Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:TerryH

2012-03-06T13:55:36Z

HatFullOfSky: /* Question evolution! campaign community */

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:A campaign created by idiots and promoted by cowards. Terry, Terry, why do you associate yourself with this nonsense? CNAV is better than that.--[[User:HatFullOfSky|HatFullOfSky]] 08:55, 6 March 2012 (EST)

== Ragnar Danneskjöld ==

I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.

There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Richard Dawkins

2012-03-06T13:34:01Z

HatFullOfSky: /* Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser */ Who cares what Vox Day wrote? He's a blowhard idiot.

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|Richard Dawkins]]
Clinton '''Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal_Society|FRS]], FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a [[biologist|biologist]], [[evolution|evolutionist]], [[atheist]], [[agnosticism|agnostic]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]]) and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]].<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> Moreover, in terms of the [[theism]] vs. [[agnosticism]]/[[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[theology]] and [[philosophy]]. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in the book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> In 2006, and again in February 2012, Dawkins placed himsef at above 6 on a scale where 1 represents theism and 7 represents absolute atheism.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten</ref>

Richard Dawkins has also established [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents]]. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Mariano Grinbank]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention (to which CMI were not even invited, but never mind.)<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]]. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<ref name="cv">http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml</ref>

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|right|When Richard Dawkins was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref>

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.
=== Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Western atheism and race]]

[[File:Slave auction.jpg|250px|right|thumbnail|On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that Richard "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>]]
On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref> On February 19, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' reported:
{{cquote|Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.

The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in [[Jamaica]] until he died in 1744.

His 400-acre family estate, Over Norton Park near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, is believed to have been bought with money made through slave ownership hundreds of years ago...

Richard's son, Henry, married into another of Jamaica's powerful slave trading families and left 1,013 slaves worth £40,736 when he died 1744.

The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against [[William Wilberforce]]'s plans to abolish the slave trade<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>}}

([[William Wilberforce]] was a devout [[Christianity|Christian]], philanthropist,[[abolitionist]], and the leader of the campaign against the [[Slave Trade]]).

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|250px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref> The video can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Inability to address the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign ==

Recently, a group of [[Question evolution! campaign]] supporters declared that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], which are the central focus of the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-archangel-vs-richard-dawkins.html Michael the Archangel vs. Richard Dawkins - Michael wins!]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-matter-richard-dawkins-cat-got.html What's the matter Richard Dawkins? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!]</ref> The [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] is a campaign by [[Creation Ministries International]], who previously stumped Dawkins in a video taped interview (see section above).<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> A 13-year old Christian young man of a Question evolution! campaign supporter group posted a humorous two part video series at his YouTube channel entitled ''Michael the Archangel meets Richard Dawkins''.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChYSr4Q9Y8&feature=BFp&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6 VIDEO] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tndK46gqd2Y&feature=BFa&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6&lf=BFp Part 2 of the VIDEO] The two part video points out that Dawkins is unable to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and that he has been stumped again by Creation Ministries International.
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|306px|right|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[Atheism|atheist]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler />]]

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here] and [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%22billions-and-billions-demons%22 here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution|evolutionary]] quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

== New Atheism ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]] and [[Daniel Dennett]].

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a [[liberal]], speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|right|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[Atheism and suicide|atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]].<ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]]

In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins]]

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|251px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2384,n,n</ref>

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...<ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref>}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

==Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed the Debate Never Took Place==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,
 
 
(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from [http://flickr.com/photos/shanepope/2402173645/ Flickr, see license agreement)] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<ref>http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/09/03/shmuley-boteach-vs-richard-dawkins/</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|right|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33209</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate [[creation|creationists]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of [[creationism]]/[[creation science]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig|Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig]] one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of [[Creation Ministries International]] is not surprising given that there are [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents]]. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach]] according to the college audience.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Atheism|Atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]],
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem [[evolution|for quite valid reasons]] so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|debate strong theistic debaters]] is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it]], shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previosly Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>.(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/668738335/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and the women and minority population ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> One possible explanation of many women's lack of interest in the message of Richard Dawkins is the [[abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]. For example, as note earlier, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref> Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism]] and [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, as noted earlier, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]])

Recently, as alluded to earlier [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

'''Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus'''

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}

=== Racial Minority population views' of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website richarddawkins.net: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> In addition, according to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website samharris.org: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This suggest that the New Atheist movement may be significantly less appealing to racial minorities.

=== Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the white male audience ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins' and atheist [[Sam Harris]]' message.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This finding suggest that [[New Atheism]] movement is significant more appealing to white males.

