“…send in the clowns. Don’t bother – they’re here”
—Stephen Sondheim
Robert Fulford wrote:
Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool? On the subject of evolution, he argues with wondrous self-assurance and a brilliant command of detail. He’s established himself as his generation’s finest author on the human sciences and (in many opinions) the most effective popular science writer in the world. But he’s turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation, by supporting the grotesque scheme to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested for “crimes against humanity” when he visits Britain in September.1
This is actually a very tightly packaged statement, let us parse it:
Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool?
Why “of all people,” I cannot discern as there does not seem to have been a time when Richard Dawkins did not make a public spectacle of himself. Whether he is likening any and everyone with whom he disagrees to Hitler (including a Rabbi, for details in general see this link) and Nazis in general or stating that anyone who doubts, even doubts, that human beings are related to “turnips and bananas” are to be likened to Holocaust deniers (see here). He has always begged for attention via appeals to outrage and outrageousness.
On the subject of evolution…He’s…the most effective popular science writer in the world. Let us keep in mind that while he is certainly celebrated for his elucidations of biological functions he is just as popular for the fact that 1) he weaves his particular take on atheism, as his worldview, into these elucidations and 2) these elucidations tend to amount to the telling of tall tales about how things could have occurred or perhaps, should have occurred (“should” in accordance to his theory).
Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details here and here; also, be sure to check out Phillip E. Johnson’s article The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism).
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in The God Delusion.2
But he’s turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation But can one turn themselves into something that they already are? And what reputation? His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles. What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!
Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.3
For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns.
Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence here).
Also, Richard Dawkins downgraded his supposed magnum opus, The God Delusion from being the ultimate atheist evangelist tool,
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down (see here).
To being merely appealing to “people who maybe were sort of vaguely sitting on the fence” to finally, as self described by him, becoming a funny book and an amusing book.
Lastly, this is not the first time, and will likely not be the last, that the antics of the New Atheists have been correlated with clownness: consider Vox Day’s article, The Clowns of Reason.
Lyrics to “Send In The Clowns” by Stephen Sondheim:
Isn’t it rich? Are we a pair? Me here at last on the ground, You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.
Isn’t it bliss? Don’t you approve? One who keeps tearing around, One who can’t move. Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I’d stopped Opening doors, Finally knowing The one that I wanted was yours, Making my entrance again With my usual flair, Sure of my lines,
No one is there.
Don’t you love farce? My fault, I fear. I thought that you’d want what I want – Sorry, my dear. But where are the clowns? There ought to be clowns.
Quick, send in the clowns.
What a surprise. Who could foresee I’d come to feel about you What you’d felt about me? Why only now when I see That you’d drifted away? What a surprise.
What a cliche.
Isn’t it rich? Isn’t it queer? Losing my timing this late In my career? And where are the clowns? Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother – they’re here.