Richard Dawkins Smacks Down on Rick Perry

[maledoro]

Love him or hate him, Dawkins does drive home important points...

We all know Texas Governor and GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Perry is full of it with his anti-science agenda, and we've read about his close ties to a cadre of religious extremists who have anointed him for privileging religion over scientific evidence (his "pray for rain" moment being a prime example).

Still, a smackdown from none other than Richard Dawkins on the subject of those outmoded, dangerous beliefs has a particularly satisfying highbrow but low-blow quality to it. Dawkins, an evolutionary bioligist and outspoken atheist, delivered such a smackdown to Perry in the course of a Q and A in the Washington Post's On Faith column.

Dawkins said that while a candidate's views on evolution are not paramount, they're indicative of his or her ability to understand science and his or her general levels of educational literacy.

He also had harsh words for the valuation of ignorance among the Republican electorate.

Here are some choice excerpts:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/657136/famed_scientist_richard_dawkins_destroys_rick_perry_on_evolution/

[Nev]

Always hated Dawkins. He's nothing but a fame-hungry, hypocrit prick who's too much of a chickenshit to say anything about Islam. South Park's portrayal of him was spot on.

Also, I wasn't aware the evolution theory explained the meaning of life.

[deezelboy]

It does, it's just the answer is meaningless. 

Given the the Washington Post's On Faith column starts off with mention that only 38% of Americans 'say they believe in evolution' I'd say that it's pretty much a no-brainer why a party might put  somebody up for election who was prepared to say they might not believe in evolution if they thought that it might garner some votes.

Weird stuff from Dawkins' Washington Post column:

Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.

So Darwin's idea was 'a bad theory' for at least 50 years after publication?  WTF? 

[Hieronymus]

The problem with that is how one defines a "fact."  Is "general homology of mammalian forelimb structures" a single fact, or would we count the homology between the hand of a human and that of a rhesus monkey as one fact, and the homologous bone structure of a rhesus hand and a lesser mammal as another fact?

Always hated Dawkins.

He is a bit of an asshole, and that's coming from someone who likes him.

He's ... too much of a chickenshit to say anything about Islam.

I have no comment on the bit that I've redacted, but he's definitely not afraid to insult Islam.

[SiL]

Richard Dawkins is to evolution and atheism what PETA is to animal welfare.

[Nev]

He is a bit of an asshole, and that's coming from someone who likes him.

Bit of an asshole? I take it you've read The God Delusion, it's like he's turned atheism into his religion or something.

I have no comment on the bit that I've redacted, but he's definitely not afraid to insult Islam.

Interesting, I had no idea. His anti-Christianity commentaries seem to get a lot more attention. Any idea if Dawkins has been fatwa'd yet?

[SM]

I had time for Dawkins once upon a time, but quickly found he's too much of an extremist to be taken seriously.

That said, the overall point he makes above is hard to argue with.

Though as Nev said, I don't agree evolution explains why we're here.  How, but not why.

[beckmen]

Bit of an asshole? I take it you've read The God Delusion, it's like he's turned atheism into his religion or something.

I imagine he is trying to fight fire with fire. Shake people out of complacency or something. Let's face it, Atheists and Agnostics aren't typically as loud-mouthed as Christians. It's hard to get people to come around to your way or thinking if you're not actively recruiting, and being a PR whore.

As for Perry...Oi. Sounds like he'll be an enemy of civil rights and medical science breakthroughs. *sighs*

[SM]

It's also hard to get people round your way of thinking if you start out by calling them delusional.  If I want to read people talking about atheism, gimme Douglas Adams any day.

[deezelboy]

Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading a creationist on biology.

The problem with that is how one defines a "fact."  Is "general homology of mammalian forelimb structures" a single fact, or would we count the homology between the hand of a human and that of a rhesus monkey as one fact, and the homologous bone structure of a rhesus hand and a lesser mammal as another fact?

But if you've got two rival theories attempting to explain the same phenomena?  Both can cite the same number of 'facts' that the other does, and it will then come down to the number of assumptions, according to Dawkins' ratio.  And if the creationists only have one, admittedly big, assumption, and Darwin has many, then the creationists have the most powerful scientific theory.

[maledoro]

Uh, this thread is actually about Rick Perry, not Richard Dawkins.  

[Neltharion]

Ban them all for Spaming!

I am genuinely terrified that someone like Rick Perry may be elected in 2012, if so. We are in for a rough ride. But I take heart that if someone who does not appeal to the centre/independents is the GOP candidate there is a chance they wont get elected.

But I agree with what Dawkins is saying, a bit of a dick he may be, it still is true. At least from this view.

[maledoro]

Ban them all for Spaming!

I am genuinely terrified that someone like Rick Perry may be elected in 2012, if so. We are in for a rough ride. But I take heart that if someone who does not appeal to the centre/independents is the GOP candidate there is a chance they wont get elected.

And the fact he is promoting scientific illiteracy.

But I agree with what Dawkins is saying, a bit of a dick he may be, it still is true. At least from this view.

Yes, we all know what Dawkins has been like for the last 30+ years...

[Neltharion]

Rick Perry is promoting Scientific Literacy?

[maledoro]

Rick Perry is promoting Scientific Literacy?

Yes, and Dawkins is running for the American Presidency...