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between the theory of [[evolution]] and the opposing positions of [[Creation Science|creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that [[creationism]] or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an [[atheist]] and evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When [[atheists]] attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain.<ref>http://www.robertwinston.org/main.html</ref> In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality".<ref name="deedes">[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece Henry Deedes, Friends disunited on the place of religion in science, The Independent, August 21, 2006]</ref> Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<ref name="deedes" />

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.<ref>http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11</ref>}}

[[Atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<ref name="TDD3" />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: [[Atheist]] Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

==Darwin's Rottweiler and the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml</ref>}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/[[intelligent design]] circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" /> Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>http://www.christianity.com/1350327/</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|110px|right|Ex-[[atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October of 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> [[Atheist]] [[author]] and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that [[atheists]] should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>[[Psychology|Psychologist]] and [[ex-atheist]] Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he focuses on his study of the lives of more than a dozen leading [[atheists]].<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of [[Atheism]]], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref> Dr. Vitz has stated there were two common factors he observed in the leading [[atheists]] he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Richard Dawkins is listed as an "Enthusiastic Bright" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[Philosopher|philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

==Non-Academic Position at Oxford==
Up until his retirement from the post in September 2008, Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]], having been appointed as the first holder of this endowed position<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>. One Reverend has accused him of using his post "not to promote science, but rather his own [[atheistic]] materialist philosophy."<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1374931.ece</ref>

The "post" was a donated one, and is not a normal professorship<ref> "[...] the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College, on such terms and conditions as Council and the General Board may determine, and to provide support costs for such a post to be administered in accordance with ibid., cl. 5." [http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec]</ref> at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the [[University of Oxford]]. The "post" did not entail "substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University." According to the Simonyi Professorship website, the professor holding this position is to "communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people."<ref> "[...] the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists." [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml Aims of the Simonyi Professorship]</ref> However, in a review of the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by Richard Dawkins, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] has stated regarding Dawkins's position at Oxford:
[[Image:35242.jpg‎|right|thumb|125px|Paul Johnson]]
{{cquote|British author Paul Johnson called it ‘Oxford’s first Chair of [[Atheism]].’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes [[physics]], [[chemistry]], experimental [[biology]] and [[geology]], etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science.<ref name="cotw" />}}

It has been claimed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the special terms of this gift might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor" as he believes a decree by Oxford seems to imply this. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote about Dawkins' claim to legitimate professorship:
{{cquote|Many publications refer to you as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins, even though, as your critics maintain, leading Universities regularly deny to any Professor who played a role in acquiring the funding for their own chair the use of the title. Your critics may be wrong here, Richard, but they cite the fact that the Oxford University Hebdomadal Council Decree of 6 November 1995, establishing the Charles Simonyi Professorship, says that you hold a "post" rather than a "professorship." They write that since your post was endowed by Charles Simonyi and the terms of the gift allowed you to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required for a professorship, it will become a "professorship" only when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process, which, they maintain, was not conducted for your receipt of the post. Now, you defended yourself in a posting on your website, dated Sept. 28, 2006, and wrote that you were "elected to the Charles Simonyi Professorship." But that does seem to directly contradict the Hebdamadol Council decree cited above which expressly says "Notwithstanding the provisions of Ch. VII, Sect. III (which discuss the election of a professor to the post), the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College." It seems, so your critics contend, that your appointment was a condition of the grant rather than the product of an election, and since it may be that you are falsely maligned in the matter, your clarification as to the true nature of your professorship, whose official location is the Museum of Natural History, is welcomed."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>}}

Richard Dawkins announced his intention to retire from his position in September 2008:

:"The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008."<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2246,Charles-Simonyi-Professorship-in-the-Public-Understanding-of-Science,Richard-Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science]</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989) 
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990) 
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990) 
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997) 
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001) 
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005) 
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006) 
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007) 
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science 
* Fellow of the Royal Society<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

== Essays relating to Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
*[[Essay: Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?|Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?]]

