Richard Dawkins -- the polemicist of such anti-Creation books as The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Unweaving the Rainbow, River out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable and his autobiography A Devil's Chaplain -- could be more properly called an "Athevolutionist," as he embodies and promotes the natural resulting state of belief in Evolutionism: militant Atheism. While many Creationists are content to ignore Mr. Dawkins and his quasiquixotic quest to vanquish the Watchmaker (i.e. kill God,) we shouldn't turn a blind eye to this tinkerer, for he makes his own brand of diabolical watches -- watches that tell not time, but lies!

On this page I will unweave Mr. Dawkins' absurd and dangerous philosophy, exposing the true nature of Evolutionism in the process. (Also see my uncovering of Dawkins' collusion with Apple Computers to propagandize Evolutionism.)

July 2, 2003 - I am issuing a standing challenge to Dr. Dawkins to debate me on Evolutionism vs. Creation Science. As a venue, I propose the Mt. Fellowship auditorium. We will, of course, foot all expenses and will even allow him to choose the debate format. While I am aware that the good doctor is very busy with his book signings, television appearances and writing denunciations of America for the Guardian , I'm sure he can pencil me in for a debate... unless, that is, he's afraid that I will thoroughly trounce his position with the might of Creation evidences. (We know that Dr. Dawkins reads our site , so ignorance is no excuse.)

Omnibus Update

I've been getting letters asking why I haven't updated the Dawkins Watch since 2006, especially since Dr. Dawkins has been very busy in the mean time: he's been spreading destruction with more aggressively anti-God propaganda like the "documentary" The Root of All Evil? (which drove former pastor Ted Haggard into mental illness and depraved sin) and his "best-selling" book The God Delusion (which causes suicide); started his own political movement called "the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science", which proposes that all reason and science be built on the foundation of Richard Dawkins' anti-God writings; gathered around himself an army of loyal foot-soldiers who post diatribes and threats in the forums at RichardDawkins.net; encouraged fellow Atheists to "come out of the closet" and adopt a giant, red, fascistic "A" symbol; encouraged the defacing of public transportation with hatespeech; and even appeared on the British sci-fi show Dr Who! He's been quite a busy little monkey's uncle, hasn't he? The original intent of this page was to expose the activities of this powerful Atheist, who, being British, was being mostly ignored by the Christian community in America. But now that the Christian community is paying sufficient attention to Dr. Dawkins' demagoguery, my efforts here have become somewhat redundant. If I uncover any information about Dr. Dawkins or his activities that hasn't yet been exposed elsewhere -- or if Dr. Dawkins finally accepts my challenge to a debate -- I will post updates. However, I feel my time is better spent on preparations for Project Pterosaur's Creation Science expedition than in reporting on the comings and goings of the Athevolutionist High-Priest.

Using his inside connections at the BBC (he is married to one of Dr. Who's assistants), Dawkins has sneakily managed to get himself a two-part television series in the UK entitled "The Root of All Evil?" -- and, no, its titular subject isn't Evolutionism, as one would rightfully guess, but rather religion! If I didn't know beforehand that Dawkins was involved, I would be shocked. I have not seen the show -- and thankfully never will, since no US television station would dare show such profane filth unless it wanted to be boycotted back to the Prediluvian Age -- but by all accounts it is a militant Atheism propaganda film that lashes out at the faithful, faith, and God Himself. The first episode is called "The God Delusion" and features Dawkins, who is both writer and host, traveling to meet different people of faith so he can personally insult them to their faces. One of his targets is Ted Haggard, Evangelical advisor to the President, who gets the upper hand on Dawkins, soundly refuting Evolutionism. Dawkins in turn gets combative, throwing a hissy fit, resulting in his ejection from the New Life Church premises. The second episode is called "The Virus of Faith" and continues Dawkins silly argument that those with faith are "diseased". He also continues his more dangerous argument that teaching little children to love Jesus is a form of child abuse. I'm sure Dawkins would dearly love to have all Christian children taken from their homes by the government and raised in some sort of Darwinian commune where they will be taught genetic selfishness and how to be arrogant at cocktail parties. Thankfully his influence in the US is limited to the Secular fringe, so our children are safe -- for now.

