Support NeoGAF

[IrishNinja]

I say that he's wrong because I've met people who don't entirely believe in evolution who are intelligent, humble and sane. I disagree with them thoroughly and think they are wrong to hold the views they do, but I'm not going to deny that they exist, and I'm not going to make the mistake of claiming that because they don't fit into my preconceptions of creationists I get to dismiss them as insane.

i'm unsure how your anecdotal knowledge of intelligent people who hold such a view weighs in on the science dawkins so vehemently defends. i mean, likewise, ive met very wise people who believe all manner of unfounded things, and no doubt it gives me a moment of pause/something to think on, but in empirical matters such as this one, i'm not seeing how it changes the binary choice of true/untrue here.

 

[BocoDragon]

Then they are ignorant.

So you just have to find some sort of pejoritive to call them?

How about "wrong". That's it. You don't have to question the integrity of their character beyond that.

 

[iapetus]

i'm unsure how your anecdotal knowledge of intelligent people who hold such a view weighs in on the science dawkins so vehemently defends.

It doesn't. It weighs in on his claim that no such people exist.

 

[IrishNinja]

^ah, i misunderstood...you were clearly referring to the earlier quote, my mistake.

 

[KevinCow]

So you just have to find some sort of pejoritive to call them?

How about "wrong". That's it. You don't have to question the integrity of their character beyond that.

It's not about insulting them. It's about explaining how people can still not believe despite the heaping tons of evidence.

If you:

A) Know how evolution works, and know about much of the evidence;

B) Are intelligent enough to truly understand this knowledge, how it fits together, and why it is considered proof; and

C) Do not reject logic and facts in order to believe something else,

Then you believe in evolution. Period. You cannot be in all three groups and still reject evolution.

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then there is at least one of these categories that they do not fall in. Therefore, they are either A) ignorant, B) unintelligent, or C) insane.

Ignorance can be fixed. If iapetus's friends are truly intelligent and sane, then I have to conclude that the only reason they don't believe in evolution is because they haven't learned about it.

 

[Pandaman]

So you just have to find some sort of pejoritive to call them?

How about "wrong". That's it. You don't have to question the integrity of their character beyond that.

i dont think you can work out a definition of wrong that doesn't include ignorance.

 

[iapetus]

Ignorance can be fixed. If iapetus's friends are truly intelligent and sane, then I have to conclude that the only reason they don't believe in evolution is because they haven't learned about it.

You'd be wrong to conclude that.

No, I don't know how they manage it either.

 

[chase]

It's not about insulting them. It's about explaining how people can still not believe despite the heaping tons of evidence.

If you:

A) Know how evolution works, and know about much of the evidence;

B) Are intelligent enough to truly understand this knowledge, how it fits together, and why it is considered proof; and

C) Do not reject logic and facts in order to believe something else,

Then you believe in evolution. Period. You cannot be in all three groups and still reject evolution.

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then there is at least one of these categories that they do not fall in. Therefore, they are either A) ignorant, B) unintelligent, or C) insane.

This is beautiful.

 

[Pandaman]

You'd be wrong to conclude that.

No, I don't know how they manage it either.

im pretty sure its called being full of shit.

lots of people will happily nod to any evidence of evolution and then happily say its 'not enough to make me believe', typically those people fall under the willfully stupid category. there's no helping people who hold uncomfortable beliefs to an unreasonably higher standard.

like for example: people who would rather not think less of their friends by critiquing their beliefs. You say they aren't ignorant, if that was true you wouldn't accept the theory of evolution either. After all, if you believed that they possessed the same information as you and doubted for legitimate reasons, well... why would you accept the theory if you also belief there's room for reasonable doubt?

 

[crazy monkey]

you can live perfectly normal and happy life believing in evolution does nothing to improve your quality of life or anything. Calling some one with any insult does nothing but creates wider gap between two group.

 

[Kinitari]

you can live perfectly normal and happy life believing in evolution does nothing to improve your quality of life or anything. Calling some one with any insult does nothing but creates wider gap between two group.

I agree. It is possible to live an entirely normal life - it's just... there's something inherently wrong, I think, in that sort of attitude. Ignoring the facts that don't fit into your world view.

 

[NekoFever]

So you just have to find some sort of pejoritive to call them?

