Morgan BellIntellectual Dishonesty in the Anti-Atheist Agenda: Credibility and Fact-Checking Optional
April 6th 2009 20:32
In 2006, anti-atheists across the internet began jumping with joy, proclaiming that their arch nemisis, Richard Dawkins, had penned a letter to Scotland's Sunday Herald entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad".
This letter has since been discredited by Richard Dawkins himself. Dawkins stated on his website that he did not write any such letter, and suggested an imposter had used his name and cropped a few paragraphs out of an Afterword he wrote for John Brockman's book "Dangerous Idea".
Richard Dawkins
Pro-life website LifeSiteNews posted on the alleged Dawkin's letter with the inflammatory title of "Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics - Says Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad' " for their article.
On his blog SecondhandSmoke, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the creationist (anti-evolution) Discovery Institute, grabbed hold of the alleged Dawkin's letter and posted the inflammatory "How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics".
You would think after three years this rumour would have died a natural death. However just this week, militant pro-life, anti-atheist Orble blog MyApologetics saw fit to wheel out the tired old piece of misinformation again, this time with the snappy title of "The Dawkins Agenda: Eugenics".
Will Richard Dawkins ever be free of the fear-mongering, rumour-spreading, sloppy research and intellectual dishonesty of the irrational anti-progress god squad?
Below is the relevant portion of Dawkin's Afterword with the bold portions highlighting omissions from the fake letter:
to see full Afterword in context CLICKHERE
from "What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable" (Harper Perennial, 2007) by John Brockman
In its proper context we can see Dawkin's is not advocating Eugenics, he is asking why some contentious areas of science are routinely swept under the rug and considered unfit for discussion. He is questioning why there is not an open academic discourse about technologies that are considered "dangerous".
Whenever the issue of genetics and "designer babies" is raised, a scientist quickly jumps forward and reassures the public either that:
(a) the technology does not exist so it is not worth discussing; or
(b) nobody would ever want that technology so it is not worth discussing
There is a mental block in our society with regards to discussing things we fear.
Instead of saying "we ought not create designer babies", scientists are saying "we can not create designer babies", which is simply not true.
Richard Dawkins is pointing out that there are some dark corners of science and technology that noone dares to ask about. One of the reasons people dont dare to ask is because discussion is often mistaken for endorsement (as seen above in fear-mongering titles).
When a new technology is developed, would it not better to discuss all the possible outcomes, all the cultural, social, and moral issues, and flesh out all the problems and concerns in the public forum? Is daring to ask "what if?" more responsible than burying your head in the sand and pretending the technology does not exist?
The modern idea of "designer babies" is not to restrict or prevent particular people from breeding. The idea is once a couple (any couple) decides to breed, they can select which copies of their own genes can be used to form their child. This technology could be used to weed out genes that increase the likelihood of cancer, or arthritis, or hereditary brain disorders. But should it be used for aesthetic reasons like height, build, or eye-colour? Should it be used for general fitness or mental capacity or artistic creativity? Should there be limits to selecting gender?
Why can we not venture to ask the question?
Genetic engineering and all its potential applicaions should be discussed not ignored.
Refusing to discuss a technology that has foreseeably dangerous or anti-social outcomes, is actually dangerous and anti-social itself.
As usual Dawkins sums it up best:
Richard Dawkins
from "Where do the real dangers of genetic engineering lie?"
Published in The London Evening Standard Aug 19, 1998
This letter has since been discredited by Richard Dawkins himself. Dawkins stated on his website that he did not write any such letter, and suggested an imposter had used his name and cropped a few paragraphs out of an Afterword he wrote for John Brockman's book "Dangerous Idea".
"If any Scottish readers can explain to me the origin of the rumour that I wrote an article or a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Sunday Herald (allegedly 19th November 2006) I'd be glad to hear."
Richard Dawkins
Pro-life website LifeSiteNews posted on the alleged Dawkin's letter with the inflammatory title of "Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics - Says Nazi regime’s genocidal project 'may not be bad' " for their article.