In a highly inflamtory article in the UK magazine Prospect, Dawkins attempts to fan the flames of public panic about a supposed street drug called "Gerin oil" that is responsible, he claims, for all of society's ills. However, It turns out that there is no such drug. He made it up. Your children are safe. The name is actually an anagram of "religion" and the article, which he slipped past the magazine's editor pretending it was about a real narcotic, is part of Dawkins' on-going, bitter campaign against God. This sort of behavior from a supposedly respected scientist is irresponsible! It's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The Liberal readers of Prospect are already confused enough by all the Evolutionist propaganda that has been foisted upon them, not to mention the lack of a moral compass that one finds in our Lord, but to trick them into believing that their kids are in danger of being hooked on government-subsidized drugs in their schools is just cruel. Besides, we all know the real drug that's causing all the problems in our world and which is being pushed by people such as Dr. "Feelgood" Dawkins: Visome nut oil. Fortunately, we have a 2-step program to help those hooked on that vile substance favored by the Culture of Death. The first step is admitting you have a problem. The second step? Believing in God.

Dr. William Dembski, the foremost expert on Information Theory who has provided us with a solid mathematical basis to infer Design that is being used in labs all across the world, is taking a break on his blog from his more heady persuits to ask his readers a question: He wants to know your favorite Dawkins quote (the more outrageous the better!) Dembski's favorite is from The Blind Watchmaker: "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." When you strip away all the florid prose that Dawkins is known for and extract what he actually said in short quotations, you have to stop and wonder why people continue to read him. As Dembski points out in the comments: "It is so easy to villainize Dawkins. He is a villain."

Dawkins gives the following answer in response to the question "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?": I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. Should we be allowing this sort of faith-based "science" in our public classrooms, especially when there are alternatives -- Creation Science and Intelligent Design -- that are actually supported by evidences? I think not.

Dawkins Yearns To Meet, Mate "Hobbits" (Just Don't Call Them That)

As I reported recently in the "Wacky Evolutionists" section, Evolutionists are claiming to have discovered a race of "Hobbits" that are in fact, as has been shown by respected Creation researchers, merely human dwarves (of the normal, non-Tolkien kind). Well, now Dawkins has issued a statement on this "discovery" (registration required) and it's even more bizarre than the original Evolutionist claims. Dawkins hopes that "Homo floresiensis" (whom he thinks should not be called "Hobbits" since it "insults the memory of these tiny cousins") are still alive because he feels that if a female of this species of non-human human could be made to interbreed with us normal humans, that absolutist morality will be shaken to it's foundation and abortion would become acceptable. To help bring this dystopia about, he implores somebody (not Dawkins himself, of course, because, you know, the bees) to go to Indonesia and search for her (one can't help but wonder if he uses the word "precious" when muttering this dream to himself). Given the sway that Dr. Dawkins has among his followers, I think it's imperative that we contact missionary workers in Indonesia and warn them to be on the lookout for wild-eyed Evolutionists stalking the jungles for short women. A Boys From Brazil scenario just doesn't compare with what they might have in mind.

Anti-American Foreigner Dawkins Trying To Influence American Election

Dawkins has made no secret of his bitter hatred of our openly Christian President, taking constant, non sequitur swipes at Bush in his newest book that even his fellow Evolutionists find "obsessive" (although some of the more unhinged in the ranks have taken his Evolutionistic anti-Bush stance to heart.) Now he's trying to influence our Presidential election by sending finger-wagging personal letters (an example of which can be found here at the end) to random citizens of Clark County, Ohio -- a battleground county -- hoping to terrorize them into not voting for Bush. Unfortunately (for Dawkins that is), his missives are more likely to drive voters in Ohio into the Bush camp, as they show a complete lack of touch with American values; at one point he even impugns the character of an American who defended his home and family against a burglar, suggesting that he is "uncivilized" -- I suppose in England they invite burglars in for tea and scones! Dr. Dawkins: Cease your underhanded attack on American Democracy and our Christian values. Instead of harassing the good citizens of my nation via your spiteful epistles while you cower in the UK for fear of bees, why don't you evolve a spine and come here and debate me on Origins, mano a mono.