How about "wrong". That's it. You don't have to question the integrity of their character beyond that.

Ignorant isn't a pejorative; it just means lacking knowledge. There are plenty of subjects that any one of us is ignorant about.

 

[ScOULaris]

You know, the OP's situation reminds me of this book that my wife read not too long ago.

Here's the Publisher's Weekly synopsis:

In what could be described as religious gonzo journalism, Roose documents his experiences as a student for a semester at Liberty University, the largest Christian fundamentalist university in the United States. Coming from progressive Brown University, the author admits that the transition to Liberty, with its iron-clad attempts at controlling student behavior, came with much anxiety. He trains himself to control his foul language and even begins to pray and study the Bible regularly, much to the bewilderment of his liberal Quaker parents. He suffers his way through a course debunking evolution, but finds enjoyment in a Scripture class. Roose may be young—he's a 19-year-old college sophomore—but he writes like a seasoned veteran and obviously enjoys his work. He quickly makes friends at Liberty, but is naïvely stunned and not a little disgusted by their antigay rhetoric. School founder Rev. Jerry Falwell granted Roose an interview for the student newspaper shortly before the famous evangelical's death in May 2007. "Complicated" is how Roose describes Falwell, which is a good descriptor for his undercover student experience.

I understand that you're in a shitty situation, but like others have said, I would encourage you to strike out on your own and switch to a secular university with more opportunities. Times are indeed tough, and it's harder to get loans (and jobs to pay off said loans) than ever. Despite all of that, however, it's definitely something to consider.

But I know strict Christian parents, and I understand the unfortunate shunning you would face should you express you true feelings to them. It's a damn shame, but I wish you luck.

 

[Parl]

I'll do my best, but it's been a while so might have a hard time explaining things. This what you can say without resorting at being a religious nut.

The first thing you have to accept there is no such thing as an absolute truth we as humans are incapable of ever finding that out. Every scientist should understand this as well. What we as humans can do is make assumptions about the world around us.

Why is it that humans aren't capable of finding the absolute truth? That is because with almost anything we do our objectivity is tainted by existing theories. If we look through a telescope what is the prove that what we see through the telescope is what portrays reality? Even what the color red means is defined by the people around us. It's simply impossible for humans to look at something objectively.

Does that mean science is useless? No of course not since with these assumptions we can predict the behavior of things around us, even if this isn't 100% accurate it still has worth.

Another important core part of science is that a theory has to be fallible. If a theory isn't fallible that theory is worthless. If theory can explain everything it explains nothing. Let's take Intelligent Design as example. Every single thing can be explained by saying that a "creator" intended that. There's no counter argument possible, but that also means it has no use for us. We aren't able to predict the behavior of something we can't even perceive.

Dawkins is wrong in saying that anyone that doesn't believe evolution is stupid. What if God literally showed himself to a few people and created life randomly before their eyes? Does that mean those people are stupid, if they from then on don't believe evolution?

Dawkins never explicity or even implicity suggested this though. He said you must be either of them, and he made a true statement (that you must be either stupid, insane, or ignorant). I don't know how to repair a boiler, and it's because I'm ignorant. I do know that the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, etc, are virtually certain. People who do not know these to be true are either ignorant of the overwhelming evidence, or express stupidity or insanity if they accept the evidence. Most people aren't stupid, just ignorant (everybody is ignorant), but indeed most people who are stupid are therefore ignorant. I think "delusional" is a more apt word than stupid, or maybe "silly" is a bit friendlier.

 

[Parl]

It's not about insulting them. It's about explaining how people can still not believe despite the heaping tons of evidence.

If you:

A) Know how evolution works, and know about much of the evidence;

B) Are intelligent enough to truly understand this knowledge, how it fits together, and why it is considered proof; and

C) Do not reject logic and facts in order to believe something else,

Then you believe in evolution. Period. You cannot be in all three groups and still reject evolution.

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then there is at least one of these categories that they do not fall in. Therefore, they are either A) ignorant, B) unintelligent, or C) insane.

Ignorance can be fixed. If iapetus's friends are truly intelligent and sane, then I have to conclude that the only reason they don't believe in evolution is because they haven't learned about it.

