To whom does the erudite elucidator of science, Richard Dawkins, refer to as flat-earther, young-earther, perpetual-motion merchant, astrologer, harmless fruitcake, silly, rubbish, unscrupulous, believer in fairies, believer in werewolves, wretched publisher, twaddle, pig-ignorance, disingenuous, stupid and drivel? See below.
Under consideration is Richard Dawkins’ review of Richard Milton’s book Shattering the Myth of Darwinism (New Statesman August 28, 1992 AD).
Richard Dawkins complains that “Richard Milton managed to get his stuff published” because he likens him to “flat-earthers, young-earthers, perpetual-motion merchants, astrologers and other harmless fruitcakes.”
Thus, he begins with the logical fallacy of the ad hominem and follows with the genetic fallacy as he takes aim not at the book’s content via a scientific and evidence based reply but rather, at the publisher, “The publisher – we don’t know how many decent publishers turned it down first – is called ‘Fourth Estate.’” Note that he cannot help himself in that even without evidence he imagines that it may have or must have been turned down by many “decent” publishers with “decent” of course, meaning those who would censor anyone daring to contradict the hero worshiping cult of personality which is Darwinian evolution’s greatest strength.
Dawkins wonders out loud whether Fourth Estate would publish “a claim that the Romans never existed and the Latin language is a cunning Victorian fabrication to keep schoolmasters employed” because Milton’s book is “approximately as silly” and yet, he has yet to deal with the book’s content via a scientific and evidence based reply. Rather, Dawkins’ next tactic is to besmirch the “paying public” and Milton’s subtitle, “A cynic might note that there is a paying public out there, hungry for simple religious certitude, who will lap up anything with a subtitle like ‘Shattering the Myth of Darwinism’” (FYI: the book which is not published as “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism” was first published as “The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism”).
Richard Milton wrote the following of himself within his book since, I would imagine, some would dismiss his scientific evidence (I’m lookin’ at you Prof. Dawkins) due to ad hominems, genetic fallacies, undercooked red herrings, etc., “Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not a creationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I am a professional writer and journalist who specializes in writing about science and technology and who writes about matters that I believe are of public interest.”
Thus, Richard Dawkins writes, “If the author pretends” thus not denial of being religious is enough for Dawkins, “not to be religious himself, so much the better, for he can then be exhibited as an unbiased witness” saith the bias Dawkins dripping with sarcasm.
Within the preface of the 1992 AD edition of his book, Milton writes, “I accept that there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I do not accept that there is any significant evidence that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection.”
Now, will the professor of Darwinian evolution finally begin taking aim at the book’s content via a scientific and evidence based reply? Not, he decided to lower the level of discourse so as to get his emotive reactionary groupies nice and frothy. A “fast buck to be made by any publishers unscrupulous enough to print pseudoscience that they know is rubbish but for which there is a market.” So the publisher is instantly “unscrupulous” even though Dawkins had referred to the Fourth Estate publishing house thusly, “Not a house that I had heard of.”
Yet, they are labeled as such because they print “pseudoscience” but pray tell, how do we know since the professor for the public understanding of science himself has not gotten around to telling us what within Milton’s book is pseudoscientific. Moreover, even though Dawkins admitted he had never heard of the publisher, he is somehow so intimately aware of the inner working of their organization that he knows that “they know is rubbish” thus, he will surely get around to telling us how and why it is pseudoscientific rubbish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.