Much like his Counter-Cultural heros from his hallucinogenic days in 1960s California (see previous entry), Dawkins has decided to lead protest marches. Instead of chanting to end the war or ban the bra or whatever those sorts got up to, the bee in Dawkins' bonnet is his desire for British school children to remain uneducated on God's Creation, only allowing them to receive Evolutionistic indoctrination. Specifically, he riled up a "wave of demonstrations and marches" in Doncaster against a plan by millionaire Christian philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation to create a city academy there based upon Christian principles and sound Biblical science. Unlike the other schools in increasingly Secularistic England, this school would have dared to teach the Origins controversy and present both sides fairly (which is more than the pseudoscientific Evolutionistic creed deserves), and so Dawkins would have none of it. Without a hint of irony, he called the plan to speak the Truth to children "educational debauchery" and his followers accused the schools of indoctrination. The unruly mobs of Evolutionists under Dawkins' sway managed to scare the mayor into submission, and so Sir Vardy has been barred from establishing his academy and another generation of Brits may be lost.

Arch-Seculiberal newspaper, The Guardian, has graced us with an excerpt from Dr. Dawkins' new book, The Ancestor's Tale: A pilgrimage to the dawn of life. For those of you who do not wish to fund the man's work on memetic engineering a Godless society, this is a good oportunity to catch up on the cutting edge of fashionable Evolutionist nonsense without having to buy the book. And what a doozy of nonsense we have here! The book is ostensibly a retracing of Human Evolution, from Man to Monkey to Microbe, done in the style of Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, except instead making a progressive religious pilgrimage we are on a Godless trek backwards to a "universe evolved out of literally nothing." The excerpt however deals with his question of the likelihood of something re-evolving on other Earths or if he were able to somehow go back and restart Evolutionism on our Earth. (Evolutionists can't help but desire to play God.) Dawkins concludes that some things, like eyes and stingers (again with the bees,) would be likely to re-evolve since they have "evolved" independently in unrelated species so many times. So much for the Evolutionist concept of homologous structures being evidence of common descent! On the other hand, there are some things that are unique, having only been "evolved" once in one species, such as the chemical explosions of bombardier beetles. (And here Dawkins can't help but take snide swipes at the solid work of Creation researchers -- how then did the catalyst evolve if it only works in its complete form, Dr. Smarty Pants?) The most bizarre part of the excerpt was near the end, when he started waxing poetically on the grandeur of his Atheistic view of life, saying that his idea of a Creatorless universe is "a fact so staggering that [he] would be mad to attempt words" to justify it, even though he's been attempting that for years. Is this an admission of mental illness? Perhaps! Look what he writes in the very last paragraph: This pilgrimage has been a trip, not just in the literal sense but in the counter-cultural sense I met when a young man in California in the 1960s. The most potent hallucinogen on sale in Haight or Ashbury or Telegraph Avenue would be tame by comparison. (Should we consider the possibility that it isn't real bees he's afraid of?) Yes kids, this is your brain on Evolutionism. Much like another doctor, named Leary, Dr. Dawkins wants you to turn on, tune in, and drop out of your relationship with the Lord by taking part in his Evolutionistic Kool-Aid Atheism Test and passing the Darwin on the Leftist side. Who was it that said religion is the opiate of the masses? Reality: 2, Marx: 0. Also of note: Secular science magazine The Scientist has blithely referred to our favorite psychedelic spheksophobe as "Nobel Prize winner Richard Dawkins." Dawkins has not ever been awarded that prestigious prize. Evolutionists, who have no substantive points to make, often make the unjust accusation that Creation Science researchers pad their credentials. I personally have had my doctorate in theobiology questioned on many occasions by Darwinists who are entirely unfamiliar with the field. But here we see that the other side is transparently guilty of that which they charge others of. For comparison, here's what real Nobel Laureates have to say: "I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." (Sir Ernst B. Chain, Medicine, 1945) "When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that it reveals the wonders of God's creation." (Arthur L. Schawlow, Physics, 1981) "Upon splitting the atom, I made a startling realization: while atomic nuclei could be transmutated into different elements, their constituent parts remained as they were at the moment of Creation. The idea then current among biologists that random mutations could produce truly novel structures became to me the most absurd thing. It was at that moment that I understood that I was Born Again." (Sir John Cockcroft, Physics, 1951) "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst B. Chain, Medicine, 1945) "To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." (Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Medicine, 1937) "It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'" (Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Physics) ADDENDUM [2/4/2005]: It has been brought to my attention that the article in The Scientist I referred to above was altered the day after I posted this story to say that a scientist other than Dawkins was the Nobel Laureate. My exposing of their attempt to pad Dr. Dawkins' resumé must have forced them to sneakily make the change and claim it was an honest mistake, although I fail to see how someone could simply mistype "Nobel Prize winner Richard Dawkins". They added the following note at the bottom: Correction (posted September 17): When originally posted, this story said that Richard Dawkins was a Nobel Prize winner. The Scientist regrets the error. Not as much as I'm sure the Nobel Prize Committee would have regreted it if this had been correct!