On his blog SecondhandSmoke, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the creationist (anti-evolution) Discovery Institute, grabbed hold of the alleged Dawkin's letter and posted the inflammatory "How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics".
You would think after three years this rumour would have died a natural death. However just this week, militant pro-life, anti-atheist Orble blog MyApologetics saw fit to wheel out the tired old piece of misinformation again, this time with the snappy title of "The Dawkins Agenda: Eugenics".
Will Richard Dawkins ever be free of the fear-mongering, rumour-spreading, sloppy research and intellectual dishonesty of the irrational anti-progress god squad?
Below is the relevant portion of Dawkin's Afterword with the bold portions highlighting omissions from the fake letter:
Are there any dangerous ideas that are conspicuously under-represented in this book? I have two suggestions, both of which can be spun into either the 'is' or the 'ought' box. First, I noticed only fleeting references to eugenics, and they were disparaging. In the 1920s and 30s, scientists from the political left as well as right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, even under the license granted by a book like this, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed and dogs for herding skill, why on earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'These are not one-dimentional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs, and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, sixty years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what is the moral difference between breeding for musical ability, and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or, why is it acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers, but not breed them? I can think of some answers, and they are good ones which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
I wonder whether, sixty years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what is the moral difference between breeding for musical ability, and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or, why is it acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers, but not breed them? I can think of some answers, and they are good ones which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
to see full Afterword in context CLICKHERE
from "What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable" (Harper Perennial, 2007) by John Brockman
In its proper context we can see Dawkin's is not advocating Eugenics, he is asking why some contentious areas of science are routinely swept under the rug and considered unfit for discussion. He is questioning why there is not an open academic discourse about technologies that are considered "dangerous".
Whenever the issue of genetics and "designer babies" is raised, a scientist quickly jumps forward and reassures the public either that:
(a) the technology does not exist so it is not worth discussing; or
(b) nobody would ever want that technology so it is not worth discussing
There is a mental block in our society with regards to discussing things we fear.
Instead of saying "we ought not create designer babies", scientists are saying "we can not create designer babies", which is simply not true.
Richard Dawkins is pointing out that there are some dark corners of science and technology that noone dares to ask about. One of the reasons people dont dare to ask is because discussion is often mistaken for endorsement (as seen above in fear-mongering titles).
When a new technology is developed, would it not better to discuss all the possible outcomes, all the cultural, social, and moral issues, and flesh out all the problems and concerns in the public forum? Is daring to ask "what if?" more responsible than burying your head in the sand and pretending the technology does not exist?
The modern idea of "designer babies" is not to restrict or prevent particular people from breeding. The idea is once a couple (any couple) decides to breed, they can select which copies of their own genes can be used to form their child. This technology could be used to weed out genes that increase the likelihood of cancer, or arthritis, or hereditary brain disorders. But should it be used for aesthetic reasons like height, build, or eye-colour? Should it be used for general fitness or mental capacity or artistic creativity? Should there be limits to selecting gender?
Why can we not venture to ask the question?
Genetic engineering and all its potential applicaions should be discussed not ignored.
Refusing to discuss a technology that has foreseeably dangerous or anti-social outcomes, is actually dangerous and anti-social itself.
As usual Dawkins sums it up best:
"Hysterical damners of genetic engineering in all its forms are tactically inept, like the boy who cried wolf. They distract attention from the real dangers that might follow from abusing the technology, and they therefore play into the hands of cynical corporations eager to profit from such abuse."
Richard Dawkins
from "Where do the real dangers of genetic engineering lie?"
Published in The London Evening Standard Aug 19, 1998
| 163 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Morgan, I'm confused... is David commenting on himself?
Any way, how ironic for Damo to be posting such erroneous information. Didn't he post a blog not so long ago titled "If You Use Activist Sites for Research then You only Discredit Yourself"
Isn't Damo just another word for fool? You be the judge.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Emphasis mine. Amazing how so many people can miss the point and draw their own conclusions.