That's very well put. I think passionate campaigners for reason should be careful not to use words that people would find offensive (even if the received offense is entirely unjustified), because the doesn't fit in with his goal of minimising delusion in the world (belief without evidence) because it causes people to irrationally reject truths. Sometimes the offensiveness of the conclusion can be minimised by first presenting the reasoning and thought process and then bringing it to its logical conclusion like in the quoted post.

About the bolded, the only problem there though is that human minds can work such that if people learn the facts and evidence and therefore, ignorance goes, then contradicting beliefs induce either stupidity or insanity.

If you are intelligent and sane, but ignorant, you should have no beliefs about how human beings arised. It would be delusional to believe without having evidence (or having substantial reasons to trust another's judgement of the discipline's evidence). So any belief in creationism or intelligent design is delusional by default. Ignorance doesn't directly cause the wrong belief, it should cause no belief. If you believe incorrectly, that is stupidity or insanity (at least when it comes to the subject matter). A creationist cannot simply recognise the reality by teaching away their ignorance.

 

[JayDubya]

All you have to do is speculate why a strident, intolerant person is strident and intolerant?

I mean, hell, I'm an atheist well-versed in the details and derivations of evolutionary theory, and yes, Dawkins is an intolerant asshole.

That says nothing for the quality of his work, but it does speak for his personality and character in dealing with other people.

 

[Zaptruder]

It doesn't. It weighs in on his claim that no such people exist.

If you die tomorrow and left GAF with a lesson to learn... it would probably be something along the lines of:Qualify every statement you make. Bitches.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Your classmates' comments aside, all you're being asked to do is explain why his tone is intolerant and strident. Its that really much of a stretch given what he wrote? I suppose it is if you're one of those aetheists who like to be an asshole about it.

 

[Zzoram]

you can live perfectly normal and happy life believing in evolution does nothing to improve your quality of life or anything. Calling some one with any insult does nothing but creates wider gap between two group.

Yep, people can live ordinary and happy lives believing whatever mumbo jumbo they want.

However, as a whole, if we all believe in superstition and myths, this will only lead to a general decline in progress as people start to reject and fear logic and reason since their wold view is based on irrationality and anecdotes as it was thousands of years ago.

We're already seeing this, people who are afraid of vaccines and refuse to vaccinate their kids despite every bit of evidence in existence pointing to vaccines not causing autism. All because some guy did an obviously methodologically terrible study (not to mention unethical, drawing blood from children at a birthday party without consent or ethics approval) with the goal of helping his lawyer sue drug companies for a big payout. Then there is the huge and booming autism cure industry, all based on placebo or even worse, things that could harm those children.

The people who can't think logically about science are the same people who think that because we don't get measles in North America, it must therefore mean that the MMR vaccine is an unnecessary autism risk (despite no evidence despite repeated studies looking for autism risk). Now we're seeing a resurgence of measles, especially in California, where a lot of people have taken to irrational thinking.

Also many studies have identified that our brains are better wired to think irrationally rather than rationally since it was better suited for survival in hunter-gatherer nomadic life. The paranoid people who often (but not TOO often) thought they heard a cheetah and ran, were more likely to survive than those who waited for clear signs of a cheetah (which are hard to spot until it's too late), and more likely to survive than those who were constantly fearful and therefore didn't spend enough time doing things necessary to survive. So evolution favored a quantity of paranoia and believing things when there is no reason to believe them. Only in recent times have we been able to rise above this mental handicap and understand things that our minds are not well adapted for, such as physics (classic example is conservation of momentum, where a ball rolls down a spiral and when it comes out the end our minds expect the ball to continue to spiral) and things that exist but that we cannot detect with our natural senses.

The illogical world view permeates other areas of life and a shift back towards illogical thinking is only going to hurt society as a whole. It's so much easier to "believe" something without having to think about it logically or research evidence around a subject.

 

[nomster]

Join the military. You'll learn how to be a big boy and you'll get free college somewhere else. Problem solved.

This isn't a bad idea at all, your parents probably wouldnt even be against it

 

[Wilsongt]

That piece of shit University is here in SC? I really need to roll on out of this state.