== Comedy and satires concerning Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins in his native habitat|Richard Dawkins in his native habitat]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience|Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign| Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] - satire

==See Also==

*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[Conservapedia: Richard Dawkins Project|Richard Dawkins Project]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - [[satire]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

== External Links ==

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Articles/videos on Richard Dawkins dodging debates:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the cowardly clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrW-ZUjyWmU Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''News stories:'''

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1122dawkins.asp Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply [[atheist]] literature to schools]
*[http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle]
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/professor-dawkins-rabbi-boteach-and.html Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

'''Other:'''

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins A fawning article on Richard Dawkins by Wikipedia] ([[Wikipedia]] was founded by atheist [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Larry Sanger]])

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Richard Dawkins

2012-03-06T13:28:52Z

HatFullOfSky:

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|Richard Dawkins]]
Clinton '''Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal_Society|FRS]], FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a [[biologist|biologist]], [[evolution|evolutionist]], [[atheist]], [[agnosticism|agnostic]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]]) and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]].<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> Moreover, in terms of the [[theism]] vs. [[agnosticism]]/[[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[theology]] and [[philosophy]]. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in the book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> In 2006, and again in February 2012, Dawkins placed himsef at above 6 on a scale where 1 represents theism and 7 represents absolute atheism.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten</ref>

Richard Dawkins has also established [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents]]. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Mariano Grinbank]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention (to which CMI were not even invited, but never mind.)<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]]. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<ref name="cv">http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml</ref>

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|right|When Richard Dawkins was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref>

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.
=== Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Western atheism and race]]

[[File:Slave auction.jpg|250px|right|thumbnail|On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that Richard "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>]]
On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref> On February 19, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' reported:
{{cquote|Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.

The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in [[Jamaica]] until he died in 1744.

His 400-acre family estate, Over Norton Park near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, is believed to have been bought with money made through slave ownership hundreds of years ago...

Richard's son, Henry, married into another of Jamaica's powerful slave trading families and left 1,013 slaves worth £40,736 when he died 1744.

The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against [[William Wilberforce]]'s plans to abolish the slave trade<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>}}

([[William Wilberforce]] was a devout [[Christianity|Christian]], philanthropist,[[abolitionist]], and the leader of the campaign against the [[Slave Trade]]).

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|250px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref> The video can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Inability to address the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign ==

Recently, a group of [[Question evolution! campaign]] supporters declared that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], which are the central focus of the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-archangel-vs-richard-dawkins.html Michael the Archangel vs. Richard Dawkins - Michael wins!]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-matter-richard-dawkins-cat-got.html What's the matter Richard Dawkins? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!]</ref> The [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] is a campaign by [[Creation Ministries International]], who previously stumped Dawkins in a video taped interview (see section above).<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> A 13-year old Christian young man of a Question evolution! campaign supporter group posted a humorous two part video series at his YouTube channel entitled ''Michael the Archangel meets Richard Dawkins''.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChYSr4Q9Y8&feature=BFp&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6 VIDEO] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tndK46gqd2Y&feature=BFa&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6&lf=BFp Part 2 of the VIDEO] The two part video points out that Dawkins is unable to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and that he has been stumped again by Creation Ministries International.
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|306px|right|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[Atheism|atheist]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler />]]

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here] and [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%22billions-and-billions-demons%22 here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution|evolutionary]] quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|[[Vox Day]] ]]
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])

== New Atheism ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]] and [[Daniel Dennett]].

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a [[liberal]], speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|right|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[Atheism and suicide|atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]].<ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]]

In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins]]

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|251px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2384,n,n</ref>

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...<ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref>}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

==Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed the Debate Never Took Place==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,
 
 
(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from [http://flickr.com/photos/shanepope/2402173645/ Flickr, see license agreement)] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<ref>http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/09/03/shmuley-boteach-vs-richard-dawkins/</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|right|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33209</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate [[creation|creationists]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of [[creationism]]/[[creation science]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig|Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig]] one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of [[Creation Ministries International]] is not surprising given that there are [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents]]. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach]] according to the college audience.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Atheism|Atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]],
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem [[evolution|for quite valid reasons]] so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|debate strong theistic debaters]] is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it]], shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previosly Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>.(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/668738335/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and the women and minority population ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> One possible explanation of many women's lack of interest in the message of Richard Dawkins is the [[abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]. For example, as note earlier, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref> Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism]] and [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, as noted earlier, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]])

Recently, as alluded to earlier [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

'''Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus'''

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}

=== Racial Minority population views' of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website richarddawkins.net: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> In addition, according to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website samharris.org: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This suggest that the New Atheist movement may be significantly less appealing to racial minorities.

=== Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the white male audience ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins' and atheist [[Sam Harris]]' message.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This finding suggest that [[New Atheism]] movement is significant more appealing to white males.

