work and that the argument was the result of a specific disagreement.

“I greatly admire EO Wilson & his huge contributions to entomology, ecology, biogeography, conservation, etc. He’s just wrong on kin selection,” Mr Dawkins wrote on Twitter. “Anybody who thinks I’m a journalist who reports what other scientists think is invited to read The Extended Phenotype,” he wrote in a follow-up tweet, making reference to the sequel to his seminal book The Selfish Gene.

It is Twitter that has led to many of the controversies that Dawkins has been embroiled in. A Guardian article last year reported that some people close to Dawkins were worried that his online outbursts could be destroying his reputation.

A lot of scientists feel that prolific bookwriting and media appearance is a bad thing for scientists to engage him, as it loses out on neutrality.

Also, obviously a lot of Dawkins' theological discussions aren't scientific at all, but mostly a question of personal convictions. Science hasn't been very interested in "god" since the close of age of enlightenment and that's 200 years ago now. Something which is fairly evident from theological discussions that are more inclined to quote 1700s meta-physicists than to actually state something worthwhile about science. So in that regard, Dawkins' is a controversial figure.

But obviously the vicious propaganda-war that many religious organizations engage in to discredit modern science (chiefly archeology, biology and geology) and the willful misrepresentations thereof they spend a great deal of money on to get accepted as school curriculums is also seen as problematic. These organizations also carry a lot of political clout.

And in that regard people like Dawkins have sadly become necessary. Because this war and the ignorance and lies it wields against modern science - of which you FesteringZit is very much a part - is one of the biggest intellectual travesties, if not the biggest, in the history of modern society. You and your ilk are very close at at successfully having made facts democratic decisions. You are, in my eyes, the downfall of our civilization.

Been feeling the bolded pretty strongly lately.

Actually, that is a complete lie, and one without any basis. So, I'm surprised the moderators let you post such slander.

You have spent years on this board arguing against modern science with barely any understanding of the concepts you discuss. You are very much a part of the western anti-intellectualism movement that has plagued this century so far.

And it's tiring. Our way of civilization is sirkling the drain and an ever increasing amount of people is cheering it along.

More lies.

I probably have a better understanding of science than you do. And,
I'm am a vocal critic of anti-intellectualism. I have no issues with
archaeology or geology as you claim, none. That makes you a liar, and
a slanderer. I don't believe in universal common descent, not only because
I believe in creation - but because see that the scientific evidence in
many different areas militates against it.

Oh, you should learn how to spell "circling."

True. But the same thing happens with the teaching of say, the more outlandish but widespread claims of the global warming religion, and not a peep out of people like you.

If we're going to insist on rationality in education, then be rational about all things - not just religion.
We got to this point - away from superstition and ignorance - without people like Dawkins or his methods. So the evidence that he's necessary seems slims, no?
Again, I disagree. I think it's a medium sized blip at best. The biggest current intellectual travesty is the veneration of the expert (and that includes scientists) and their opinions in uncertain fields far beyond what the data can actually tell us. The second biggest is probably the philosophical narrowness of materialism coming to take over much public discourse thanks to its indoctrination is schools. Success does that, however, it's not really a fault of science.

I don't think you're intelligent enough to know what will be the downfall of our civilization. I mean that not as a slur on your intelligence, but as a statement of fact.

In my view, the downfall of civilization will most likely be in the form of dreeping change we didn't see coming until it was too late, that undermines the foundations of European Enlightenment thought. If enough of the population fails to hold those values, society becomes like what you see in the second and third world.

Well, thankfully on the issue of global warming the public views is slowly starting to reverse. Which is good, since the academic consensus on the central issues of global warming is very strong.

We're actually now at the stage where big business is stepping up the plate en masse. Which of course makes sense, large scale natural catastrophes is bad for the economy.

It's a concern that the US elected a president who don't support it, which in turn will select a cabinet which does not support it. It's also an indicator that while the view of the issue are reversing, they don't actually matter that much to your public.

But this will likely be of a lesser consequence than people think. China is in a position where it can't afford to deny the issue and will likely step on to the plate, which will likely also punt the US' international influence strongly to the side (on far more issues than this). Which is good, the world can't afford a superpower supporting a position that might spell an end to modern human civilization. I would personally prefer democratic countries in the lead on this, but they're dragging their feet - which is the price we pay for the anti-intellectualism movement.

