Does Dawkins Really Love Science?

We are told that Richard Dawkins is a man who deeply loves science.  In fact, it is this public perception that Dawkins exploits in order to serve the Gnu atheist movement.  But is it really true that Dawkins loves science?  Or is this just a public image that he has carefully crafted and nurtured over the years?

Let me provide four reasons to open your eyes and seriously begin doubting Dawkins’ love of science.

1.  While Dawkins loves to use the word “science” and make money by writing popular books about science, he really has not done that much science over his life.  For example, I have already demonstrated that Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, has done a whole lot more science than Dawkins.  How is it that someone who claims to love science so much has so little interest in actually doing science?

2.  While Dawkins “love” of science is found almost entirely in his popular books and writings, if you think about it, it’s not really science that he loves there.  All of his books seem to be about the same thing over and over again – evolution.  And they are not so much about evolution as they are about one particular view of evolution – neo-Darwinism.  Now, there is nothing wrong with this.  And while neo-Darwinian evolution is certainly part of science, there is a lot of science that is not neo-Darwinian evolution.  Dawkins does not seem to have any great interest in science if the topic is other than neo-Darwinian evolution.   Maybe that’s because he has said that such a view of evolution makes it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and his true love is really atheism.  And that leads naturally to the third point.

3.  Retirement is a time in a person’s life when you finally get to focus all your time and attention on your true passion.  This is especially true if the person who retires is both healthy and wealthy.  Dawkins is all three – he has retired, he is healthy, and he is very wealthy.  If his true love really was science, he would use all this free time and money to pursue scientific quests.  For the first time in his life, he could focus on any unanswered question he wanted to.  He would not need to write grants or go to meetings, or play any other of the social games needed to pursue his scientific passion.  He could just go out there and do the experiments and make the observations!  But alas, he has continued to be the man he has always been – a man with little interest in actually doing any science.  Instead, his love for atheism has emerged in all its glorious splendor.  Dawkins, the wealthy, retired scientist, invests all his time and money on atheist activism.

4.  The final point is the one that first opened my eyes about Dawkins.  Back in the 2000s, when he was still at Oxford, his university was under constant harassment and attack from animal rights extremists.  Oxford was building a new science lab where animal experimentation was to take place and the animal rights activists tried to stop it by burning down an Oxford building and making constant threats to the faculty and students at Oxford.  The situation got so tense that even the construction workers felt the need to hide their identities while working.  And what did Dawkins say or do?  NOTHING.  He did not use his access to the public arena to defend science, his colleagues, or his students.  Someone who truly loves science would not have remained so silent when science was under attack.  What’s more, does anyone really believe Dawkins would have remained just as silent if Oxford was under the same type of attack from creationist extremists?  Of course not.  Creationism would tie into his love of atheism; advances in science tied to animal experimentation do not.

To sum it up, Dawkins has never done much science, his popular books focus on one aspect of science that he believes to prop up his atheism, his passion since retirement is to be an atheist activist who plays a lead role in the atheist movement, and when science was under attack by a group not tied to Christianity, he remained completely silent.

This is not a pattern of facts that emerge from someone who loves science.  This is a pattern of facts that emerge from someone who loves atheism/hates Christianity and simply wants to leverage a history of crafty public relations to advance his personal and cultural agendas.

And they say we Christians are gullible.

This entry was posted in Richard Dawkins, Science and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Does Dawkins Really Love Science?

  1. Bilbo says:

    You might want to double-check your post for typos, Mike. But an interesting point, nonetheless.

  2. Tom Gilson says:

    This is interesting indeed. Next question: if Dawkins doesn’t really love science, what does that mean with respect to his message and his rhetorical position? What can we conclude from it?

    I’ve often thought that science was being misused as support for philosophical materialism. If you’re right, it would be more accurate to say Dawkins is prostituting science for materialism.

  3. Eveysolara says:

    I agree with your assessment, but there are three things that you can never take away from Dawkins.

    1) He realizes the importance of God belief. If the likes of Eugenie Scott had their way this wouldn’t even be a very public issue, since they don’t even care. Dawkins seems to understand the importance and implications of religion of it were in fact true and is thinking about it accordingly.

    2) many atheists see him as the milk of atheism

    3) many atheists+ critics see him as mra

    Nuff said

  4. Eveysolara says:

    Haha milk = MLk as in Martin Luther king

  5. Crude says:

    3) many atheists+ critics see him as mra

    In my ignorance, I ask – mra? What’s that mean?

  6. Cale B.T. says:

    MRA = Men’s Rights Activist.

    What he said to earn that title was fairly mild, to say the least.

  7. Michael says:

    I like Dawkins as the milk of atheism.
    That would make Eugenie Scott skim milk.
    PZ would be sour milk.
    And the A+ movement?
    Milk duds.

  8. L.W. Dickel says:

    When Jesus belched, farted, and squatted over a hole to shit, did it stink like us regular folks? Or did it have it’s own unique “Son of God” smell?

    And when Jesus couldn’t hold one in, did he blame it on the donkey? Or Judas? Or Mary Magdalene?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  9. Raonoc says:

    More like “sick, psychotic minds.”

  10. philocompo says:

    When Jesus belched, farted, and squatted over a hole to shit, did it stink like us regular folks? Or did it have it’s own unique “Son of God” smell?”

    It probably did have a regular stink. Remember that Jesus was Son of Man as well. He was complete in his humanity, including physical limitations. He had to eat, and so he had to defecate. And in contrast to rather unrealistic paintings of him, he probably wasn’t snow-white clean and had long hair.

    And when Jesus couldn’t hold one in, did he blame it on the donkey? Or Judas? Or Mary Magdalene?

    The question is weird. When you can’t hold your urge to shit, do you blame anyone? Have you ever blamed your mother for making you unable to hold back your shit? Your donkey? Well, unless you regularly do certain things with your donkey…I’m just telling you that not everyone believes that’s normal, OK?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Judging on your past posts (including those of your previous incarnations), you seem to have an obsession with scatological things. Perhaps that’s why you seem to think it natural to blame the failure of your anal sphincter muscles on other people, like your mother.

    You also misunderstand Christianity gravely. Unlike many other religions, Christians do not (and should not) think that the fact that the human Jesus did have to eat, sleep, bathe, urinate and defecate detracts anything from his stature. In fact the uniqueness of Christianity is that it has a god who has come down in a limited human form such that everyone can relate to Him.

  11. Bilbo says:


    I think L.W. was referring to not being able to hold in a fart. I would guess that Jesus just remained silent, as He did before Pilate.

  12. L.W. Dickel says:


    I’m so glad to know that worshiping a god that squats over a hole to shit doesn’t bother you. I was so worried.

    I’ve been contemplating converting to Christianity from Zeusism but I just couldn’t get past the thought of my Savior straining to squeeze an oversize turd out of his asshole.

    But you’ve given me much more peace about this matter.

    Now, what are your thoughts about what Jesus did with all of those erections that he surely must have had?
    Did he just walk around with a huge boner? Or did he secretly pretend to scratch his balls underneath the cover of his smock?

    And speaking of Jesus’s balls, do you suppose that he ever got jock itch?

  13. Flint Churchill says:

    I would point to Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist, at Caltech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.