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between the theory of [[evolution]] and the opposing positions of [[Creation Science|creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that [[creationism]] or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an [[atheist]] and evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When [[atheists]] attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain.<ref>http://www.robertwinston.org/main.html</ref> In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality".<ref name="deedes">[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece Henry Deedes, Friends disunited on the place of religion in science, The Independent, August 21, 2006]</ref> Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<ref name="deedes" />

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.<ref>http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11</ref>}}

[[Atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<ref name="TDD3" />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: [[Atheist]] Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

==Darwin's Rottweiler and the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml</ref>}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/[[intelligent design]] circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" /> Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>http://www.christianity.com/1350327/</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|110px|right|Ex-[[atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October of 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> [[Atheist]] [[author]] and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that [[atheists]] should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>[[Psychology|Psychologist]] and [[ex-atheist]] Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he focuses on his study of the lives of more than a dozen leading [[atheists]].<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of [[Atheism]]], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref> Dr. Vitz has stated there were two common factors he observed in the leading [[atheists]] he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Richard Dawkins is listed as an "Enthusiastic Bright" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[Philosopher|philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

==Non-Academic Position at Oxford==
Up until his retirement from the post in September 2008, Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]], having been appointed as the first holder of this endowed position<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>. One Reverend has accused him of using his post "not to promote science, but rather his own [[atheistic]] materialist philosophy."<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1374931.ece</ref>

The "post" was a donated one, and is not a normal professorship<ref> "[...] the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College, on such terms and conditions as Council and the General Board may determine, and to provide support costs for such a post to be administered in accordance with ibid., cl. 5." [http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec]</ref> at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the [[University of Oxford]]. The "post" did not entail "substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University." According to the Simonyi Professorship website, the professor holding this position is to "communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people."<ref> "[...] the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists." [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml Aims of the Simonyi Professorship]</ref> However, in a review of the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by Richard Dawkins, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] has stated regarding Dawkins's position at Oxford:
[[Image:35242.jpg‎|right|thumb|125px|Paul Johnson]]
{{cquote|British author Paul Johnson called it ‘Oxford’s first Chair of [[Atheism]].’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes [[physics]], [[chemistry]], experimental [[biology]] and [[geology]], etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science.<ref name="cotw" />}}

It has been claimed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the special terms of this gift might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor" as he believes a decree by Oxford seems to imply this. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote about Dawkins' claim to legitimate professorship:
{{cquote|Many publications refer to you as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins, even though, as your critics maintain, leading Universities regularly deny to any Professor who played a role in acquiring the funding for their own chair the use of the title. Your critics may be wrong here, Richard, but they cite the fact that the Oxford University Hebdomadal Council Decree of 6 November 1995, establishing the Charles Simonyi Professorship, says that you hold a "post" rather than a "professorship." They write that since your post was endowed by Charles Simonyi and the terms of the gift allowed you to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required for a professorship, it will become a "professorship" only when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process, which, they maintain, was not conducted for your receipt of the post. Now, you defended yourself in a posting on your website, dated Sept. 28, 2006, and wrote that you were "elected to the Charles Simonyi Professorship." But that does seem to directly contradict the Hebdamadol Council decree cited above which expressly says "Notwithstanding the provisions of Ch. VII, Sect. III (which discuss the election of a professor to the post), the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College." It seems, so your critics contend, that your appointment was a condition of the grant rather than the product of an election, and since it may be that you are falsely maligned in the matter, your clarification as to the true nature of your professorship, whose official location is the Museum of Natural History, is welcomed."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>}}

Richard Dawkins announced his intention to retire from his position in September 2008:

:"The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008."<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2246,Charles-Simonyi-Professorship-in-the-Public-Understanding-of-Science,Richard-Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science]</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989) 
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990) 
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990) 
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997) 
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001) 
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005) 
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006) 
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007) 
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science 
* Fellow of the Royal Society<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

== Essays relating to Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
*[[Essay: Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?|Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?]]

== Comedy and satires concerning Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins in his native habitat|Richard Dawkins in his native habitat]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience|Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign| Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] - satire

==See Also==

*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[Conservapedia: Richard Dawkins Project|Richard Dawkins Project]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - [[satire]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

== External Links ==

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Articles/videos on Richard Dawkins dodging debates:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the cowardly clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrW-ZUjyWmU Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''News stories:'''

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1122dawkins.asp Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply [[atheist]] literature to schools]
*[http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle]
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/professor-dawkins-rabbi-boteach-and.html Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

'''Other:'''

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins A fawning article on Richard Dawkins by Wikipedia] ([[Wikipedia]] was founded by atheist [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Larry Sanger]])

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Richard Dawkins

2012-03-06T13:24:49Z

HatFullOfSky:

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|Richard Dawkins]]
Clinton '''Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal_Society|FRS]], FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a [[biologist|biologist]], [[evolution|evolutionist]], [[atheist]], [[agnosticism|agnostic]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]]) and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]].<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> Moreover, in terms of the [[theism]] vs. [[agnosticism]]/[[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[theology]] and [[philosophy]]. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in the book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> In 2006, and again in February 2012, Dawkins placed himsef at above 6 on a scale where 1 represents theism and 7 represents absolute atheism.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten</ref>

Richard Dawkins has also established [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents]]. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Mariano Grinbank]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]]. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<ref name="cv">http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml</ref>

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|right|When Richard Dawkins was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref>

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.
=== Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Western atheism and race]]

[[File:Slave auction.jpg|250px|right|thumbnail|On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that Richard "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>]]
On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref> On February 19, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' reported:
{{cquote|Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.

