Anyone who publishes a rebuttal to any of Dawkins’ books will be branded as a flea. From his own site:
Many “parasitic” authors have released books which use Richard’s name or titles to sell their own books …
So any critique is dismissed as “parasitic”.
The latest book given that status is Jonathan Sarfati’s The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. It’s a soundly-based, scholarly rebuttal of Dawkins’ straw-man arguments against creation in his The Greatest Show on Earth.
By calling it a flea, they attack the man and avoid facing the scientific problems.
The comments on Dawkins’ site show that his fans aren’t interested in the arguments either:
- Oh no! A chessmaster!
- How humble of the author to put a question mark at the end of his title!
- We should have all pitched in and bought Richard a 50 gallon drum of flea powder for his birthday.
- Jonathan Sarfati isn’t worthy of the label “flea”. He’s more like the fungal infection that sometimes infests fleas.
- Etc.
The irony is that by this definition, Dawkins falls into the category of “flea” with respect to the best-selling book of all time—the Bible.
Grahame Gould
It would be easy for me to get angry about this. How sad that that’s the level that argumentation sinks to (and unfortunately it’s not restricted to Dawkins-supporters).
Ah the vanity and foolishness of the human heart. (As God says in Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it?”
It would be nice if people engaged with the issues instead of scurrilous and unfounded attacks on the individual.
And how sad that there are so many Christians who join Dawkins et al in attacking God’s truth.
Grahame Gould
How tempting was it to title this article “Dawkins claims he has fleas” or something similar?
Joel Tay
“The irony is that by this definition, Dawkins falls into the category of “flea” with respect to the best-selling book of all time—the Bible.”
haha. Good one.
Daniel Wilson
We will never be able to engage in a fair debate wherein the side with the best evidence wins with the Dawkins types of this world.
Dawkins’ arrogance in passing off critics as “fleas” and “idiots” frustrates such an attempt.
It also helps us see what we’re really up against: Not simply a smart (wrong) man, but that wisdom that descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
If you have tried praying for Mr. Dawkins, you have likely come up against a serious spiritual resistance. He’s getting help, albeit help that will eventually destroy him, from the enemy.
Garry Graham
You can tell a tree by its fruit…
John Wallis
This is a sad debate, gets sader by the minute, Mr Dawkins has exposed some big holes in our Christian, (Roman Catholic) doctrines, and it seems that for the most of us, we are unable to see the problems we have with our own beliefs.
I am not suggesting for one moment that Richard Dawkins has anything to offer as far as truth goes, but why not try and understand where he is coming from.
John R Wallis
Ron Dean
Greetings .
As just one , of about six point eight billion people , on our planet , Danny , who
is your enemy ? Your neighbor , who feels similar traditional Spiritual resistance ?
Our neighbors , feel a presence too . Who chooses who’s feeling is right ?
Mother Earth needs our cohesion , and co-operation , for our future .
Peace on Earth , is Goodwill to every Innocent Living Thing .
Resolve our conflicts , about our history ,and build towards our children’s future .
Every one is needed , in co-operation , or no one will win .
Unravel the mystery , about our history , and work towards , how you want your
grandkids , to move forwards .
Towards that Peace an Prosperity , always Ron .
Grahame Gould
John, I’m not sure why you assume that we don’t understand where Mr Dawkins is coming from (insofar as it is possible, as I’ve never been a strident atheist).
However, how easy as he made it to see where he is coming from. He hides behind lies and misrepresentation of those he attacks – and don’t for one minutes think that his real enemy is Roman Catholicism. He saves his “biggest guns” (HA!) for six-day, “literal” creationism. That’s what he most virulently fights. And yet he doesn’t engage with what any “young earth” creationist believes. He attacks straw men that have never been believed by anyone who holds the position he claims to be attacking.
If Roman Catholicism was his real enemy, he would attack theistic evolution most stridently.
No doubt he has exposed big holes in Roman Catholic doctrine, as have many others, but that is not biblical truth, is not what I or Jonathan Sarfati or Tas or CMI attack him for.
Insofar as it is possible to understand where Richard Dawkins is coming from, the Bible makes it clear that he is stuck in Romans 1 as a worshipper of the creation rather than the Creator, as one who is willing ignorant, as one whose heart is corrupt (almost) to the point of irredemability, as one stuck in arrogance and pride who is so completely blind that now only a sovereign work of God can rescue him.
Daniel, your comment on prayer is very apt. Let’s continue to pray for him and break through that resistance. God promises to honour persistence. Let’s see Mr Dawkins saved before he leaves this earth!! Imagine talking to him in eternity and finding out “where he [was] coming from”!
Fred Joseph
Refer: John Wallis.
John, please elaborate on the holes in the Christian doctrine. Are these specifically those of the Roman Catholics or is it in Christianity in general? What problems do you have with your own beliefs?
Thanks,
Fred.
Jason
I am not sure I understand how Mr. Dawkins creates personal attacks? He certainly has his opinions of religion, and then backs those opinions up with why he believes what he believes. When somebody disagrees, they attack Mr. Dawkins, not his opinions. The flea metaphor works perfectly here. Mr. Dawkins is open to any criticism, that is in fact what his stance is, that science is open to scrutiny whereas religion is not. It is just that most of the arguments don’t address the actual arguments Dawkins is making, they appeal to the emotion and belief of the believer, but they lack in logic and fact. He calls these arguments from incredulity. In other words, they would not hold up in a court of law; opinions don’t matter in a court of law, facts do.
It also strikes me as extremely odd when christians use bible quotes to prove a point. The bible can be mined for quotes to support any statement one makes. I could easily quote the bible to justify slavery, and if you don’t accept that, you are in plain denial. I could also quote the bible to justify polygamy, gang rape, incest and murder, just to name a few. Quoting the bible means nothing, even if you believe it is true. For those of us who believe it is a human book that contradicts itself more times than there are words in it, quoting the bible to prove anything is just a waste of breath.
Tas Walker
Hi Jason,
Well you will be pleased with Sarfati’s book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?” because it addresses Dawkins’ actual arguments and thoroughly rebuts them with facts and logic.
Your argument that the Bible can be used to justify any argument is a popular argument but a false one, mainly propagated by people who have not read it. The Bible reports history “warts and all”. Just because someone is reported as behaving in a certain way, e.g. rape, does not mean that the Bible condones that behaviour.
Kimbal
First, thank you for all your research and hard work! I have read countless Tas Walker articles in the last few years.
Second, Darwinists seem to think derision is an argument. It is not. The Greatest Hoax (which I have read and enjoyed thoroughly) actually addresses the evidence that Dawkins presents and deals with it logically rather than engage in ad hominem attacks on Dawkins or his sources. Dr. Sarfati uses evidence and logic to refute the just-so stories and presumptions used by Richard Dawkins to sell books and make lots of money. Keep on keeping on, Richard, you are a youtube legend and the Ben Stein interview in Expelled was a classic!
I am glad that Jonathan Sarfati has focused more on science and less on chess and also that you, Tas Walker, have put in so much good work to inform the world. Cheers!
David K. Martin
If Sarfati was a flea, Dawkins would have debated him, but he refused in Australia, when he had a chance.
If Dawkins’ arguments were so superior, he would not have engaged in the ad hominem “flea” argument.
Thank you, Dr. Dawkins for the free publicity for the book, of which I just received a signed copy.