1. Beware the Believers

Comment #152407 by Wolfman on March 31, 2008 at 1:14 am

Gordy,

I'm just curious...why do you interpret an attack on an individual (Richard Dawkins) as an attack on science or scientists in general? Is he in fact such a giant of the atheist/scientific community that to criticize him personally means to criticize all atheists and scientists?

Yes, this song very clearly mocks Richard Dawkins, and seeks to cast him in an unfavorable light. But I have real problems with the huge logical leap that many people seem to be making that only pro-ID or anti-science types would do so.

Try watching the video, and viewing it in these terms:

Science itself is good, and has slowly been gaining precedence over superstition and religion throughout the centuries. There have been key debates and confrontations throughout history, some of which science won, some of which it lost...but overall, it is marching forward.

In the midst of the modern controversy stands a single man who seeks to present himself as a "giant" of the atheist movement, and who is so confident of his own knowledge that he acts arrogantly towards those who disagree, seeking to crush them.

When he views those who have come before him, rather than seeing those people as "giants upon whose shoulders he stands", he views them rather as his inferiors, as "midgets" who have made some contributions, but not as valuable as the contributions that he himself has made.

I am not saying that this is in any way an accurate or fair depiction of Dawkins; but if you read the lyrics, and watch the video, I think you'll find that my explanation here fits it pretty darn consistently. Even to having people like Darwin serving as his "back-up singers", playing a role that is subservient to his own role.

Check out the video again, using this particular interpretation...and let me know your thoughts.

2. Beware the Believers

Comment #152352 by Wolfman on March 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm

A lot of people here seem to have a fundamental perception that attacking Richard Dawkins is equivalent to being pro-ID or anti-science.

Quite frankly, listening to this video, and particularly looking at the lyrics, I don't see how anyone can think this is pro-ID. When it discusses SCIENCE, it seems to come down quite firmly on the side of science, and not ID.

"But they make fun of Richard, they are patronizing towards him, they depict him as a bully".

Well, yeah. Saying that Richard Dawkins is arrogant, or a bully, or any other such description does NOT mean that you are pro-ID. There are plenty of atheists who find him arrogant and bullying in his approaches.

The way I see this video? It presents a brief history of science vs. religion, with science slowly but steadily gaining the upper hand. And it depicts one particular proponent of science, Mr. Dawkins, as having all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Throughout the rap, it refers to "discourse" and "debate", whether it be Democritus and Aristotle, or the Scopes trial. And in the midst of this "discourse", you have Dawkins just running roughshod over everyone else, bashing anyone who doesn't agree with him as unqualified to even comment or consider.

Its not an accurate representation of Richard Dawkins' approach; but given his aggressive stances, it is certainly easy to see how people could view him this way, and as parody, it is a perfect example of using hyperbole and exaggeration.

What concerns me in many of the reactions here is the apparently implicit assumption that to attack Richard means to attack science, or to be pro-ID. "They are mocking Richard, it must be an attack from the evil creationists!". Naw. I'm an atheist; and while I greatly appreciate many aspects of Richard's work, and the many contributions he has made in the science vs. religion debate, there are also aspects in which I find him arrogant, closed-minded, and abrasive. And I know I'm not the only atheist who feels this way.