Controversial British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is well-known for his criticism of religion, but a new Rice University study of British scientists reveals that a majority who mentioned Dawkins’ work during research interviews reject his approach to public engagement and said his work misrepresents science and scientists because he conveys the wrong impression about what science can do and the norms that scientists observe in their work.
This is exactly right.
When it comes to the issue of God’s existence, Dawkin’s whole argument about science showing it very, very unlikely God exists is not only nonsense, but misrepresents what science is all about. And there is a very simple way to show this. How many scientific studies has Dawkins done to test whether or not God exists? Answer – None. The same fact exists for all the New Atheists leaders. Why is it these men of science can’t do the science which they claim can and has been done? Is it because they are dumb? Lazy? No, it is because science cannot determine whether or not God exists. Instead of showing us the results of their experiments, which cannot be done, they try to sell their amateur philosophy, guided by their activist agenda, as science.
Their misrepresentation of science is so bad that it can reasonably viewed as a strain of anti-science thinking. I explained this when once analyzing the sleight of hand Sam Harris engaged in when trying to redefine science so that it served his agenda.
But instead of rehashing some of my old, unrefuted arguments, let’s simply sit back and notice
Most British scientists cited in study feel Richard Dawkins’ work misrepresents science
Since a study is science, and it’s a study that certainly passes the demands of the New Atheist’s dumbed-definition of science (science is just “reason + evidence”), science has shown that Dawkins misrepresents science. And the New Atheist activists who want to attack this study out of some sense of loyalty to their hero? Er, they are actually attacking science.