Hello Stephen,

This thread is ostensibly about Sue’s question: “does evolution need a new Carl Sagan to make the ideas of evolution popular and understandable to the public? Or is this role being filled by Richard Dawkins?

My answer to this question was and is an emphatic: No, I do not think that Dawkins is filling this role. I pointed out that I find Dawkins extraordinarily arrogant, and gave an example of his behaviour on a televised debate as an example of why I think this of him. It is because of what I see as arrogance on his part that I do not consider him at all suitable for the role left vacant by the late Carl Sagan.

You write: “I reject and deplore the thoroughly ludicrous notion that a discussion that may properly examine someone's communication skills can be used as an excuse for argumentum ad hominem.”

But, Stephen, it is Dawkin’s communication skills – or lack thereof – that is the topic here. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I find his books to be okay (not that I understand or agree with everything he writes), but IMO he hasn’t got what it takes to front a popular science programme – but Carl Sagan certainly did.

You write: “You concentrated on what you assumed to be negative personality traits,”
Well, Stephen, as all I have ever perceived of Dawkins from his TV appearances is an arrogance that most people would agree is ‘a negative personality trait’ when it comes to the question of his suitability or otherwise as a presenter of popular science, what else am I to go on?
His books do a good job. But, again, we are also talking about his suitability as a TV presenter of the Carl Sagan kind. Being a good writer does not a good TV presenter make.

You write: “… you could have done so without, for example, the comments about arrogance and fundamentalism.”

Stephen, Dawkins is well-known for his arrogance and his openly hostile approach to fundamentalism. For goodness sake, these are the very traits that make Dawkins such an unsuitable replacement for Carl Sagan. The man is an extremist in his field, and a lot of people are simply put off by that. Which part of all this don’t you understand?

You write: “I can't speak for DaveL, but my intolerance is not of ignorance, but for wilful ignorance and the promulgation of the sort of nonsense that perpetuates ignorance.”

Which translates as: My views, ideas and beliefs on Evolution are right, and anybody who disagrees with me on the grounds of their religious beliefs is being wilfully ignorant and talking complete and utter nonsense.
This prompts me to suggest that you and Dawkins have a lot in common.
Are you implying here that Creationists and other like-minded individuals (and there are several millions of them) are being wilfully ignorant?
If so, what gives you the right to insult these people in this fashion?
Creationism is a part of a religion. Religion is essentially irrational. One cannot reasonably expect a person to change or go against their held beliefs just because Science says they are wrong to believe what they do. Here, I respectfully refer you back to Joanne’s posts in this thread.
Has it ever occurred to you, Stephen, that it may not be just the Creationists who have got it wrong?
Has it ever it occurred to you that when it comes to the complex subject of how Evolution works (I consider Evolution to be a reality) scientists may, just may, have got it wrong, too?
Or are you of the opinion that How Evolution Actually Works is an established and irrefutable scientific fact and involves no theories at all?

Regards,

Alex