 

[$1148 Jack]

"Richard Dawkins' tone is strident and intolerant because being a strong supporter of evolution, Dawkin cannot accept anything that can potentially weaken evolution. If one were to propose an error in evolution, the threat is too big. Dawkins, defending evolution, spoke with such intolerance because he, nor any critics, can accept the reality that evolution is a flawed ideology. In regard to Coyne's review on Hooper, Coyne likewise cannot accept the possibility of change in evolution. It is apparent that both Dawkin and Coyne are so set in their theory, that whatever comes their way is "foolish" or "ignorant." But, what if their theory is wrong? (And, it is.) "

Okay first things first, do the people that attend this 'religous university' need to have passed high school english? If I had submitted an assignment with similar grammar and spelling at the university I attended, I would have been laughed at.

 

[EliCash]

Your religious university is a fucking joke, be sure and tell them that. Creationism is hilariously and frustatingly beyond stupidity, tell them that also. Then bring to light how glaringly stupid your fellow classmates' comments are and how ridiculous the task is.

Show them their ignorance and get the fuck out and attend a proper school. You only live once, don't spend another second in that place.

 

[Xater]

Evolutionists don't seem to have any logic at all! They believe in something that they have no proof of, and refuse to believe in the Bible which has lot's of proof. They change their mind depending on what suits them best.

This is so true. The evolutionist has been brainwashed to believe a lie and when he finds that it is a lie he cannot admit it. Therefore several very intelligent men resort to throwing temper tantrums to get their way.

I don't even know what to say to this. I think if someone would tell this to my face, I would just shake my head in disbelief and walk away. Hopefully I would never have to interact with a dumbass like that again.

 

[The Technomancer]

Evolutionists don't seem to have any logic at all! They believe in something that they have no proof of, and refuse to believe in the Bible which has lot's of proof. They change their mind depending on what suits them best.

Holy shit I just noticed this what the fuck. How do you even do that by accident?

Also it's fascinating to see that the Creationists use the exact same "uneducated, believe without lack of proof" rhetoric against us that we use against them.

 

[Xater]

Holy shit I just noticed this what the fuck. How do you even do that by accident?

Also it's fascinating to see that the Creationists use the exact same "uneducated, believe without lack of proof" rhetoric against us that we use against them.

Well except they don't have any proof.

 

[DarthWoo]

Holy shit I just noticed this what the fuck. How do you even do that by accident?

Also it's fascinating to see that the Creationists use the exact same "uneducated, believe without lack of proof" rhetoric against us that we use against them.

The real irony of that is that studies suggest that the non-religious often know more about religions than the followers of those religions.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/dont-know-much-about-religion-youre-not-alone-study-finds/

 

[WickedAngel]

Anyone who says that it is hard to get student loans hasn't tried recently. In fact, I can't think of a time where I've actually heard that someone was denied for them. They're almost a risk-free venture for the banks since the debt can't be expelled via bankruptcy.

 

[crazy monkey]

Yep, people can live ordinary and happy lives believing whatever mumbo jumbo they want.

However, as a whole, if we all believe in superstition and myths, this will only lead to a general decline in progress as people start to reject and fear logic and reason since their wold view is based on irrationality and anecdotes as it was thousands of years ago.

We're already seeing this, people who are afraid of vaccines and refuse to vaccinate their kids despite every bit of evidence in existence pointing to vaccines not causing autism. All because some guy did an obviously methodologically terrible study (not to mention unethical, drawing blood from children at a birthday party without consent or ethics approval) with the goal of helping his lawyer sue drug companies for a big payout. Then there is the huge and booming autism cure industry, all based on placebo or even worse, things that could harm those children.

The people who can't think logically about science are the same people who think that because we don't get measles in North America, it must therefore mean that the MMR vaccine is an unnecessary autism risk (despite no evidence despite repeated studies looking for autism risk). Now we're seeing a resurgence of measles, especially in California, where a lot of people have taken to irrational thinking.

Also many studies have identified that our brains are better wired to think irrationally rather than rationally since it was better suited for survival in hunter-gatherer nomadic life. The paranoid people who often (but not TOO often) thought they heard a cheetah and ran, were more likely to survive than those who waited for clear signs of a cheetah (which are hard to spot until it's too late), and more likely to survive than those who were constantly fearful and therefore didn't spend enough time doing things necessary to survive. So evolution favored a quantity of paranoia and believing things when there is no reason to believe them. Only in recent times have we been able to rise above this mental handicap and understand things that our minds are not well adapted for, such as physics (classic example is conservation of momentum, where a ball rolls down a spiral and when it comes out the end our minds expect the ball to continue to spiral) and things that exist but that we cannot detect with our natural senses.