I think I may have figured out one reason why Dr. Dawkins continues to ignore my invitation to come to Mt. Fellowship Baptist and debate me on Origins. According to a review of a book about eccentric Evolutionists, Dawkins is unique among his peers in that he has opted to do all his zoological work indoors, behind his Macintosh. Apparently he tried to venture into the field once but was chased back inside by a wasp. While I personally cannot relate to Dr. Dawkins affliction (I believe the technical term for what he suffers from is "spheksophobia", and is also common among Catholics) as I feel no fear going into even the most jungly, wasp-ridden field location (although I have become somewhat leery of dinosauricidal crypto-Evolutionists,) I am willing to help the man out by allowing him to borrow a netted hat and smoker from Fellowship University's apiculture department for use during the debate, if that will help allay his fears.

On the heels of Dawkins' election to the heady rank of Britain's Top Intellectual, the BBC has an article entitled "Q&A: Richard Dawkins" in which he plugs his new book and takes pot shots at Americans' understanding of true Biblical science. He's obviously giddy at this propaganda coup for Evolutionism -- just look at the picture of him leering and rubbing his hands maniacally in anticipation of further spreading his anti-Christian "meme". But is all this on the up and up? As the BBC's intro points out, Secular scientists did poorly, placing only three of their own, including Dawkins, in the top thirty, while Dawkins suspiciously got nearly twice the votes of the second place Intellectual. Surely British Intellectuals such as Nigel McQuoid and Sir Peter Vardy should have placed well ahead of someone of the likes of Dawkins. I suspect voter fraud and encourage all good Christian Britons to call for a recount.

This article in the ultra-Liberal Guardian is short on details of how exactly Dawkins was elected to this position or by whom, instead choosing to heap praise on "Doctor Zoo" (who, they note, is married to an actress from the crypto-Athevolutionary and utterly Godless Doctor Who series shown on Secular PBS stations) and his many anti-Christian activities, such as how he managed to fraudulently get himself made a Reverend of the equally fraudulent Universal Life Church... only to hang his certificate in the bathroom out of mockery of Christian values. (Perhaps I should look into getting a doctorate in Evolutionism from one of the many Evolutionist diploma mills that are used to routinely inflate the reported numbers of supposed scientists who believe in that supposed science.) It's a rather standard biography, but there's a few interesting tidbits in there: he is filled with hatred for upstanding American conservatives; he has interfered in US presidential elections; his books have been used as a recruitment tool to ensnare the minds of the youth; and "the Apple Macintosh" is listed as his only recreation in Who's Who, further confirming his ties to Apple's campaign of pro-Evolutionism propaganda.

James "The Amazing Atheist" Randi -- a notorious curmudgeonly skeptic who, when not harassing Uri Geller and other ditzy occultists, likes to champion the religion of Secular Humanism -- posted an article in his weekly column where he gloats about the vandalizing of a bank office window in Clearwater, Florida which some superstitious idolaters believed held a miraculous apparition of the Virgin Mary, but which Randi claims was just the result of dried mineral deposits from a busted sprinkler. (He committed a misdemeanor in order to get a sample from the sprinkler pump to confirm this supposition.) While Randi is probably correct in his assessment -- even if it is kneejerk skepticism on his part; as the saying goes: even a broken clock is correct twice a day -- one can't help but wonder if dark forces hadn't dislodged that sprinkler head and guided its spray so as to lead astray all those people camped out in the parking lot in complete disregard of His Commandments. So why am I talking about James Randi in the Dawkins Watch? Because, according to Randi, besides a gaggle of goons from the International Atheist Alliance (I guess he travels with an entourage), he had a notable accomplice with him the day he visited the window to scoff at both Faith and civil law: one Richard Dawkins. Apparently Dr. Dawkins has the time to travel to Florida to debunk dirty windows, but can't seem to schedule in a debate with me on Origins. Perhaps he's afraid I'll squeegee the windows with him. (So many weird beliefs in one entry: Atheists, Idolaters, Spoon-benders -- given this took place in Clearwater, I suppose we're just lucky the Scientologist didn't pop in to round out the carnival of false religions. It must be something in the water down there.)