The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in [[Jamaica]] until he died in 1744.

His 400-acre family estate, Over Norton Park near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, is believed to have been bought with money made through slave ownership hundreds of years ago...

Richard's son, Henry, married into another of Jamaica's powerful slave trading families and left 1,013 slaves worth £40,736 when he died 1744.

The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against [[William Wilberforce]]'s plans to abolish the slave trade<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>}}

([[William Wilberforce]] was a devout [[Christianity|Christian]], philanthropist,[[abolitionist]], and the leader of the campaign against the [[Slave Trade]]).

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|250px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref> The video can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Inability to address the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign ==

Recently, a group of [[Question evolution! campaign]] supporters declared that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], which are the central focus of the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-archangel-vs-richard-dawkins.html Michael the Archangel vs. Richard Dawkins - Michael wins!]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-matter-richard-dawkins-cat-got.html What's the matter Richard Dawkins? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!]</ref> The [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] is a campaign by [[Creation Ministries International]], who previously stumped Dawkins in a video taped interview (see section above).<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> A 13-year old Christian young man of a Question evolution! campaign supporter group posted a humorous two part video series at his YouTube channel entitled ''Michael the Archangel meets Richard Dawkins''.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChYSr4Q9Y8&feature=BFp&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6 VIDEO] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tndK46gqd2Y&feature=BFa&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6&lf=BFp Part 2 of the VIDEO] The two part video points out that Dawkins is unable to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and that he has been stumped again by Creation Ministries International.
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|306px|right|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[Atheism|atheist]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler />]]

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here] and [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%22billions-and-billions-demons%22 here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution|evolutionary]] quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|[[Vox Day]] ]]
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])

== New Atheism ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]] and [[Daniel Dennett]].

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a [[liberal]], speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|right|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[Atheism and suicide|atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]].<ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]]

In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins]]

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|251px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2384,n,n</ref>

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...<ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref>}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

==Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed the Debate Never Took Place==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,
 
 
(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from [http://flickr.com/photos/shanepope/2402173645/ Flickr, see license agreement)] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<ref>http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/09/03/shmuley-boteach-vs-richard-dawkins/</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|right|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33209</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate [[creation|creationists]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of [[creationism]]/[[creation science]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig|Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig]] one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of [[Creation Ministries International]] is not surprising given that there are [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents]]. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach]] according to the college audience.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Atheism|Atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]],
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem [[evolution|for quite valid reasons]] so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|debate strong theistic debaters]] is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it]], shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previosly Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>.(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/668738335/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and the women and minority population ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> One possible explanation of many women's lack of interest in the message of Richard Dawkins is the [[abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]. For example, as note earlier, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref> Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism]] and [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, as noted earlier, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]])

Recently, as alluded to earlier [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

'''Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus'''

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}

=== Racial Minority population views' of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website richarddawkins.net: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> In addition, according to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website samharris.org: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This suggest that the New Atheist movement may be significantly less appealing to racial minorities.

=== Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the white male audience ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins' and atheist [[Sam Harris]]' message.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This finding suggest that [[New Atheism]] movement is significant more appealing to white males.

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between the theory of [[evolution]] and the opposing positions of [[Creation Science|creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that [[creationism]] or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an [[atheist]] and evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When [[atheists]] attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain.<ref>http://www.robertwinston.org/main.html</ref> In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality".<ref name="deedes">[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece Henry Deedes, Friends disunited on the place of religion in science, The Independent, August 21, 2006]</ref> Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<ref name="deedes" />

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.<ref>http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11</ref>}}

[[Atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<ref name="TDD3" />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: [[Atheist]] Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