The illogical world view permeates other areas of life and a shift back towards illogical thinking is only going to hurt society as a whole. It's so much easier to "believe" something without having to think about it logically or research evidence around a subject.

Thanks for good reply. What I was stating is many people in there life never even think about origin of species or physics of cosmos. There are far more normal things that normal human beings need to worry about. Science is great I am student of it but you can not force science on some one neither there is need to call them stupid, ignorant or any other words. If the thinking is stopping progress in any way of science than yes you can protest. There is a reason why the gap between scientific community and religious people is growing because of the extreme approach by both group. When People like the biologist guy call everyone stupid and some people in one of the usa state build creationist museum It has the same effect.

 

[opticalmace]

Move out, get a job, go to a community college.

 

[speculawyer]

It's not about insulting them. It's about explaining how people can still not believe despite the heaping tons of evidence.

If you:
A) Know how evolution works, and know about much of the evidence;
B) Are intelligent enough to truly understand this knowledge, how it fits together, and why it is considered proof; and
C) Do not reject logic and facts in order to believe something else,
Then you believe in evolution. Period. You cannot be in all three groups and still reject evolution.

If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then there is at least one of these categories that they do not fall in. Therefore, they are either A) ignorant, B) unintelligent, or C) insane.

Ignorance can be fixed. If iapetus's friends are truly intelligent and sane, then I have to conclude that the only reason they don't believe in evolution is because they haven't learned about it.

Yep. Dawkin's phrasing does come off quite condescending and insulting . . . but that is his schtick. But when you look at what the statement says, it really just puts people that don't believe in evolution into one of 3 categories:
1) People that have not bothered to learn about all the evidence and understand what it means. (The evidence really is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' convincing.)
2) People that are incapable of (1) since they lack the intelligence to fully understand and appreciate the evidence.
3) People are that are just being delusional (insane) about it . . . if they've fully learned about the evidence and fully understood it, yet continue not to believe then they are just being insane.

I think a lot of people are in (1) because they've never bothered to look at the evidence and consider it with an open mind. And many intentionally do so . . . willfully ignorant. They really don't want to know.

People like Ken Hamm (creation museum guy) probably has to fit in (2) or (3). Although you could maybe put him in (1) and say that he just refuses to look at the evidence with an open mind . . . but isn't that just (3)?

 

[speculawyer]

The real irony of that is that studies suggest that the non-religious often know more about religions than the followers of those religions.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/dont-know-much-about-religion-youre-not-alone-study-finds/

And although it is ironic, it really is not surprising in the least. If I could make myself believe in a magical after-life utopia, I would. I just can't.

 

[tokkun]

Its not a double standard at all. Actually, its holding them both to the same standard. If Dawkins is going to claim that he is better then the other side, then he should act like it. Just because creationists/religious zealots are strident and intolerant doesn't give him a free pass to act the same way.

It seems that you are saying it doesn't matter what idea the person is being intolerant toward. Is being tolerant, in and of itself, necessarily "better"?. For instance, one might be intolerant and strident in their condemnation of rape or genocide. I would argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with being tolerant or intolerant; instead it is a matter of context.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Dawkins is a fantastic biologist, but when he tries to extend beyond that into sociological and theological musing, he tends to overextend himself; simple as that. Right or not, he tends to make his arguments ineffectively from a rhetorical standpoint, though the extent to which he is an intolerant asshole is, I think, exaggerated by most.

 

[Stridone]

I wonder where the "Dawkins is a smug asshole" myth came from... I think he has amazing patience considering the idiocy he encounters on a day to day basis.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I wonder where the "Dawkins is a smug asshole" myth came from... I think he has amazing patience considering the idocy he encounters on a day to day basis.

Yep.

 

[speculawyer]

I wonder where the "Dawkins is a smug asshole" myth came from... I think he has amazing patience considering the idocy he encounters on a day to day basis.