The National Secular Society -- a nefarious British organization that offers "De-baptism" certificates for download -- is peddling a line of "Heroes of Atheism" products, which include a lovely Dawkins mug with matching tea towel. I mention this not to encourage anyone to actually buy their merchandise, but only to note that Dawkins is apparently Atheism's only living "hero." Perhaps the threat isn't as bad as Dr. Mohler fears, what with them all dying out.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., in his superb overview of Dawkins' newest book, A Devil's Chaplain, shows how the writings of this militant Atheist can be useful to Christians: As a militant atheist, Dawkins is living out the inevitable consequences of the Darwinian worldview. .... One of the most venerable and valuable axioms of warfare is this: "Know your enemy." Naturalistic evolution and the materialist worldview represent the most threatening enemies Christianity now faces in the Western world. In A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins helps us to understand the worldview and thinking behind the theory of evolution. As he applies to be the devil's chaplain, it appears that Richard Dawkins is superbly qualified for the job. A very important axiom, that. Furthermore, he makes a strong case that Dawkins' attack on fellow Evolutionists and New Agers who attempt to "accommodate the Christian worldview to the worldview of naturalistic scientism" is actually helpful to the cause of promoting Biblical purity and ending the encroachment of Evolutionism into our churches.

As I have detailed elsewhere, the Macintosh computer has always been the platform of choice for Evolutionists, what with its creator, Apple Computers, being such a staunch proponent of that corrupted philosophy. So it is no wonder that Dawkins embraced the computer from the beginning and has often combined his pro-Evolutionism propaganda with a side order of pro-Macintoshism (the last half of The Blind Watchmaker reads like a Macintosh user manual). Well, for the 20th anniversary of the computer's launch, Dawkins has written a fluffy love-letter to his computer in the Guardian. Apparently, he's too busy writing stuff like this to address my debate challenge, which is nine over its 200th day anniversary.

This shocking revelation appears buried near the end of an article in a local Indiana newspaper about a book-signing appearance by Peter Hertli, a psychologist (by degree at least, I can find little information about the man) and author of Beyond Darwin and Genesis, in which he promises a "third alternative on man's origins." I'll quote the important part in full: One problem [with the Evolutionist belief in the material origin of Man] is that research by British biologist and geneticist Richard Dawkins indicates that for all the necessary mutations between the first cell and the first man to occur through natural selection would have taken longer than the universe has existed, Hertli said. Sweet Betsy! When did Dawkins publish that research? What's more, Hertli apparently (from what I can tell) subscribes to the fashionable yet erroneous belief that the universe is billions of years old, so presumably he means that span of time is what Dawkins has problems with, not the approximately 6,000 years that sound Biblical research indicates. Granted, Hertli is also a Preterist and Swiss, and his views on the origin of man are explicitly anti-Bible (as can be seen by his book's title,) so I'm leery of trusting him as a source; however, if true, this is an important bit of news that deserves wider attention. If Dawkins really has done the calculations and it has come up that bad for Evolutionism, he should make his findings public instead of keeping it a secret.

(I have to report this second hand, since I can't pick up British television with my rabbit ears and I doubt they will rebroadcast this show on PAX...) Dawkins took a turn on the UK's Channel 5 program The Big Question, a philosophical anthology that has various supposedly deep thinkers each posing some Big Question and then presuming to answer it in a space of 30 minutes (minus commercials). Dawkins' Big Question was: "Why are we here?" Apparently his answer (again, reported second hand via a reviewer) was that we are here "to seek, to strive, to have foresight. We communicate, we make stuff, we search for meaning. That's why we're here." Well then. Glad that's cleared up. Other illuminaries featured in the Big Question series include materialistic brain expert Susan Greenfield, occult hypnotist Ian Stewart, and Atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking -- notorious frequenter of nudie bars and maker of obscene and violent rap songs who once, on one of his TV specials, boasted of betting pornography over the existence of black holes. The Big Question I have is: "Why should we listen to these people?" (Answer: "We shouldn't!")

