Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Clue: If I hadn't realised that I wouldn't be attempting to concentrate on his knowledge and communication skills instead of <argumetum ad hominem>.
[...]
> But, Stephen, it is Dawkin’s communication skills
> – or lack thereof – that is the topic here.
See above.
[...]
> 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?
There are several extremely good presenters who are also extremely arrogant. You apparently choose to ignore inconvenient facts like this.
[...]
> 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.
Pleas stop prtending that you did not label Dawkins as a fundamentalist. Do I have to quote it for you?
[...]
> 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.
That is not what it translates as, it is what you choose to misrepresent it as. You don't need to "translate" my words; take them for what they *actually* say ( the same copurtesy as I pay you, although you appear to object to my doing so).
Clue: I am fully capable of making a simple declarative statement.
> This prompts me to suggest that you and Dawkins
> have a lot in common.
Thank you for the compliment, but I fear it is undeserved: Dawkins is far more capable than I ever hope to be.
> Are you implying here that Creationists and other
> like-minded individuals (and there are several
> millions of them) are being wilfully ignorant?
Some are, yes.
> If so, what gives you the right to insult these
> people in this fashion?
If people find a statemet of the truth to be insulting, that is entirely their problem, but I will not have my views censored by either them or their apologists.
[...]
> Has it ever occurred to you, Stephen, that it may
> not be just the Creationists who have got it
> wrong?
Of course it has. Others who have it wrong include astrologers, "lost master-race" promulgators and their modern imitators, etc., etc. ad nauseam.
> 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?
Clue #1: If scientists thought they knew everything, they would cease doing research (there would be no point).
CLue #2: The methodology of science includes actively trying to expose errors in its hypotheses.
--
Stephen