==Darwin's Rottweiler and the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml</ref>}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/[[intelligent design]] circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" /> Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>http://www.christianity.com/1350327/</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|110px|right|Ex-[[atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October of 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> [[Atheist]] [[author]] and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that [[atheists]] should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>[[Psychology|Psychologist]] and [[ex-atheist]] Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he focuses on his study of the lives of more than a dozen leading [[atheists]].<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of [[Atheism]]], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref> Dr. Vitz has stated there were two common factors he observed in the leading [[atheists]] he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Richard Dawkins is listed as an "Enthusiastic Bright" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[Philosopher|philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

==Non-Academic Position at Oxford==
Up until his retirement from the post in September 2008, Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]], having been appointed as the first holder of this endowed position<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>. One Reverend has accused him of using his post "not to promote science, but rather his own [[atheistic]] materialist philosophy."<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1374931.ece</ref>

The "post" was a donated one, and is not a normal professorship<ref> "[...] the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College, on such terms and conditions as Council and the General Board may determine, and to provide support costs for such a post to be administered in accordance with ibid., cl. 5." [http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec]</ref> at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the [[University of Oxford]]. The "post" did not entail "substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University." According to the Simonyi Professorship website, the professor holding this position is to "communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people."<ref> "[...] the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists." [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml Aims of the Simonyi Professorship]</ref> However, in a review of the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by Richard Dawkins, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] has stated regarding Dawkins's position at Oxford:
[[Image:35242.jpg‎|right|thumb|125px|Paul Johnson]]
{{cquote|British author Paul Johnson called it ‘Oxford’s first Chair of [[Atheism]].’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes [[physics]], [[chemistry]], experimental [[biology]] and [[geology]], etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science.<ref name="cotw" />}}

It has been claimed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the special terms of this gift might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor" as he believes a decree by Oxford seems to imply this. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote about Dawkins' claim to legitimate professorship:
{{cquote|Many publications refer to you as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins, even though, as your critics maintain, leading Universities regularly deny to any Professor who played a role in acquiring the funding for their own chair the use of the title. Your critics may be wrong here, Richard, but they cite the fact that the Oxford University Hebdomadal Council Decree of 6 November 1995, establishing the Charles Simonyi Professorship, says that you hold a "post" rather than a "professorship." They write that since your post was endowed by Charles Simonyi and the terms of the gift allowed you to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required for a professorship, it will become a "professorship" only when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process, which, they maintain, was not conducted for your receipt of the post. Now, you defended yourself in a posting on your website, dated Sept. 28, 2006, and wrote that you were "elected to the Charles Simonyi Professorship." But that does seem to directly contradict the Hebdamadol Council decree cited above which expressly says "Notwithstanding the provisions of Ch. VII, Sect. III (which discuss the election of a professor to the post), the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College." It seems, so your critics contend, that your appointment was a condition of the grant rather than the product of an election, and since it may be that you are falsely maligned in the matter, your clarification as to the true nature of your professorship, whose official location is the Museum of Natural History, is welcomed."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>}}

Richard Dawkins announced his intention to retire from his position in September 2008:

:"The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008."<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2246,Charles-Simonyi-Professorship-in-the-Public-Understanding-of-Science,Richard-Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science]</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989) 
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990) 
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990) 
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997) 
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001) 
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005) 
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006) 
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007) 
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science 
* Fellow of the Royal Society<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

== Essays relating to Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
*[[Essay: Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?|Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?]]

== Comedy and satires concerning Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins in his native habitat|Richard Dawkins in his native habitat]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience|Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign| Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] - satire

==See Also==

*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[Conservapedia: Richard Dawkins Project|Richard Dawkins Project]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - [[satire]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

== External Links ==

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Articles/videos on Richard Dawkins dodging debates:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the cowardly clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrW-ZUjyWmU Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''News stories:'''

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1122dawkins.asp Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply [[atheist]] literature to schools]
*[http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle]
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/professor-dawkins-rabbi-boteach-and.html Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

'''Other:'''

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins A fawning article on Richard Dawkins by Wikipedia] ([[Wikipedia]] was founded by atheist [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Larry Sanger]])

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Richard Dawkins

2012-03-06T13:20:29Z

HatFullOfSky:

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|Richard Dawkins]]
Clinton '''Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal_Society|FRS]], FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a [[biologist|biologist]], [[evolution|evolutionist]], [[atheist]], [[agnosticism|agnostic]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]]) and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]].<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref> Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]]. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the [[Irreligion and superstition|irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> Moreover, in terms of the [[theism]] vs. [[agnosticism]]/[[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[theology]] and [[philosophy]]. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in the book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> In February of 2012, Dawkins declared that he believed that there is a 6.9 out of 7 probability of [[God]]'s non-existence (approximately a 1.4 percent probability).<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten</ref>

Richard Dawkins has also established [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents]]. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Mariano Grinbank]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]]. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].<ref name="cv">http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.shtml</ref>

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|right|When Richard Dawkins was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref>

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.
=== Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and slavery]] and [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]] and [[Western atheism and race]]

[[File:Slave auction.jpg|250px|right|thumbnail|On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that Richard "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>]]
On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that "Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref> On February 19, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' reported:
{{cquote|Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.

