Good article on Dawkins' closedmindedness

[AndOne]

www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/06/the-only-game-in-town-richard-dawkins-and-the-limits-of-reason/

 

[sfs]

www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/06/the-only-game-in-town-richard-dawkins-and-the-limits-of-reason/

The article would have been more effective, as well as more interesting, if it had presented some evidence that Dawkins was wrong about anything he writes.

 

[AndOne]

The article would have been more effective, as well as more interesting, if it had presented some evidence that Dawkins was wrong about anything he writes.

That wasn't the point of the article.

 

[Dark_Lite]

That wasn't the point of the article.

So then what was the point?

 

[gluadys]

www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/06/the-only-game-in-town-richard-dawkins-and-the-limits-of-reason/

Opening paragraph in the article.

Evolution by natural selection is “the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth,” asserts Richard Dawkins. We have come to expect claims like this from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous defender of Darwinian evolution alive today. Unlike many intellectuals, Dawkins manages to stay singularly focused and on message. He is the planet’s foremost evangelist for evolution, and he is absolutely certain that the evolutionary worldview is indeed “the only game in town.” He is clearly frustrated that so many dwellers of the Earth refuse to accept his message.​

How many people noted Mohler's switch from Dawkin's actual message "Evolution by natural selection is 'the only game in town' (or as he is quoted further down "Evolution is a fact") to the more dubious proposal the "The evolutionary worldview is indeed 'the only game in town'."


The latter is Mohler speaking not Dawkins.

Evolution is, indeed, a fact, whether one adopts an "evolutionary worldview" (whatever that is) or not. Just because Mohler doesn't like Dawkin's worldview doesn't mean he has shown Dawkins' factual information is incorrect. Some people who agree with Dawkins on the facts don't like his worldview either.

 

[philadiddle]

www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/06/the-only-game-in-town-richard-dawkins-and-the-limits-of-reason/

This explains what Dawkins thinks and how he comes across, but is Dawkins wrong? The article doesn't speak to whether Dawkins is right or wrong.

To repeat what was already asked, what is the point of this article?

edit - And I too noted the mention of "evolutionary worldview" but that term is as meaningless as "gravitational worldview".

 

[solarwave]

I don't see how it says anything meaningful against Dawkins.

Also near the end the writter says: "He [Dawkins] really believes (or at least really claims) that those who disagree with him are insane, deluded, intellectually perverse, and unintelligent." Here he misses out Dawkins point that they may just be mis/uninformed.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The writer criticises Dawkins for using evolution to promote a nihilistic world view and comparing anti-evolutionists to holocaust deniers. As OP says, Mohler is criticising his dogmatic attitude, not evolution itself (at least not in this particular article).

 

[philadiddle]

The writer criticises Dawkins for using evolution to promote a nihilistic world view

I didn't get that out of the article, but I suppose you could indirectly infer that.

and comparing anti-evolutionists to holocaust deniers.

Is this a bad comparison?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

comparing anti-evolutionists to holocaust deniers.

Is this a bad comparison?

Certainly - Creationists may be foolish (or just plain ignorant) but it's not fair to compare them to racial supremacists who want to erase one of the worse genocides of the 20th century from history.

 

[jckstraw72]

the Holocaust was witnessed, whereas a blob turning into everything on earth is merely a conjecture witnessed by literally no one. theyre not even remotely comparable.

 

[shernren]

Certainly - Creationists may be foolish (or just plain ignorant) but it's not fair to compare them to racial supremacists who want to erase one of the worse genocides of the 20th century from history.

And then there was Research2 ...

 

[Walter Kovacs]

He's not usually wrong about science stuff.

When it comes to philosophy/theology though, he's laughably wrong. But since he thinks they are non-subjects about nothing, it's not surprising.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

And then there was Research2 ...

True. But he ws an unusual case. Heck, even Mark Kennedy argued against him.