Those criticising Dawkins for lacking respect seem to be confused about the definition of respect. There is no reason Dawkins should show respect to beliefs which he finds patently absurd. He should probably tolerate them, and he does, but there is no reason to give them any more respect than they deserve. Some say he is strident. I really don’t see it. He is very measured and polite, but he is critical, and incisively so. Such claims about him lacking respect or being strident are silencing tactics.

What also concerns me about the footage is that the people criticising Dawkins on such specious grounds (as opposed to criticising his argument) seem to be in positions of power. Julie Bishop, deputy leader of the opposition in Australia, in her comment about the neo-Darwinists and neo-creationists uses a false equivalence fallacy - which “occurs when someone falsely equates an act by one party as being equally egregious to that of another without taking into account the underlying differences which may make the comparison patently invalid” - by equating those who believe in evolution (a theory with significant evidential backing) to creationists (a theory with no solid evidential backing), stating both are extremes. Furthermore, in equating both to be extremes she implies the truth lies in the middle - another logical fallacy known as the argument to moderation. Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture, appears to be in complete agreement. These people are either stupid or they are cheap hacks who use glib rhetoric in order to win an argument. Why have they been given power? Why do they continue to be given power?

1. recruitmentwe0 liked this
2. apartmentrt6 liked this
3. affordable06 liked this
4. nickthejam liked this
5. rnfox liked this
6. weatherbeatenhollowsofsnow posted this