This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact - Comments

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 1 by ZenDruid

More vitriol, please. ;)

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:25:21 UTC | #863391

gordon's Avatar Comment 2 by gordon

Way to go Richard

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:26:25 UTC | #863392

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 3 by huzonfurst

This article alone should be required reading at the beginning of every biology and sunday school class (equal time, you know) in the country!

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:38:06 UTC | #863395

Eric G's Avatar Comment 4 by Eric G

Wonderfully written. It is appalling to think people can't grasp how easy and beautiful the natural world is and instead refer back to the supernatural for answers.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:48:54 UTC | #863399

paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 5 by paulmcuk

Some of the comments on the WP page make me want to scream.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:53:31 UTC | #863404

Vicar of Art on Earth's Avatar Comment 6 by Vicar of Art on Earth

Thank you Professor Dawkins for sticking your neck out again.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:54:18 UTC | #863406

JuJu's Avatar Comment 7 by JuJu

Last night on MSNBC Ron Reagan was filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball and in the Let Me Finish segment of the program he laid the hammer down on Bachmann and Perry. Here's the segment. Unfortunately you have to listen to a 30 second Exxon ad first.

PS: The segment is specifically about evolution and science denial.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:55:43 UTC | #863407

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 8 by Atheist Mike

The brightest in the US? Perhaps, but not the most mature. There are surely many politicians who believe crazy things in Europe but they most of the time keep their beliefs to themselves and don't try to mix politics and religion. That a country with a supposedly strict and sacred written constitution get the likes of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin in positions of powers seems to me a blatant proof of either or both popular apathy and/or immaturity.

The rest of the article is a pretty good love letter to evolution. Mr. Dawkins is a talented writer.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:07:13 UTC | #863408

jel's Avatar Comment 9 by jel

Read the comments beneath it,the same tired old arguments once again (someone even brought up the human eye!).

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:10:43 UTC | #863410

wtfbits's Avatar Comment 10 by wtfbits

Richard Dawkins considerably over-estimates Perry's cognitive abilities. Unfortunately, this article is too articulate, well written, and uses too many big words for Perry's not-yet-fully-evolved brain to comprehend.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:13:48 UTC | #863411

Wake_Up's Avatar Comment 11 by Wake_Up

Wow, you the man Richard!

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:24:19 UTC | #863415

the way's Avatar Comment 12 by the way

The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.

Yes, for all the reasons Richard mentioned, however I hope the evolution question will not be asked as "Do you believe in evolution?" but as "Do you accept evolution as fact?"

I admit it is a bugbear of mine but, to me unless the question is asked with care, the disingenuous will pounce on it and twist it to their own ends.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:25:02 UTC | #863416

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 13 by Stafford Gordon

Get out of that!

I think the reason religious people have problems with evolution is that it impinges upon their inward vanity and egocentricity. It shakes them out from behind their facade of sweetness and light and reveals their complacant superiority.

Oh, I can be so shrill at times.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:26:02 UTC | #863417

Sara12's Avatar Comment 14 by Sara12

That's why I stopped frequenting that site.

Comment 5 by paulmcuk :

Some of the comments on the WP page make me want to scream.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:45:42 UTC | #863420

JuJu's Avatar Comment 15 by JuJu

Comment 12 by the way

Yes, for all the reasons Richard mentioned, however I hope the evolution question will not be asked as "Do you believe in evolution?" but as "Do you accept evolution as fact?"

Slightly better yet, would be: "Do you accept the fact of evolution?"

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:53:15 UTC | #863424

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 16 by God fearing Atheist

When Rick Perry first appeared and started to loomed large on my radar, I had assumed he was a typical xtian right wing nutter. However, a BBC article (side bar) states he used to be a Democrat, and was on Al Gore's team.

Is Perry more of a political opportunist than a nutter?

I think there are two aspects to leadership. The first is doing what your followers want you to do. The second is driving opinion. I think any leader has to perform a delicate balancing act between the two. The UK politicians Michael Foot and Tony Benn followed their principles more than voter popularity and were cast aside by the electorate. Tony Blair got Labour re-elected. But did he do so by persuading voters of his principles, or tuning his policies to what the voters wanted?

I like Perry the opportunist even less than Perry the loon. But if he is an opportunist he is cunning and dangerous.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:02:12 UTC | #863425

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 17 by Mr DArcy

Harvestmen

Whilst science continues its progress despite the best efforts of the likes of jumped up Governor Perry, it seems to me that the USA (and all other) Christians are the ones with the fossilised ideas. They really don't seem to have a clue about how nature works. The Chinese must be laughing their heads off!

