Showing posts with label dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dawkins. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

'10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help' by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D

Despite an interesting premise, with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World’, Doctor Wiker ultimately falls foul of his own double standards.

It’s a bold challenge Doctor Wiker makes with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help.’

He argues that some of the most infamous literature in history has become so ingrained in modern culture that people have accepted the ‘concept’ of these books without actually reading or contesting the original material.

These commonly accepted, yet half-understood ‘truths,’ he contends, are what’s responsible for promoting our materialistic, Godless and sexually promiscuous culture – of ‘screwing up’ the world, as he puts it.

But despite coming up with a fascinating premise for his book, Doctor Wiker sets off down the wrong path from step one – illustrating that the 10 books he’s highlighted haven’t so much ‘screwed up’ the world – just ‘the world’ as he believes it should be.

It’s clear Doctor Wiker is promoting an agenda simply by reading the list of the ten works be believes ‘Screwed Up the World.’ There are some logical choices there, like Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.’ However, the rest reads like a Conservative shit-list, encompassing Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Alfred Kinsey and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Taking into account Ben Wiker’s previous books, like “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God,” and “Moral Darwinism,” it’s fair to suggest that Doctor Wiker reached his condemning conclusions about ‘the worst books ever written’ before even bothering to examine them.

That much is clear in the attacks he makes: With Descartes' ‘Discourse on the Method,’ for example, Doctor Wiker’s own theological beliefs become so entangled in his quarrel with Descarte’s ontological argument that his conclusion winds up being utterly subjective and unconvincing.

Similarly, his interpretation of ‘The Descent of Man’ attempts to bulldoze Darwinism into the role of the founder of the Eugenics movement, despite the fact that Darwin himself argued in that very book against the idea of using Darwinian methods in civilized human society.

Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the mother and father of the ‘sexual revolution’, are demonized for popularizing the study of human sexuality and breaking down the boundaries of traditional (in Wiker’s case, read ‘Christian’) morality. His evaluation of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ is clearly colored by the supposed ‘evils’ of socialism once popularized by McCarthy.

From start to finish, Doctor Wiker’s evaluation of these ’10 books’ originates from such a rigid and inflexible position that it makes his arguments and conclusions somewhat blithe. For readers coming from a similarly Conservative, Christian standpoint, they might find a lot they agree with in Doctor Wicker’s appraisals of the ‘ten worst books.’ For everybody else, you’ll have to make several leaps of faith just to keep up with his ‘logic.’

I think Thomas E. Woods sums up the intended audience of ’10 Books That Screwed Up the World’ best with his quote on the back cover: “Benjamin Wiker has read the worst books in Western civilization so you don't have to.”

It’s the ‘…so you don’t have to’ which sums it all up. If you’ve already reached your conclusion about the evils of books like The Descent of Man and the Kinsey Report, ideally without reading them, you’ll find '10 Books’ to be well written and comforting, agreeing with everything you believe you know about these ‘terrible works.’

If you’ve got a slightly more open mind, however, you’ll find Doctor Wiker’s appraisal of these books to be shamelessly one-sided and his conclusions less than watertight.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Factual Discrepencies

One of my biggest criticisms of those crazy conservatives is that they refuse to admit when they're wrong - whether it's debating the theory of evolution or whether or not being 'gay' is a liberal conspiracy.

But that being said, it would be totally hypocritical of me to not admit when I'd made a booboo. Like the one I made on Monday, when I complained bitterly about the wretched misinformation site Conservapedia misrepresenting the verdict of a 1986 Oxford University Debate featuring 'Darwin's Rottweiler,' professor Richard Dawkins.

The debate was The Huxley Memorial Debate, a celebration of the 1860 debate between the Bishop of Oxford and Thomas Henry Huxley - debating the theory of evolution.

The 1986 rematch featured widely discredited creationist Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith debating with Richard Dawkins over the hypothesis "That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution."

After three hours of debate, the motion was defeated and Richard Dawkins clearly won the debate - but things get fuzzy when people try to work out by how much.

The actual records of the debate from Oxford University have inexplicably gone missing, which means it's pretty tricky to get an accurate gauge of the margins to which Dawkins won the debate. Wilder-Smith claims that 'a third - almost one half - of those attending supported creationism' while the American Association for the Advancement of Science only adds to the confusion by recording 198 votes in favour of Professor Dawkins and only l 5 supporting creationism.

The letter 'l' followed by the number 5. On Monday, I had misread this as '15.'

Because of this typo, I can't really accuse the likes of Conservapedia of misrepresenting the number of 'aye' votes because the AAAS clearly didn't record them accurately.

However, I'm also loath to believe Wilder-Smith's claims that 'almost half' of those attending the debate voted in support of creationism. After all Wilder-Smith was a pathological liar (proven by his involvement in a scam to forge dinosaur and human tracks at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park - in order to support the theory than man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time.)

Fortunately, the correct answer was easy enough to find - on Professor Dawkin's own website.

The adamant atheist provides his own take on the voting - admitting that a significant number of people supported the creationists (far more than the 15 I'd surmised) and then provides MP3 recordings of the debate itself, which clearly feature the votes being counted and 115 'ayes' being acknowledged.

Finally, to support Dawkin's account of the debate, the actual number of voters was estimated to be around 300. If the AAAS had been correct - and only 15 had supported the creationist motion - around 100 voters would have abstained (which is unlikely.)

Therefore, I have to hold up my hands and admit I was wrong.

This doesn't mean I support Conservapedia. I still think they're a wretched mine of misinformation. Their entry on Richard Dawkins, for example, has a single paragraph on the man's belief and background and pages of discussion over whether or not he's a 'real' Oxford Professor (since he's on the Oxford University payroll, listed as a professor, I'd say the answer was 'yes.')

Discrediting Dawkins seems far more important to Conservapedia clowns than actually writing an encyclopedia entry on him.