I think it just arises from being bluntly honest. To some degree, there is no way around these things.


You see these inter-faith groups that work to have different religions get along. That is great and I appreciate their efforts.

But to some degree . . . it is mind-boggling cognitive dissonance. Religion A may say that you have to believe X or you are going to hell! Yet they strive hard to get along with religion B. Even though they are saying people of religion B are going straight to hell. And religion B may have a penalty of death for people that switch to religion C . . . yet they try to get along with them.


Dawkins just cuts through the bullshit . . . this is what the science says. If you don't believe it, you are ignorant, stupid, or insane. That is pretty smug asshole-ish . . . but that is just the hard facts.

Now we can all do little white lies on how grandma's cooking was great (even though it was shit). But things like scientific facts and the various world-wide policies that extend from them are too important to let the little white-lies persist. When you have legislators saying that climate change is a hoax because God promised Noah that he wouldn't drown us, you gotta stand up and call such people dangerous idiots.

 

[sullytao]

Creationists don't seem to have any logic at all! They believe in something that they have no proof of, and refuse to believe in Evolution which has lot's of proof. They change their mind depending on what suits them best.

I think we can all agree that this is the only way that statement makes any sense.

 

[Freshmaker]

So you just have to find some sort of pejoritive to call them?

How about "wrong". That's it. You don't have to question the integrity of their character beyond that.

Ignorant isn't a pejorative.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Well, for all the direction this thread has taken, that seems to me a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Why the hate for it?

Of course Dawkins is strident and intolerant (when has he not been?) - it's a combination of his reasonable conviction of what is true and his reasonably irritated approach to those who deny it without reason. What does anybody want? That Dawkins because he is right (which he is) should not be accused of being strident and intolerant (definitely both)?

Kind of sounds like double standards to me.

Of course, the answer you give to the college may not be what they expect, but doesn't mean that the question is at all invalid. And so far as the answer goes, that's your call. How far do you want to go?

I remember one Christian lecture about how Christians should be "intolerant" of certain things because they are holding themselves to a certain standard. This standard is an obviously false one, but that is how they view themselves.

If, in this case, the professor was using intolerance to mean "not tolerant of views that one finds fatuous", then that would certainly apply to Dawkins, and for good reason. By that definition, everybody is intolerant to a degree and has a right to be. But there is the clear undertone that intolerant is being used as a code word to mean ignorant, which is ironic coming from a creationist. They are whining because Dawkins is criticizing a bankrupt ideology that they subscribe to. Furthermore, the professor is not actually encouraging the use of facts. That Dawkins is wrong is obviously taken as a given by them. That is because anything that opposes a literal reading of the Bible (or at least their reading of a literal reading) has to be wrong.

Anyway, I don't see the double standard. I'm sure that if Dawkins was ask, he would also want to be called out in such "strident" ways if he was wrong about something so large and obvious. And he would deserve to be.

Dawkins is, of course, wrong, and the question of why he's so strident about his views is an interesting one to some extent, but not when it's part of such an ideologically loaded agenda.

I say that he's wrong because I've met people who don't entirely believe in evolution who are intelligent, humble and sane. I disagree with them thoroughly and think they are wrong to hold the views they do, but I'm not going to deny that they exist, and I'm not going to make the mistake of claiming that because they don't fit into my preconceptions of creationists I get to dismiss them as insane.

I think that even Dawkins would admit that intelligence is complex and nuanced and makes words like intelligent and stupid somewhat limited when employed. Intelligence, after all, has many facets, and it's possible to be right in one aspect and wrong in another. There is a fair amount of dissonance occurring in someone who denies evolution. Perhaps they just haven't thought it out very well. Dawkins does make room for the possibility of ignorance. Not that the person is completely ignorant, but that they are ignorant about evolution. His remedy for this is to learn about evolution (his quote was taken, from all things, from brief book review, which is bizarre in and of itself).

 

[Lesath]

(his quote was taken, from all things, from brief book review, which is bizarre in and of itself).

The origin of the unmodified form of that quote apparently is another book review that offers a more apologetic tone after the initial "harsh" statement. I also find it odd that the article written by Dawkins to address this backlash was also not used for the purposes of this laughable assignment.

