The Deconstruction
of an Urban Legend

Writer’s note: (Italics should be read like a parent to a child, with a lot of enthusiasm and dynamics.)

Once upon a time, there was a Great Zoologist from Great Britain. It is said that he could deflate an argument with a single syllable. In fact, he is said to be the smartest person ever to roam the earth…and several other “highly evolved” planets! One day, while skipping through the garden, he realized his academic achievements had far surpassed that of a simple college professor. In fact, he had climbed his way up to be Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford in England. Not only did he excel in his academic endeavors, he also assumed the role of ambassador of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.” Meanwhile, one dark and spooky night, his study of animals and Darwin’s research led him to this conclusion, “There is no God!” In a state of fear and panic, he scrambled about, adding “U’s” to words like favor and color and changing “er’s” to “re’s.” Latre that night, while savouring his newfound revelation, The Great Zoologist from Great Britain ventured out to make a bundle of money by writing books and giving lectures about his conclusions… Who is this man? No one knows for sure, but some say that his name is, GASP! ………..

Dr. Richard Dawkins!

A few weeks ago, my close friend Chad and I attended a showing of the documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film focuses on the “Big Science” movement to squelch scientific discussion of “Intelligent Design” (ID). ID is a “science-based” alternative to Darwinian Evolution as the origin of life on earth. Its conclusions are the result of high-tech advances in modern molecular biology, a science that post-dates the “Theory of Evolution.” Darwin had the same agenda as ID, the acquisition of truth. However, the main difference between the two methodologically is that Darwin had archaic scientific tools from which to derive his conclusions.

I have always equated Richard Dawkins with extreme intellect, regardless of disagreeing with many of his opinions. However, recently I discovered that Dawkins is just a man. He is a simple man, with great passion and a strong faith. In fact, I believe Dr. Richard Dawkins has turned his back on science and embraced religion.

I happened upon a blog post on one of Richard Dawkins’ websites a few days ago that challenged the movie, “Expelled.” I first started to read the commentary, because I believe in fully understanding both sides before I make judgments. I in no way wish to abandon my faith, but I believe that gathering as much information as possible will lead me to the best understanding of my existence. As a Christian, I concede that innumerable Christians before me have often rushed to judgment and come to erroneous conclusions. Expecting maturity and strong content, I began to read, hoping to glean a better perspective.

Instead, I found that the post was tainted with emotional sewage and continuous ad hominem degradation of the film, its producer, and its narrator. Assuming the author was a follower of Dawkins, I was nearly halfway through the piece before I realized that Dawkins himself had written it. In spite of the fact that Dawkins got off to a very disrespectful start by choosing to personally attack Ben Stein, the narrator of the film, I reluctantly read on:

"The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein,” wrote Dawkins. “I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants” (Dawkins’ blog site).

But, Dr. Dawkins is an intellectual, right? Why would he stoop to name-calling and childish rants? Dawkins had not heard of Ben Stein, but since Americans “apparently” are oblivious to “knowledge of science,” “logical reasoning,” “box office appeal” or even “public speaking ability,” the only “logical” explanation for “big dumb Ben Stein” to have been selected is…Americans are stupid. Man! Dawkins’ respect (or lack thereof ) for America is quite evident here. Dawkins actually tried to avoid the content of the film and also diminish its significance because “he didn’t like Ben Stein.” Very scientific, Doc! That just oozes with logical reasoning. Under the same logic, those who find YOU arrogant and obnoxious have good “reason” to deny the “validity” of Darwinism.

Here is another short passage from Dr. Richard Dawkins’ post that pontificates on the link between Adolph Hitler, Nazism and Darwinism, purported in the film:

"We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very “ungarbled" understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.”
(Dawkins’ blog site).

Let us examine Dawkins’ use of logic, since it seemed to “rank high” in importance to him while attacking Ben Stein. “Just because Hitler subscribed to Darwin’s ideas of natural selection to extinguish millions of people, in no way could Darwin be held accountable…because after all, Hitler had a “garbled” understanding of Darwin.” However, in the same sentence Dawkins attacks Christianity with the same argument, but with an inverse conclusion. “Just because Martin Luther subscribed to the ideas and teachings of Christ, Christianity “IS” held accountable for Martin Luther’s “garbled” understanding of Christ.” Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. To illustrate the absurdity of this tack let’s take the same prose and exchange some names to better understand Dawkins’ logic in practice. We all have heard of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) (the cult in Texas with all of the charges of polygamy and child abuse). Let’s see how this looks when I substitute the “FLDS” in place of “Hitler” in Dawkins’ quote.

"We are supposed to believe that [the FLDS] was influenced by [Jesus]. [The FLDS] was ignorant and bonkers enough for [their] hideous mind[s] to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of [Jesus] (along with [their] very “ungarbled” understanding of the [young polygamy] of [Joseph Smith], and of [their] own never-renounced [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] religion) but it is hardly [Jesus’] fault if [they] did.”

Would Dr. Dawkins make this statement? Would he defend Christianity this fervently? I highly doubt it. He blames Christianity for every mistake, or “garbled” manifestation produced by Christians, but when it comes to Darwin…he’s standing high on the stump to defend him, “but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did.” (Dawkins’ blog site).

Though not a fan of Dawkins, at the very least I was geared up for an intellectual “chess match,” not the infantile game of “Chutes and Ladders” that I encountered on his site. I was devastated… This world must be going to hell…or “de-evolving”…depending on where your faith lies. Don’t be misguided folks, Dawkins has faith, and he defends his faith more passionately and apparently more successfully than most Christians. Isn’t it comical how closely Dawkins’ representation of Darwin is to that of an “omniscient deity.” He says, “who would dare question (you have to say this part really slow and in a deep voice) ‘The All-Powerful Charles Darwin?’” echo…echo…echo…echo.

Dawkins clearly is a hypocrite. His chastisement of “Believers” is one of a sanctimonious liar, because he himself has faith. Dawkins just chooses to put his “faith” in Darwin, and he hides it under the cover of “science.” Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” is nothing more than an antiquated philosophy that does not address the problem of “something formed from nothing.” No matter how you dress it up, evolution does not explain the initial origin of the first organism. The only “origin” Darwin could find was on the cover of his book, “The ‘Origin’ of Species.” Now that’s faith folks—faith, like that of the masses which insisted the earth was flat, even after science had advanced and found it to be round. Darwin himself admitted that some of his postulations were “highly speculative,” and that “some no doubt would prove erroneous.” (Darwin, “The Descent of Man” p 315).

But what happened to “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain” that I have heard of in legends?

…and so the “Great Zoologist from Great Britain” clung and clung to his atheistic identity. But, after Toto had revealed the man behind the curtain and thwarted all of his illusions, the little children GASPED! First Santa Claus! Then, the Easter Bunny! SHRIEK!!…now, “The Great Zoologist from Great Britain!” They wept and wept, and it was nearly two and a half days before they were able to drink Kool-Aid again.

THE END.