Anyways, good luck on fighting the "indoctrination". It is a war that fits well with walls.

Follow the money. It's not like there isn't trillions of $$ at stake, and lots
of corruption - as charlatans like Al Gore fly around the world in their corporate jets, scamming people with their carbon credit scams. Oh wait, he needs the emissions-spewing jets to fly between all his (huge carbon footprint) mansions he owns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEFMfl4_WHs

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ey-henry-payne

"in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding. In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations."

Ah yes, the American Physical Society - surely a hotbed of political intrigue. As opposed to arbitrary opinion pieces you picked after a Google search.

festeringzit are you my brother?

???

Watery Boil= Festering Zit ??

haha yea. i laughed when i saw his name.

I think you are my cousin.

Big fan of Dawkins. I watch every YouTube video that features him. He's brilliant and extremely well spoken, while always remaining very polite.

One of my favorite bits was when he spoke at Liberty college in Virginia and some young student, thinking she really had him on this one, asked "But what if you're wrong?" on the topic of God. His answer was perfect and completely pointed out just how silly she was.

pro choice here
i ll say to the mother:-'' kill the baby if u don't want it ''

is up to the mother imo

glgl

Well, then I suggest you go find someone who shouts "lock up the babykillers!" and you two can carry out the debate on equal intellectual footing.

https://fatherofloveandmercy.wordpre...t-my-divinity/

how does he know that?

William Lane Craig's long list of beatdowns of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins

Start with the first one, and work your way down:
"Richard Dawkins' Best Argument Against God is the Worst Argument in Western History"

it's pretty clear why Dawkins runs scared when anyone mentions him debating WLC, as Craig would rip him to shreds.

It's the same reason I "run scared" when anyone suggest I debate a feces throwing monkey. There is no scenario where I come out ahead.

Ironically, the feces throwing monkey is most analogous to Dawkins and his behavior, especially considering his propensity to be a blathering idiot.

But, you are right in intimating that there isn't a scenario where Dawkins comes out ahead of WLC.

WLC is a master at misrepresentation and circular arguments

He uses his belief in divine command theory to justify divinely commanded genocide cause hey, if god commands it then it is necessarily good, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iam-lane-craig

Richard Dawkins Suggests Eating Human Flesh to Overcome Cannibalism ‘Taboo’
130
AP/GETTY
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.13 Mar 20181,052

Professional atheist Richard Dawkins continues to push the envelope against a God-deluded world, proposing that cultivating and eating human “meat” might help society overcome its “taboo” against cannibalism.
Commenting on an article from the UK’s Independent newspaper, which touts the benefits of lab-grown “clean meat,” Dawkins tweeted earlier this month that perhaps something similar could be done with human flesh, which would assist western culture in shedding yet another irrational remnant of its Judeo-Christian roots.

Dawkins said that eating lab-grown human meat would provide an “interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus ‘yuck reaction’ absolutism,” which keeps people from doing things just because they seem morally repugnant.


Richard Dawkins
✔
@RichardDawkins
Tissue culture “clean meat” already in 2018? I’ve long been looking forward to this.https://ind.pn/2F9xAwS
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.

9:15 AM - Mar 3, 2018

Lab-grown 'clean' meat could be on sale by end of 2018
Meat grown in a laboratory could be on restaurant menus by the end of the year, one manufacturer has claimed. In vitro animal products, sometimes referred to as “clean meat”, are made from stem...


The Independent article cites Josh Tetrick, the CEO of clean meat manufacturer JUST, who claims that “clean meat”—made from stem cells harvested from living livestock and then grown in a lab—could be on restaurant menus by the end of the year.

Familiar meat products such as chicken nuggets, sausage and even foie gras will be manufactured using the process and could be served in restaurants in the US and Asia “before the end of 2018,” Tetrick said.

Richard Dawkins suggests taking the procedure a step further and producing human “meat,” which presumably would also come from stem cells.

As an absolute materialist who denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured by science, Dawkins is a moral pragmatist. There is no soul or afterlife in the Dawkins world, so morality is defined by the here and now and the value of human actions is judged solely by their effects.

Whether Dawkins’s Brave New World — where every taboo is bulldozed and nothing is forbidden — would make people happier, better, or more fulfilled, is far from self-evident.

For now, dinner guests in the Dawkins home would be well advised to choose a seat near the door, in case their host decides to change up the menu.