Every time Dawkins opens his mouth, I dislike him more
“What is ethically wrong is the hounding [of Watson], by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant “thought police”, of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation”
That Watson’s remarks have pleased the BNP no end (rel=nofollow btw), and may have serious political consequences is no concern to Dawkins. Obviously, we’re all “thought police.” Whilst Dawkins universalism demands that we be intolerant of Muslim protests against the West, he believes we should be tolerant of the unjustifiably racist remarks of a member of his white, male, scientific, elitist community. If the general public’s intolerance of his remarks is illiberal to Dawkins, then damn right we are.
It’s a cosmopolitan intolerance for Watson’s remarks that requires that he should be ostracised.
Subscribe
Thanks for pointing this out. As a fan of Dawkins books on evolutionary theory I had no idea that he was now in later life adopting dubious stances on matter of politics for which he clearly lacks the appropriate sensitivities.
Andy Roberts
22 Oct 07 at 7:31 am
This is disturbing indeed, what time we are livign in, is the front lash to the back lash?
Sabah Vohra
31 Oct 07 at 12:12 am
Great insight Naadir, i think it is sad that such a respectable and distinguished scientist such as Watson would jump on the band wagon, questioning the intelligence of a whole people.There are many people in academia who have the widespread assumption that all Africans have an IQ in the range of 70-75 and should therefore be ostrasized, i mean i have enough trouble as it is being black, muslim and a immigrant as it is in this xenophobic society. I am dissappointed that the independent decided to give a front page to this crap!
Farah Mohamed
4 Nov 07 at 10:15 pm
The Independent wanted to show him up as a racist, as the The Times didn’t want to pick up on it.
Naadir Jeewa
5 Nov 07 at 9:55 am
Well, my faith in the Indepenent is restored i always thought that it was one of the most progressive newspapers in the country along with the Gaurdian. As for our friend Dawkins i think he is fairly ignorant and intolerant individual despite his pedigree. When he was asked to join a debate in America on Intelligent Design v Evolution by Michael J. Behe author of ‘Darwin’s Black Box; The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution;, he bottled it and was nowhere to be seen on the radar. If he is so sure of himself he should have tackled Behe who is from the same field as him instead of picking and choosing when to make his controversial and backward comments which shows him to be an opportunist!
Farah Mohamed
8 Nov 07 at 10:48 pm
And, what is funniest about that, is that Behe is exactly the kind of person Dawkins should be debating with, not fundamentalist nuts. He’d be on a lot stronger ground - Behe’s argument makes no sense. He was right, I wouldn’t be in my job as the research that I assist is somehow impossible in his scheme.
Naadir Jeewa
11 Nov 07 at 9:09 am
The problem with Dawkins is that his theory of evolution, while not totally discredited, is not as ‘in vogue’ as others. Hence, he’s scrambling around trying to create enough controversy to ensure he keeps his emeritus seat, for any reason bar science itself.
Back to Watson’s remarks. The shame about this is that no one has produced scentific evidence to disprove his remarks. That may sound silly, but another good example is the holocaust. We all know it happened, but the original film is sat in German vaults rotting away. How can we prove it exsisted in a 100 years time?
I would suggest that instead of the knee-jerk ‘he must be wrong’, lets get the research done to prove this theory wrong once and for all. It does have a wiff of bowing to a racist point, but some time you need to hold your nose to get rid of the smell.
Matt Cole
11 Nov 07 at 12:19 pm
Matt, you’re right about Dawkins. He elevates evolution above a biological mechanism to some sort of universality.
As far as evidence against Watson’s statement, it’s fairly old hat stuff as the biological anthropologists will tell you:
I totally agree with you that it’s shameful that no one produced the evidence to show that he was wrong - especially when it is so readily available. I suspect he had been reading Greg Clark’s Farewell to Alms, where he suggests that lower labour productivity in China & India are due to a difference in evolutionary cognition where non Western peoples are better suited to the cognitively demanding premodern life. However even this is wrong, as the productivity gap is rapidly reducing and plonk any migrant worker in a Western economy and their productivity rate is no different.
Naadir Jeewa
11 Nov 07 at 6:03 pm
I believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the biggest red herring in history and he himself was a racist and bigot (just look at his work on sexual selection for proof) , if one man’s ideas can bring such destruction especially since very few people are prepared to challenge his theory, which is just that a theory afterall! He brought the idea of survival of the fittest in a Godless world which the Communists from Stalin and Mao, Nazis in Hitler and Facism in Mussloni’s Italy, not forgetting the dreadful Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, how they lapped up these ideas for their own twisted evil desires and used them to justify the massacre of millions of their own citizens. The annihilation of native Indians from the New world and the enslavement of millions of Africans shipped from their continent to America and the colonisation of much of the rest of the world and the atrocities committed in the process was a direct consequence of these warped ideas.
All life is sacred and killing one person is like killling the whole of mankind. There is no superior race! Watson and Dawkins are barking up the wrong tree.
Farah Mohamed
11 Nov 07 at 10:22 pm
Look, I am not interested in promoting Intelligent Design. Biological evolution does exist. Anyone who doubts it needs to take Biology 101. However, his memetics is an unverifiable non-theory, just like ID. Elevating any theory to some sort of universal is always a mistake. Don’t throw the evolutionary baby out with the determinist’s bathwater.
Naadir Jeewa
11 Nov 07 at 11:13 pm
This debate is not about who is right since Evolution has not been proven ( MISSING LINK HYPOTHESIS!) and Intelligent Design can’t be proven either. We just have clues and by taking a look at the world around us we make up our own minds which is the most likely answer to this age old question. Of course, you can know for certain at the moment of death as to where we came from and ultimately where we are going. Only when we have the answer to this mystery shall we know the PURPOSE OF LIFE! Stephen Hawking himself hints in his book A Brief History of Time that the measurements in the universe are too precise to have come by chance.
Farah Mohamed
12 Nov 07 at 3:32 pm
You may be in my class, but you are officially warned that you are flaming this comment thread.
This post is not about whether or not evolution is correct. Go argue with the Butterflies and Wheels crowd - they’ll love to debate with you.
Stay on topic, or get banned.
Naadir Jeewa
12 Nov 07 at 9:15 pm