First off, I am sorry. I had hoped that I would be able to avoid blogging on either Dawkins or religious nutcases again today. I have failed.<\/p>\n
By chance, I found a link saying Richard Dawkins was BBC Man of the Year 2006<\/a>, which I found very odd as I hadn’t noticed it anywhere else (and a general search of Google or the BBC does not provide this either). This seems to be an American Buddhist related website which found a link to a blog written by William Crawley,<\/a> who works with BBC Northern Ireland and had put together his own list of “Person of the Year<\/a>.” The Integral Options website seems somewhat scathing of Dawkins but nothing off the rails or anything and about 50% of the population don’t like him anyway. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Now the validity of the “award” notwithstanding, the page is interesting and the comments it has generated are, as you can imagine, brilliant. There is the normal collection of sane, reasoned arguments for and against Dawkins’ activities, media appearances etc. But then, hidden amongst the boredom, come the obvious escapees from lunatic asylums. There is an interesting comment from James Lee (whose blog is at http:\/\/www.answersingenesis.org\/ us\/ newsletters\/ 1106lead.asp<\/a> [spaces added to make it fit – hyperlink works]):<\/p>\n As a Creationist, I agree with the selection of Dawkins. This has been a year of deceits by international atheism and Dawkins, as the patron saint of “new atheism” has had a field day in the media. He has twisted the nature of science and the nature of religious faith out of all recognition. He has abused the public’s respect for scientists and public thinkers. While agreeing with the blog’s selection of him as the man of the year I pray that 2007 will show a different picture and that Dawkins’ delusions will become even more widely reported.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is interesting that the supporter of a concept which tried to re-define the meaning of science and the scientific method (to famously include astrology) so that their religious belief about the origin of mankind and the universe could be taught as a science (and therefore get round US legislation which separates Church and State) is saying Dawkins twisted the nature of science. [sorry about the long sentence].<\/p>\n Even if you don’t agree with Dawkins’ methods or approach, I cant for the life of me see how you can criticise his use of the scientific method.<\/p>\n Sadly, that was quite a rational theist writing a backhanded (We come to bury Caesar not to praise him<\/em> but in reverse) insult about Dawkins and invoking the imaginary friend to try and change things in 2007. Not really much entertainment there.<\/p>\n But it gets better. Some one called Billy (who has a blog at http:\/\/thechristianhippy.blogspot.com\/<\/a>) writes:<\/p>\n SIN<\/strong> affects the way one thinks, SIN<\/strong> is the motive for the way that Darwin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nodding dog thinks, the father of all lies.<\/p>\n The deceitful pen of shrewd men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what knowledge is in them? None, For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, with their sinful itching ears they will turn away from listening to the truth and turn aside to the myths and lies of evolution.<\/p>\n Richard Dawkins and his blasphemy is hardly worthy of the distinction of the person of the year, there are others who art more worthy.<\/p>\n You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, how funny is that? Just to ensure he would be “remembered” Billy came back at comment 47 with:<\/p>\n It is not surprising the attitude that my post #8, has created, there is nothing new under the sun, since Creation-Satan the deceiver has been attacking the truth of God, from the Creation of the Universe until the present time, first it was Satan talking as a serpent, today it comes in all shapes and forms of philosophies and theories, some from within the church and some from outside the church, why does the Adversary attack God\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Word? The simple reason being, that Satan is exposed as the enemy of the truth and of God, the father of all lies.<\/p>\n Genesis takes a stand against atheism because God<\/strong> created the universe, Genesis refutes humanism, for God<\/strong> not man is the ultimate reality, and Genesis also refutes evolution because God<\/strong> created all things.<\/p>\n God’s word has always been under attack, God says, “My words shall not pass away”.<\/p>\n Voltaire said that in a generation the Bible would be outdated, but after his death what happened, his house was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society to spread the Bible throughout Europe.<\/p>\n The words on the Huguenot monument in France read, Hammer away, ye unregenerate hands Your hammer breaks, God’s anvil stands.<\/p>\n “Post Tenebras Lux”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n don’t you just love him?<\/p>\n Also, there is an oft used creationism ploy where they describe Dawkins as their best advocate (raising the profile etc) – it is a fallacy and is simply another example of how creationism has nothing to offer but attacks (either on theory or people). It is a fallacy (does any one need me to explain why?) but it is put to use in the comments: (by some one named Tas Walker, which I find more than a little annoying, who also has a Christian Blog<\/a>)<\/p>\n Dawkins is so quotable:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n