Whether purposefully or maniacally, presenting a short excerpt of a book review can easily mislead the reader to perceive a great deal more hostility than actually present.

 

[Zenith]

People get offended when Dawkins doesn't humour them and asks the obvious questions.

 

[Mario]

I wonder where the "Dawkins is a smug asshole" myth came from... I think he has amazing patience considering the idiocy he encounters on a day to day basis.

The Wendy Wright interview is a great example of his patience at work. That whole TV series has him calmly and politely addressing deniers of evolution when the average person would be banging their head against the wall and reduced to a shouting match.

I think he probably has picked up a "smug asshole" reputation amongst some by a combination of his British accent and taking the problem head on as speculawyer suggests. He doesn't give religion a political correctness free pass, and questions both beliefs and believers in a way others wouldn't in public. Bringing the cold facts to the table in his direct manner leaves some opposers no choice but to frame him as a "smug asshole" in order to misdirect the discussion away from the evidence and towards rhetoric around "intolerance" and "closemindedness" (which is exactly how the exercise in the OP has been positioned).

That said, when playing to a sympathetic audience, he does take the very occasional pot shot in an attempt at humour though which doesn't do him any favours.

With respect to his specific comments mentioned in this thread, I think some people are quick to forget the context of his statements. Perhaps if the statements were augmented to read more like "ignorant with respect to evolution" they would come across as less of an insult, and more as I believe the way he intends them - just a statement of fact around that specific domain. The word ignorant as it is defined is not inherently an insult, merely an indicator of a lack of knowledge.

As others have said, people can be very intelligent in general but simultaneously ignorant of evolution. Indeed, people can even be a step further being both very intelligent but completely misinformed with respect to evolution (I don't know what you'd call that).

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I'll give a serious answer in case no one else has yet:

Dawkins' tone is intolerant because he is so well educated in this field. The theory of evolution is so easily falsifiable (all it would take is one incompatible piece of evidence to destroy the theory), has so much evidence supporting it (a literally uncountable amount), and has led to so many correct predictions that the likelihood that it is correct is very high (far more likely, for example, than the likelihood that the people who you think are your parents actually being your real parents).

what makes evolution so strong is that it is built on many hypotheses and destroying a single one of these hypotheses with evidence does not mean evolution as a whole is incorrect. so I am disagreeing with your statement that all it would take is one incompatible piece of evidence to destroy the theory. It would take many. That is why we do not take creationists, who point to one or two pieces of evidence that seem to contradict evolution or suggest that evolution is fraudlent, seriously.

 

[Zzoram]

what makes evolution so strong is that it is built on many hypotheses and destroying a single one of these hypotheses with evidence does not mean evolution as a whole is incorrect. so I am disagreeing with your statement that all it would take is one incompatible piece of evidence to destroy the theory. It would take many. That is why we do not take creationists, who point to one or two pieces of evidence that seem to contradict evolution or suggest that evolution is fraudlent, seriously.

not to mention that the "evidence" creationists point to are usually just gaps in information, not actual contradictions of theory

also, a lot of the traditional creationist arguments have evaporated with new knowledge from more recent experiments and observations

 

[phisheep]

Yep. Dawkin's phrasing does come off quite condescending and insulting . . . but that is his schtick. But when you look at what the statement says, it really just puts people that don't believe in evolution into one of 3 categories:
1) People that have not bothered to learn about all the evidence and understand what it means. (The evidence really is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' convincing.)
2) People that are incapable of (1) since they lack the intelligence to fully understand and appreciate the evidence.
3) People are that are just being delusional (insane) about it . . . if they've fully learned about the evidence and fully understood it, yet continue not to believe then they are just being insane.

I think a lot of people are in (1) because they've never bothered to look at the evidence and consider it with an open mind. And many intentionally do so . . . willfully ignorant. They really don't want to know.

People like Ken Hamm (creation museum guy) probably has to fit in (2) or (3). Although you could maybe put him in (1) and say that he just refuses to look at the evidence with an open mind . . . but isn't that just (3)?

That's well put, but there's a whole lot of people that don't believe in evolution and do not fit into any of those categories.