The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in [[Jamaica]] until he died in 1744.

His 400-acre family estate, Over Norton Park near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, is believed to have been bought with money made through slave ownership hundreds of years ago...

Richard's son, Henry, married into another of Jamaica's powerful slave trading families and left 1,013 slaves worth £40,736 when he died 1744.

The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against [[William Wilberforce]]'s plans to abolish the slave trade<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>}}

([[William Wilberforce]] was a devout [[Christianity|Christian]], philanthropist,[[abolitionist]], and the leader of the campaign against the [[Slave Trade]]).

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|250px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref> The video can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Inability to address the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign ==

Recently, a group of [[Question evolution! campaign]] supporters declared that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], which are the central focus of the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-archangel-vs-richard-dawkins.html Michael the Archangel vs. Richard Dawkins - Michael wins!]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-matter-richard-dawkins-cat-got.html What's the matter Richard Dawkins? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!]</ref> The [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] is a campaign by [[Creation Ministries International]], who previously stumped Dawkins in a video taped interview (see section above).<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> A 13-year old Christian young man of a Question evolution! campaign supporter group posted a humorous two part video series at his YouTube channel entitled ''Michael the Archangel meets Richard Dawkins''.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AChYSr4Q9Y8&feature=BFp&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6 VIDEO] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tndK46gqd2Y&feature=BFa&list=PL0F00B7F4ED0A72D6&lf=BFp Part 2 of the VIDEO] The two part video points out that Dawkins is unable to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and that he has been stumped again by Creation Ministries International.
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|306px|right|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[Atheism|atheist]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler />]]

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref><ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here] and [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%22billions-and-billions-demons%22 here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution|evolutionary]] quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html?s=news_rss</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|right|170px|[[Vox Day]] ]]
[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])

== New Atheism ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]] and [[Daniel Dennett]].

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a [[liberal]], speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|right|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[Atheism and suicide|atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]].<ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]]

In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins]]

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|251px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2384,n,n</ref>

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...<ref>http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48</ref>}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

==Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed the Debate Never Took Place==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,
 
 
(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from [http://flickr.com/photos/shanepope/2402173645/ Flickr, see license agreement)] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.<ref>http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/09/03/shmuley-boteach-vs-richard-dawkins/</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnVe934u38&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|right|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref>http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”<ref>http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33209</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate [[creation|creationists]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of [[creationism]]/[[creation science]].<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig|Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig]] one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of [[Creation Ministries International]] is not surprising given that there are [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents]]. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach]] according to the college audience.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Atheism|Atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]],
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem [[evolution|for quite valid reasons]] so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates|debate strong theistic debaters]] is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it]], shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previosly Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>.(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/668738335/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and the women and minority population ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> One possible explanation of many women's lack of interest in the message of Richard Dawkins is the [[abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]. For example, as note earlier, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref> Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism]] and [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, as noted earlier, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler]])

Recently, as alluded to earlier [[Vox Day]] and ''Wired Magazine'' made the observation that [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins|atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

'''Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus'''

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}

=== Racial Minority population views' of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website richarddawkins.net: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref> In addition, according to the web traffic tracking firm Quantcast, the following racial groups have below average interest in the website samharris.org: Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This suggest that the New Atheist movement may be significantly less appealing to racial minorities.

=== Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the white male audience ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Racial demographics of the Richard Dawkins' audience]]

According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins' and atheist [[Sam Harris]]' message.<ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/samharris.org</ref> This finding suggest that [[New Atheism]] movement is significant more appealing to white males.

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between the theory of [[evolution]] and the opposing positions of [[Creation Science|creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that [[creationism]] or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an [[atheist]] and evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When [[atheists]] attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain.<ref>http://www.robertwinston.org/main.html</ref> In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality".<ref name="deedes">[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece Henry Deedes, Friends disunited on the place of religion in science, The Independent, August 21, 2006]</ref> Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."<ref name="deedes" />

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.<ref>http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11</ref>}}

[[Atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].<ref name="TDD3" />
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: [[Atheist]] Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

==Darwin's Rottweiler and the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml</ref>}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/[[intelligent design]] circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.<ref>http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins</ref> Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" /> Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref>

==Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>http://www.christianity.com/1350327/</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and as noted earlier two of his marriages ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|110px|right|Ex-[[atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October of 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> [[Atheist]] [[author]] and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that [[atheists]] should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>[[Psychology|Psychologist]] and [[ex-atheist]] Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he focuses on his study of the lives of more than a dozen leading [[atheists]].<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of [[Atheism]]], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref> Dr. Vitz has stated there were two common factors he observed in the leading [[atheists]] he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Richard Dawkins is listed as an "Enthusiastic Bright" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[Philosopher|philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

==Non-Academic Position at Oxford==
Up until his retirement from the post in September 2008, Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]], having been appointed as the first holder of this endowed position<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>. One Reverend has accused him of using his post "not to promote science, but rather his own [[atheistic]] materialist philosophy."<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1374931.ece</ref>

The "post" was a donated one, and is not a normal professorship<ref> "[...] the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College, on such terms and conditions as Council and the General Board may determine, and to provide support costs for such a post to be administered in accordance with ibid., cl. 5." [http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec]</ref> at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the [[University of Oxford]]. The "post" did not entail "substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University." According to the Simonyi Professorship website, the professor holding this position is to "communicate scientific ideas through a variety of media, in order to reach a wide range of people."<ref> "[...] the Simonyi Professor is not expected to undertake substantial teaching and administrative duties within Oxford University: any such efforts should be directed primarily towards the education of non-specialists." [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml Aims of the Simonyi Professorship]</ref> However, in a review of the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by Richard Dawkins, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] has stated regarding Dawkins's position at Oxford:
[[Image:35242.jpg‎|right|thumb|125px|Paul Johnson]]
{{cquote|British author Paul Johnson called it ‘Oxford’s first Chair of [[Atheism]].’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes [[physics]], [[chemistry]], experimental [[biology]] and [[geology]], etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science.<ref name="cotw" />}}

It has been claimed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the special terms of this gift might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor" as he believes a decree by Oxford seems to imply this. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote about Dawkins' claim to legitimate professorship:
{{cquote|Many publications refer to you as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins, even though, as your critics maintain, leading Universities regularly deny to any Professor who played a role in acquiring the funding for their own chair the use of the title. Your critics may be wrong here, Richard, but they cite the fact that the Oxford University Hebdomadal Council Decree of 6 November 1995, establishing the Charles Simonyi Professorship, says that you hold a "post" rather than a "professorship." They write that since your post was endowed by Charles Simonyi and the terms of the gift allowed you to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required for a professorship, it will become a "professorship" only when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process, which, they maintain, was not conducted for your receipt of the post. Now, you defended yourself in a posting on your website, dated Sept. 28, 2006, and wrote that you were "elected to the Charles Simonyi Professorship." But that does seem to directly contradict the Hebdamadol Council decree cited above which expressly says "Notwithstanding the provisions of Ch. VII, Sect. III (which discuss the election of a professor to the post), the income from the endowment shall be applied in the first instance to fund a post in the Public Understanding of Science to be held by Dr C.R. Dawkins, Fellow of New College." It seems, so your critics contend, that your appointment was a condition of the grant rather than the product of an election, and since it may be that you are falsely maligned in the matter, your clarification as to the true nature of your professorship, whose official location is the Museum of Natural History, is welcomed."<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>}}

Richard Dawkins announced his intention to retire from his position in September 2008:

:"The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008."<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2246,Charles-Simonyi-Professorship-in-the-Public-Understanding-of-Science,Richard-Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science]</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989) 
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990) 
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990) 
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997) 
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001) 
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005) 
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006) 
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007) 
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science 
* Fellow of the Royal Society<ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml</ref>
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

== Essays relating to Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
*[[Essay: Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?|Is Richard Dawkins an intellectually fulfilled atheist?]]

== Comedy and satires concerning Richard Dawkins ==

*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins in his native habitat|Richard Dawkins in his native habitat]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience|Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience]] - satire
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign| Richard Dawkins, obesity has enveloped your marketing campaign]] - satire

==See Also==

*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[Conservapedia: Richard Dawkins Project|Richard Dawkins Project]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - [[satire]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

== External Links ==

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Articles/videos on Richard Dawkins dodging debates:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the cowardly clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrW-ZUjyWmU Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''News stories:'''

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1122dawkins.asp Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply [[atheist]] literature to schools]
*[http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle]
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/professor-dawkins-rabbi-boteach-and.html Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

'''Other:'''

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins A fawning article on Richard Dawkins by Wikipedia] ([[Wikipedia]] was founded by atheist [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Larry Sanger]])

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]