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:27:37 UTC | #863431

cubsfanj's Avatar Comment 18 by cubsfanj

Way to use a double negative in a sentence that calls someone an uneducated fool.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:39:53 UTC | #863436

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 19 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry aren't just devout - both have deep ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which says Christians should rule the world.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:43:37 UTC | #863440

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 20 by SoHelpMeReason

I appreciate the article, but it's still demoralizing. A sleazeball like Perry has his head so far up his hind quarters it's futile to try to change him.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:49:13 UTC | #863444

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 21 by Steve Zara

It's a great article, but I think it misses out one more possibility about the mindset of Republican candidates. Maybe some are liars. They believe in evolution, but dare not say so because it would threaten their support.

How have we come to this? How have we got to the state where a once-great party in the USA seems determined to be led and run by fools, dunces and liars?

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:50:23 UTC | #863445

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 22 by alaskansee

Yes (reference Ye Olde Testament)

Glad I was able to close this thread promptly and thank mankind they (religions) have evolved. Can you imagine the horror if they hadn't!

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:00:14 UTC | #863450

AtheistButt's Avatar Comment 23 by AtheistButt

link doesn't work -

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:00:29 UTC | #863451

SkepDoc's Avatar Comment 24 by SkepDoc

There's already a critique about this article on Chris Mooney's blog The Intersection it's a guest post, but we all know what Mooney thinks about Dawkins, Myers and the likes. What do you think about it?

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:00:59 UTC | #863452

Sheraf's Avatar Comment 25 by Sheraf

The link to "read more" doesn't seem to work.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:04:02 UTC | #863454

cubsfanj's Avatar Comment 26 by cubsfanj

"Richard Dawkins considerably over-estimates Perry's cognitive abilities. Unfortunately, this article is too articulate, well written, and uses too many big words for Perry's not-yet-fully-evolved brain to comprehend."

Well written? You mean besides the double negative and the run-on sentence? Since I just skimmed the article, there are probably other mistakes as well.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:10:23 UTC | #863459

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 27 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 26 by cubsfanj :

Well written? You mean besides the double negative and the run-on sentence? Since I just skimmed the article, there are probably other mistakes as well.

Wot this:-

Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office.

Yea. Bad innit. e shood wot rote

Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are known in high office.

Thats gooder innit!

Wot fool that Dorkings. Cant even rite.

cubsfanj, wot genus you is. Kleverer than donkins. Bet you believes in god.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:28:06 UTC | #863462

chawinwords's Avatar Comment 28 by chawinwords

The darkness needs be almost complete before a faint intelluctual spark like Perry can be considered bright. At least Perry and Bush have one thing in common, college degrees garnered with 2.2 GPA's. I suppose they graded on the curve!

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:30:20 UTC | #863465

Billions and Billions's Avatar Comment 29 by Billions and Billions

Richard gave an excellent response. I especially liked how he compared dying in ignorance of the elegance of evolution to that of never having experienced a beautiful sunset.

We can only hope that Perry reads the article... though, someone may need to help him with the big words.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:31:58 UTC | #863466

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 30 by Cartomancer

Way to use a double negative in a sentence that calls someone an uneducated fool.

It is indeed a way to use a double negative. A very good way to use a double negative. A subtle, witty, appropriate and effective way to use a double negative. Despite your unfounded misgivings, such use of the double negative in the English language is not unknown.

I do so dislike to point out, in the fashion of a pre-GCSE English teacher, how a figure of speech is used in a written text. It's patronizing for one thing. Nevertheless, that doesn't seem to be a concern of yours, so I reckon I'll just go ahead anyway.

The double negative here is for emphasis. Its function is to highlight the assumption it is negating - that uneducated fools are unknown among those who achieve high political office - through deliberate understatement. It sets up a knowingly and amusingly fallacious position and dismisses it in one quick aside by using a deliberately mild-mannered circumlocution where a straightforwardly strong-armed one would be usual. "Not unknown" is far weaker and less definite in tone than "known". It's a hedge, a fudge, a sop to non-confrontationalism, and much more mealy-mouthed than the context would naturally require. That's the point. Had Richard simply said "there have always been uneducated fools in high office" he would not have got across the extreme naievety of believing otherwise. "Not unknown" is eye-catchingly understated in this context. I believe British writers of a certain generation are known in some circles for a fondness for this particular device...

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:50:20 UTC | #863471