Beliefnet.com has an interview with Dr. Dawkins, who is peddling his book A Devil's Chaplain. In the interview, he advocates the replacement of religion with "science" (or rather, Scientism) via some sort of viral "eradication" program, suggests that "you won't find any intelligent person who feels the need for the supernatural," and envisions a worldly paradise where all children are whisked away from their parents to be raised by his minions under the strict rule of "enlightened rationality." Oh, and he implies that if the Atheists had some more money they could produce the Sistine Chapel ceiling too. Classic, wacky Dawkins! However, the most amusingly ironic part was the embedded ad for Liberty University, since I doubt the man could even get accepted there as a student, much less hold his own with their scholars.

Now not only is Evolutionism influencing cultic marketing campaigns, it's also contributing to the spread of Secular Rock and Roll music. Two Secular musicians, working under the peculiar name Frameshift (beware: you can't go two seconds on that site without being accosted with gushing Dawkins adulation,) have penned an album "inspired by evolution-themed books written by Richard Dawkins" entitled Unweaving the Rainbow, a reference to Dawkins' book of the same name wherein he argues that all the joy and wonder should be drained from God's creation and replaced with reductionistic Scientism. Here is a partial track list for this hymnal to Humanism: The Gene Machine (According to Dawkins' worldview, we are all robots piloted by selfish genes.) River out of Eden (No, this isn't about the real Eden of Adam and Eve, but Dawkins' Eden of the "first replicators," whatever they may be.) Message from the Mountain ("Mt. Improbable," I'm guessing, not Mt. Sinai.) Your Eyes (...are a Godless accident. A romantic ballad, perhaps?) Walking through Genetic Space (A new Santamas classic?) Cultural Genetics (A song about "memes," thus proving that memetics is a tautology.) ...and so on for 15 tracks (whereas a good Christian record can express itself in a mere ten tracks.) I suppose one should have seen it coming: with the rise in popularity of wholesome Christian Rock music, it was only a matter of time before the Evolutionists would glom onto the style and make their own brand of "Secularock" in order to influence and misinform our nation's youth. (And no doubt Apple will in short measure be selling these songs on their new "I-Tunes" service... or maybe even preloading them onto their "I-Pods!")

Dawkins gave his "Human Values" lecture yesterday and -- surprise! -- it had nothing whatsoever to do with values, human or otherwise. Instead, those in attendance were treated to a harangue about how parents shouldn't "label" their children as Christians since it might cause them to be... Christians! The horror! He also revisited his scurrilous theme of religion being a virus of the mind, this time focusing on children's "unique obedience that makes them vulnerable to viruses and worms." That's right kids: don't obey your parents or you'll end up scooting around the floor on your behinds just like Fido. Values indeed!

Yes, you read the headline correctly. The "Devil's Chaplain" will be giving this year's Tanner Lectures on Human Values (which are funded by shadowy agencies in Mormon Utah) on the 19th and 20th of November in Lowell Lecture Hall at Harvard University -- yes, the former Puritan college in Cambridge, if you can believe it. His lectures will be free and open to the public and entitled "The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science." Here's how he describes the subject of his second lecture: I do think ... that there is something quasireligious in science, the sense of awe, the sense of wonder, the sense of almost spiritual response to the universe, which I believe I have and many other scientists have developed to a high degree. So there you have it. Scientists have developed a quasireligious spiritual response in the lab (I wonder if it involved a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator?) What this has to do with "Human Values" is beyond me, but it is interesting to see Dawkins is putting himself in the position of Spiritual Prophet of the Religion of Science, coming down from Mount Improbable to deliver unto us our Human Values. Maybe he'll conduct the lecture in full Santa regalia.

It's all the fad on the BBC and US cable's Secular Discovery Channel (no relation to the respected Discovery Institute): "documentary" programs, such as "Walking With Dinosaurs," that use computer generated imagery (CGI) to present Evolutionist make-believe as though it were cinéma vérité footage -- for instance, showing realistic looking dinosaurs living in a humanless (and presumably Godless) world millions of years before it was actually created. Besides being examples of photographic revisionism that would make even Stalin raise a bushy eyebrow, these programs are often aimed at impressionable children with, like many Secular nature programs, an emphasis on the violent or sexual aspects of animal life in order to make the shows "exciting" and further debase social norms. In a review of the newest entrant in this genre, "Sea Monsters," Dawkins has reservations about the lengths the show's creator has gone in presenting Evolutionism: I think the Nigel Marven programmes are awful, awful -- really naff ... [T]hey didn't give the viewer any indication of what is known and what is conjecture. But that complaint is just a red herring. Actually, the good professor is concerned about having his science programs pure and uncoated with "the sugar of personal anecdote." By this he means the inclusion of Mr. Marven in the "prehistorical" scenes as an active participant, which is verboten according to Evolutionist dogma and might suggest Biblical truths to the as-yet-unindoctrinated viewer. For example, one scene pictured in the review features the show's creator tussling with a giant sea scorpion, much as wicked men 4000 years ago must have done as the Flood waters rose. The realistic depiction of man and antediluvian sealife interacting is indeed something Dawkins should be worried about. While I can't say I approve of the deceptive means the show uses, and certainly not its Evolutionistic message, I'm willing to put aside my personal bad experiences with Evolutionists named Nigel and recommend this show to Youth Pastors and Theobiology instructors, with the stipulation that they should fast forward past the unbiblical bits. If Dawkins doesn't like it, there must be something right about it.