This would include everybody to whom the matter of whether evolution happened or not is simply nowhere near the top of their priorities. After all, whyever should it be? Regardless of how we all got here there are jobs to be done, children to raise, all the usual hassles and opportunities of life to deal with. People may have come across evolution and the evidence for it, and sort of understand how it fits together, but quite rationally not 'believe in' evolution through humbly acknowledging that they have neither the time nor the inclination to go into it all enough to satisfy themselves properly.

That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. A sort of evolution agnostic. And it doesn't mean that you're ignorant, deluded or stupid. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

Just because someone yells 'look at all the evidence' doesn't put anyone under any obligation to actually do so.

 

[speculawyer]

That's well put, but there's a whole lot of people that don't believe in evolution and do not fit into any of those categories.

This would include everybody to whom the matter of whether evolution happened or not is simply nowhere near the top of their priorities. After all, whyever should it be? Regardless of how we all got here there are jobs to be done, children to raise, all the usual hassles and opportunities of life to deal with. People may have come across evolution and the evidence for it, and sort of understand how it fits together, but quite rationally not 'believe in' evolution through humbly acknowledging that they have neither the time nor the inclination to go into it all enough to satisfy themselves properly.

That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. A sort of evolution agnostic. And it doesn't mean that you're ignorant, deluded or stupid. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

Just because someone yells 'look at all the evidence' doesn't put anyone under any obligation to actually do so.

It does mean they are ignorant. People need to stop taking it so personally.

Look, I'm ignorant about Opera. I just really don't know much about it. I'm not proud of being ignorant about it but I don't really care either.


And if they haven't spent the time & effort to learn all about evolution, then they should be honest to say that they are largely ignorant about. And perhaps for many, that is the better position because they really don't want to deal with the philosophical and religions implications of it. (Or they may also not want to find out that they just lack the intelligence understand it.)

 

[Mgoblue201]

To augment my last point, you'd have to believe some very strange things in order to deny evolution. Specifically:

1) Scientists, some of the smartest people on Earth who devote their entire lives to figuring out these problems, are wrong and deluded.

2) Scientists actively try to suppress the truth, even though the entire basis of science is openness and free expression.

Or you simply haven't thought through these points very well. Either way, it is a huge intellectual problem. Intuitively, it's easy to grasp the fact that in a free and open progressive society, it is absolutely crucial to have trust in the scientific endeavor. Even if you understand little about evolution, therefore, I think an appeal to authority is not only warranted, but necessary. That doesn't mean that you have to trust scientists on, say, the precise origin of birds, or the exact role of natural selection vs. genetic drift, because there is still disagreement on these matters, but the opposite of believing that the "descent with modification" question has been entirely solved by scientists is believing that the scientific establishment is completely rotten to its core, which is a far, far worse proposition. And that is what leads to such absurd conclusions as what you see in the response of the classmates to the initial question.

The origin of the unmodified form of that quote apparently is another book review that offers a more apologetic tone after the initial "harsh" statement. I also find it odd that the article written by Dawkins to address this backlash was also not used for the purposes of this laughable assignment.

Whether purposefully or maniacally, presenting a short excerpt of a book review can easily mislead the reader to perceive a great deal more hostility than actually present.

I am not an overwhelming proponent of Dawkins, but in some ways his comments are even fair. He is largely dealing with a group of people who see evolution as the downfall of moral civilization. This is a significant part of the population. In many ways this class simply proves his point. Some people may recoil that he is using the word ignorant. But ignorant does not mean stupid. It simply means "lacks learning". Denying evolution is the very definition of lacking learning, at least for most people. This is basic biology that should be covered extensively by middle and high school courses. The fault, therefore, is in ourselves.

 

[Monocle]

I wonder where the "Dawkins is a smug asshole" myth came from... I think he has amazing patience considering the idiocy he encounters on a day to day basis.

It's a combination of baseless smear tactics from people who have no valid answers to his arguments (no one who's listened to a single one of Dawkins's lectures, much less read one of his books, could honestly call him smug) and the bizarre, depressingly common notion that religion deserves privileged status in the marketplace of ideas. People get can really pissy when someone cares enough about truth to evaluate religion on its own merits and, finding it wanting, publicly discuss their conclusions.

 

[Erigu]

the bizarre, depressingly common notion that religion deserves privileged status in the marketplace of ideas.

Because it's sacred, y'know. Circular logic for the win!