Good on you for doing this. I read the original post and the taunting comments but I just couldn't be bothered anymore.
Had MyApologetics (I prefer not to mention names), done the smallest amount of research he would have discovered the truth within minutes.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Carolyn Cordon
Light Within
How do You Express Your Creativity?
Food Leaf
Comment by samaritan
Samaritan's Stories
Now I tend to disagree with Richard Dawkins quite a lot - naturally enough, being a Christian. And I do think that eugenics is a very bad idea. But my understanding of what he is saying here pretty much lines up with what you have written in your blog post. He's not saying let's go out and do it. He is putting it forward as a dangerous idea (which was the scope of the book) and asking whether we should just talk about it. That is a completely different thing to saying it should be done.
I was once sitting with a group of Christians when I made the comment that I would love it if people could just say what they really thought about God - regardless of how stupid or heretical it seems. I even made the silly suggestion that it would be good to hear someone say God is living in a garbage can, just because it's a new idea. That doesn't mean I really think God is living in a garbage can. I have a friend who thinks that maybe God is an alien. Now I don't agree with that at all, but I like hearing it, because it shows that he is thinking outside the box.
I think too that scientists need to think outside the box. And one of the things about thinking outside the box is that you put forward a whole heap of ideas, without thinking about whether they are good ideas. Then through discussion, you consider whether they are good ideas, whether they're actually possible or what the moral and ethical considerations of them are. To simply talk about something is not a bad thing.
Samaritan
Comment by The wonderful Peter Yang
The First Wonderful Peter Yang's Variety Blog
The New Wonderful Peter Yang's variety blog
Power Ranger Online
TV Online
Solar Energy Pannel
Stay healthy and loose weight
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
well you guys double-dared me to do it, and im a firm believer in rebutting in the style of the person im answering . . . mean spirited? take a look in the mirror dude
hi alt_ed,
i find MyApologetics consists mostly of fictional material passed off as fact . . . but yes it is quite ironic that someone ranting and raving about agendas and credibility, someone who touts himself as the hoax and factual error police, is so willing to perpetrate an untruth
You be the judge! HAHAHAhahahaha
hi Ruby,
yeah it was very simple to debunk, i think the trick is that you have to be more interested in the truth than in grinding your own axe
i like the line you highlighted, i think it indicates that if eugenics was ever discussed in the public forum Dawkins believes he is aware of factual evidence that could justify its opposition
if those two fools want to taunt me with the whole "atheists are evil" crap, and other selected insults, i have no problem delivering a response
give the people more of what they really want
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
oh gosh darn it, i forgot to include a picture of Karl Marx!
and my goat/sheep chimera . . .
and my floating fetus . . .
and my pic of Xenu . . .
Bolshevik to you, my son
hi Jeff,
it is really frustrating when people persist with these old hoaxes, completely ignoring they were debunked years ago
i also think its disappointed how much some christians demonise atheists, saying they are immoral or satanic etc . . . its just bigotry
thanks for the comment
hi Carolyn,
i would be interested in hearing your thoughts once youve got them in order
i think it is admirable that you acknowledge you need to study/research before forming an opinion
you will never get a job writing for MyApologetics, but hey would anyone really want to be that angry all day?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
getting the full story is never a waste!
thanks for sharing your interpretation, im glad you mentioned the "scope of the book" as i think that is really important when understanding the context of what was written
as usual, very wise!
thanks for dropping in and discussing the nitty gritty!
hi Peter Yang,
yeah i think its a fitting picture . . .
some people are not interested in the truth, they just want to bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich . . . i feel a bit sorry for them really, all that bitterness and fear . . . if they just opened their eyes and their minds they would see the world has so much to offer!
i life spent persecuting people and spreading lies is not a life spent well!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Oh and if you want a new idea, here's one. I read the obituary of a US writer and theologian today. I'd never heard of her before and her name escapes me now, but basically she wrote a book called The Disabled God, in which she argues that God is...well, disabled. She had congential birth defects and was confined to a wheelchair her entire life. I'd certainly never heard that before but it does reinforce my belief that people see in the Bible what they want to see in the Bible.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Samaritan certainly is a breath of fresh air!
i just googled that book and the author is Nancy Eiesland
Christian liturgy also can be alienating for the disabled, especially when worship centers around standing or kneeling. Eiesland cites the experience of Texan Nancy DeVries, born "without lower limbs and with above-elbow upper extremity stumps," who was denied a place in her church's choir because "it just wouldn't look right."