Psychology Today -- a magazine for Freudians, Jungians, Skinnerites, and other Secularists who deny the Immaterial Soul -- has an article on branding (the process by which advertisers create an identity for a product or company) which has this interesting nugget: Apple thus created a "meme"--a term the Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins coined to describe self-replicating cultural elements. The meme lives outside of Apple advertisements, effectively turning its customers into a quasi-sales force. Here we see complicit acknowledgment from the Secular mind-control elite that Apple has not only been aiding and abetting Evolutionists, as I argued elsewhere, but that they have been applying Evolutionist propaganda techniques developed by Dawkins to increase the rabidity of their zealous followers. Perhaps Apple's pro-Evolutionism push is payback for the use of Dawkins' techniques -- a deal with the devil, if you will?

In an article lamenting the rise in Secularized, candy-addled hoodlums terrorizing the British on Halloween, the author reveals at the end that Dawkins has privately confessed to hanging stockings for Christmas and dressing up as Santa Claus. This will come as no surprise to my fellow OBJECTIVE: Ministries contributor Wendy Tullar, who has quite conclusively shown in her Mall Mission section that Christmas has been turned into "Santamas" as part of a Secular scam to subvert our cultural heritage. That the Crown Prince of Secularization would don the vestments of the false god of the new Secular religion to further spread its "meme" seems only fitting. Come the night of December 24th, make sure your flues are securely closed; you wouldn't want to wake up in the morning to find your manger scene replaced with a Darwin Doll.

An article about how the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould's rise to "pop icon" status was marked by his appearance on The Simpsons (a Secular cartoon sitcom on the FOX Network, for those who spend their Sunday evenings with Doc,) quickly turns into an exposé of what the author calls the "Dawkins Gang": a clique of staunch Athevolutionists that includes Dawkins' former mentor John Maynard Smith, flocculent hippy linguist Steven Pinker, the aforementioned philosopher-cum-lapdog Daniel Dennett, and others who all profess a form of "Darwinian fundamentalism." These Darwinian henchmen, acting on the behest of their "Bright" leader, spent a great deal of time trying to vilify Gould for going against the orthodoxy of Darwinism by questioning the efficacy of Natural Selection to produce Life's grandeur (he proclaimed Darwinism "effectively dead" back in 1980.) However, Gould -- who recanted Evolutionism on his deathbed, choosing instead to embrace the Love of Christ he so often encountered in the Bible passages he peppered throughout his many popular articles about baseball -- was able to refute his accusers by showing them for the Athevolutionistic zealots that they are. Perhaps the harsh treatment given to apostate Evolutionists is what led Gould to seek Salvation. If so, then the Lord must indeed have a purpose for Dawkins after all!

Dawkins: "Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed!"

Mr. Meme says: "Hey kids, wanna read some Bright Tracts?" Mr. Meme says: "Hey kids, wanna read some Bright Tracts?"

