Dawkins dabbles in politics -- PC and scientific intransigence on display

By Michael Bresciani

Richard Dawkins is perpetually lost deep in his own solipsism, but now it seems he is branching out into the realm of politics and assessing the 2012 candidates for the presidency. I know — should we turn up the ear, or run for the door?

On Dawkins twitter page filled largely with disingenuous digs, Dawkins drooling and fully indulgent, but dopey anti-Christian drivel, is a statement that wants to come in for a landing somewhere between defamatory and libelous. With his politics emblazoned in the clearest terms, Richard Dawkins asks the question about Mitt Romney, "Can you really vote for such a massively gullible fool?"

Dawkins also said that based on his intelligence Barack Obama must be an atheist. In the U.S many question, based on his intelligence, if he is a president, an economist, a foreign policy chief or a homosexual. Since no one is exactly sure, and we still don't know, if he is a Muslim or a Christian, (In name at least) why would we add the question of his possible atheism to the uncertainty? Whew!

As if Christians were some kind of sub-species of lowlife brain deficient minions, cowering away from the light of his brilliance, Dawkins has added political figures in full pompousness and puff to his list of unwashed dunces and fools.

Is this the new PC politics for biologists — turned bigots? Has the emperor of the empiricists spoken for them all; is it science ex-cathedra or Dawkins idea of policy, for the scientific community's intransigent mob of well indoctrinated Dawkinians? He may relish the idea, but his life will surely have long expired before that pipe dream becomes a reality.

The tweets on Dawkin's page are interspersed with testimonies of people who gave up a lifetime of practicing their faith after one reading of The God Delusion and are expressing gratefulness to Dawkins for such a wonderful deliverance from ignorance. It is a big twitter infomercial composed largely of those whose faith wasn't too strong to begin with and others whose minds were long ago convinced. It is a slobbering fest of sycophants who have disconnected from the heart to worship, the mind, which as it turns out — is not their own.

It should be noted that Mr. Dawkins chose to re-tweet a piece about a UK broadcaster who pulled the showing of a film about Islam's origins fearing the reaction of the Muslims. Like most PC cowards and sheeple, Dawkins won't get too vehement or vociferous about a religion that would return threats to both his life and livelihood. In layman's terms, would Dawkins even dare to use the same language against the Muslim's prophet, their Imams or representatives? If not, is it safe to assume it would not be due to some leanings toward the Muslim religion he may be secretly entertaining?

Blasphemy, character assassination and degrading the intelligence of millions of Christians is pretty safe ground in the western world and Dawkins will only be found plying his pabulum in that PC protected territory along with the rest of the integrity challenged in the academic community.

Adherence to the failing tenets of Darwinism, ignoring the reams of new materials from creation science and barreling ahead with prior philosophic postulation that poses as empirically derived scientific fact is exactly what we might expect from Dawkins, who at least, has been consistent. But the sudden push against a political candidate may indicate that he is tired of the shooting match with creationists and perhaps he realizes that he may actually have taken a bullet or two in the shootout.

After spending a lifetime immersed in biblical prophecy I can safely say that it will not be a debate that finally ends the argument. It will be settled forever when the imaginary sound of the big bang (heard by no one) meets the very real sound of the trump (heard by everyone) of God. In a single moment of time the world will have not one atheist or one evolutionist left to argue for Uncle Charlie. There will be no discussion or debate in the dark environs of the caves and rocks. To wit:

"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev 6: 15-17)

There are all too many scientific points to compare between the two views, the least of which will always be the millions of missing links between species. Intra species — plenty of links, inter species — links are as scarce as snowflakes on the Sahara. Total found and verified — zero

If I were rich, I might offer a million to anyone, evolutionist or not, who could sufficiently answer just one question. I might become an atheist myself in lieu of the million, if Dawkins himself endeavored to answer the question in some reasonably satisfactory fashion.

The question is simple. In the absence of a Creator where did the gases that propitiously gathered together to create the big bang come from? Did they also come from nothing? If so, what was before them? It seems we will have to lower our inductive reasoning down the ladder a bit and return to the sophomoric question, yet once again — "Which came first — the chicken or the egg?"

On the political level Mr. Dawkins seems to be showing his ignorance of American politics. Most people who call themselves Christian (Bible based) are not very comfortable with Mitt's Mormonism, but we know that here, in the U.S.; everyone is entitled to their own religious convictions. Not only are they protected by law but the unspoken norm in our politics is that you do not use a candidates religion to make the case for, or against them, as it pertains to his/her ability to assume a political office. In fully un-lettered terms — it just ain't done!

On the theological level it only seems fair that if Mr. Dawkins wants to call Mitt a gullible fool that God also specifically has called Richard Dawkins the very same. To wit: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps 53: 1a)

The Apostle Paul seeing far ahead to the day when men would be more knowledgeable as the Prophet Daniel foretold explained what this new knowledge would do to the seething and irrepressible pride that exists in all men.

Under the full power of Holy Spirit inspiration Paul said, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Ro 1: 20–22)

After Paul I hear my wife who has a saying she repeats often, every time she does, Richard Dawkins and those like him come to mind. She says, "If there is no enemy, there is no war. If God doesn't exist he can't be an enemy so why fight? It is the reverse of "what if they had a war — and nobody came." It is, "what if there was no war — but Dawkins and friends enlisted to fight?"

What exactly, is Richard Dawkins fighting? If an invisible or non-existent God weren't enough, has he now taken the fight to Mitt Romney for lack of something to do? Has he taken to tweeting for something to do? Perhaps he should take a short excursion into some remedial math courses for something to do.

Until such time, we who believe that millions of species of flora and fauna did not originate from absolutely nothing, are not likely to take political advice from someone whose math is as faulty as this — nothing plus nothing — equals everything. This kind of intelligence has no business calling Mitt Romney or anyone else — gullible.

© Michael Bresciani