Eiesland stresses that the book is not meant to be combative but eye-opening. "I don't feel there's anything accomplished in simply saying that the church is falling short," said Eiesland. "I'm trying to say that the Christian message is for all of us, the entire body of God, that we need to transform the church to reflect that."
Really Long Link
i think you are right, different stakeholders will more readily identify the issues that mean more to them in any text . . . there are bible guides for all different minority groups
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
And yes, not talking about it just makes it a taboo, and then everyone is drawn to it...
Comment by samaritan
Samaritan's Stories
The disabled God is an idea I hadn't heard of before either. Maybe God is a disabled alien who lives in a garbage bin
On the topic of disability, I read somewhere (and wouldn't have a clue where now) that someone who was mentally disabled wanted to give a talk at some church. This person mumbled a lot and was very hard to understand, but the pastor agreed to it anyway. As was expected, nobody could understand a word that was said. But at the end, everyone cheered and applauded. And the look on that person's face was just so happy and proud - as though they had won a gold medal at the Olympics or something. That to me is an ideal picture of God. One where we are accepted for who we are and we bring everything (including our imperfections) into his service.
Samaritan
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
You raise some pretty good points. I have never read Richard Dawkins - not because I don't want to but because I haven't got around to it. His books have been recommended to me by several.
I actually like to read all points of view on this subject because I don't really know where I stand on it.
Comment by Lily
Ars Poetica
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
its a cool pic hey
i notice so many people choosing to bury their heads in the sand, rejecting knowledge in favour of their prejudices . . . its all very sad
we should never ban talk on any idea, even if its just to provide a forum for explaining why the idea is not sensible or not constructive
hi Samaritan,
well who wouldnt like you when you say things like this:
i like your sense of humour!
i always listen to others, regardless of their religion, i like to try to understand where people are coming from, as long as you respect people with different points of view im happy to consider any opinions . . . i think you really prove that being christian isnt an excuse for being unpleasant or ignorant
hi Janet,
read more, consider all points of view: sounds like a good life philiosophy!
Dawkins is a very smart man, some of the documentary films he has made are amazing . . . he presents a good argument against religious extremism, and provides explanations as to where morals come from if not gifted by god
hi Lily,
Norm makes the internet worthwhile!
Comment by Cheryl J
Rhythmatism
Budget Centsability
It is amazing how the omission (or sometimes addition) of words can entirely change the context of what is being said. I guess that's why words and writing fascinate me so much.
I have to say I had never seen this hoax before but I pretty much make it a rule now that anything I receive via email etc on various topics of which I'm unfamiliar I tend to run straight to places like Snopes. I used to get duped a lot into believing things that had already been debunked. I tend to overcheck things now. Must be anal tendencies...no Alt-ed don't go all potty brained on that comment
I always love reading Samaritan's views. It really is a breath of fresh air to have someone who is very openly Christian open to all discussion. I myself am not an athiest but an agnostic who was christened a Catholic. I pretty much respect everyone's religious views as long as they don't impose them on me. I actually find the subject so interesting I've been thinking of studying comparative religion just for interest sake. I think it's all fascinating.
Good post Morgan.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
good to see ya lovely lady!
i cant believe you dared to say "anal" on a post alt_ed has already commented . . . brave, very brave!
id love to learn more about religion in an objective way, those comparitive religion courses sound really interesting, contrasting different types of faith and seeing the common themes and differences
i think since 9/11 there has been a greater interest in the west about understanding islam, and generally being less insular . . . gone are the days of just labelling something "foreign" and thinking you dont "need" to deal with it
thanks for popping in and having a read!
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train