In an article offensively entitled "Religion Be [Darned]," Dawkins "defends the godless among us" (what he calls a "beleaguered community in the US" -- Beleaguered? Are we not allowing them to remain godless and not worship in the privacy of their homes? What more do they want?) by once again promoting the politically correct (and intellectually wrong) alternative Atheist appellation "Bright." Again he makes the comparison to the hijacked word "gay", this time pulling out Gallup polls to show how approval ratings for a hypothetical homosexual president went from 26% in 1978 to 59% in 1999, presumably resulting from the happier term being widely adopted. Could a similar approach work for Atheists and improve their relatively dismal 49% rating, the lowest of all groups included in the 1999 poll? Dawkins assures us that he is merely a disinterested scientist, simply curious as to how the "bright meme" will do, with no designs (sorry, purposeless evolutions) on getting an Atheist elected president so as to enact his vision of a barcoded Evolutionist utopia. Sure. The article was published in Wired -- a magazine popular with Mac-using Secularists and general anti-religious types. Dawkins even addresses the Wired reader with "you are (quite probably) a bright." The magazine has given Dawkins a soapbox before, once putting him on the cover with a digitally swelled cranium which, he claims in the accompanying article, "is what our skulls might look like in thousands of years," (or maybe it's just temporal-lobe-envy on Dawkins' part.) Anyway, while looking up that article, I found an ad on Wired's site for the book/movement called The Evolutionist Order. Here we get a glimpse into what will happen when Dawkins succeeds in raising Atheist approval ratings via memetics: an Athevolutionist commune founded on the writings of Darwin and Marx. "Brights of the world, unite!" indeed.

Daniel Dennett -- a philosopher of Evolutionism who is best known for his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea and whom the late Stephen Jay Gould, a more moderate Evolutionist, once called "Dawkins' Lapdog" -- has come out in loyal support of his master's "brightness." "[W]e are all around you ... We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation," he triumphantly and delusionally proclaims, before going into a paranoid ramble about anti-bright persecution and the need to badger politicians. Lets just hope, for Dr. Dennett's sake, that Dawkins' temporal lobe condition doesn't cause him to go jumping off of any bridges. Nothing smells worse than a wet philosopher.

This 1998 Christianity Today article on the antimoral evil that is "Evolutionary psychology" (a theory that purports to explain all of morality as genetic selfishness) contains perhaps the silliest apologizing for President Clinton's sinful ways ever, and I don't have to give you three guesses who's saying it. Dawkins (whose real first name is "Clinton", by the way) justifies the former President's infidelity by saying that Clinton's Evolutionary ancestors were seal-like harem builders (any relation to the aquatic apes?) and thus monogamy is not in his selfish genes. While the image of a corpulent Clinton eating fish seems somehow apropos to the shameful way he conducted himself in the White House, I think the Atheistic zoologist should leave questions of morality to those of us with degrees in the proper fields.

Richard Dawkins champions radical Political Correctness in this bizarre essay (I'm beginning to suspect that maybe his temporal lobe isn't the only thing damaged in that head of his.) After first suggesting that our maps should put the South Pole on the top so Australians can feel empowered or somesuch nonsense and then commanding his followers to attack people at dinner parties for not calling Christian children "children of Christian parents" (so as to make the children an easier target for Atheist conversion, naturally,) the arch-Evolutionist then goes on to praise the co-opting of the word "gay" by the homosexuals as a triumph of his Orwellian "memetic" theories. And what's next on his agenda? Why co-opting the word "bright" for Atheists, of course! That's right, from now on Doctor Dawkins insists that you must call him "a bright." That's "bright" as a noun, mind you. Never refer to him as being bright, as that would be entirely incorrect.

The close ties between anti-Christianism/pro-Evolutionism and anti-Americanism were made clear this weekend when notorious Evolutionist Richard Dawkins published an anti-war screed in a disreputable British newspaper. In it he insulted our President's faith, called him a "catastrophe for the world", and suggested that there might be "something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours." (He also "unweaved" thousands of years of theological research into the nature of Evil, explaining it away as just a "miscellaneous collection" of nasty things.) I am seriously considering changing my name to "Freedom Paley" in protest of this man.

Fringe pseudoscientist Michael Persinger of Canada has developed an electromagnetic helmet device -- he calls it a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator -- that he claims can reproduce religious experiences in lab subjects by stimulating their brains' temporal lobes. This is all part of his anti-religious theory that people who believe in God are mentally ill and suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. So, in order to test his device -- which would supposedly prove that God is just in our heads -- who does he turn to? Why, militant Atheist Richard Dawkins, of course! If he can make the arch-Evolutionist proclaim "Hallelujah!" then surely he's on to something. But, alas, it did not work and all Dawkins felt was some tingling. However, Persinger assures us that the failure of Mr. Selfish Gene to See the Light doesn't disqualify the electro-helmet or the anti-God theory, but that Dawkins' brain was at fault since he "scored low on a psychological scale measuring proneness to temporal lobe sensitivity." Perhaps he was dropped on his head as a child. That would explain a lot.