Fishy Dawkinsia tales, tragic Dawkinsian philosophy
One of the fish species assigned to the new genus named in honour of Richard Dawkins: Dawkinsia filamentosus (Common name: blackspot barb)
Published: 28 August 2012 (GMT+10)
In case you missed the fanfare of publicity associated with this news last month, “Sri Lankan scientists have identified a new genus of fresh water fish and named it after the evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins.”1,2
The fish in this new genus are not themselves ‘new’ to science. These small tropical fish are already well known as ‘barbs’, a popular aquarium fish. The new genus, Dawkinsia, comprises nine species3 found in south Asia which were formerly assigned to the genus Puntius, comprised of around 120 species.4
‘Friendly Atheist’ Hemant Mehta: ‘Your move, Creationists.’
Lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda said extensive studies in India and Sri Lanka showed that the level of diversity among such fish was “much greater than previously suspected”. That was basically the justification given for the new genus, and also partly the reason that the researchers had chosen to name it after Dawkins, who they admired for having written anti-religion books such as The God Delusion.
Richard Dawkins’ numerous polemical anti-God books adorn the ‘bestseller’ shelves of bookshops around the world. And now nine species of tropical freshwater fish bear his name.
“Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined,” said Pethiyagoda. “We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.”5
Perhaps not surprisingly, Pethiyagoda’s praise of Dawkins, and his own Dawkinsian-like endorsement of evolution as the explanation for our origins, delighted those in the skeptical blogosphere. This sample comment/challenge by ‘Friendly Atheist’ Hemant Mehta epitomised their glee:
“Your move, Creationists.”6
Our ‘move’? What’s there of substance to respond to?7 If you remove the evolutionary phraseology of Pethiyagoda and his colleagues, all they’ve done is study the existing diversity of a south Asian fish genus, subsequently deciding to re-classify some into a new genus, with nine species. None of this is any cause for evolutionists to gloat. As we’ve pointed out many times: diversity, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are in no way evidence of fish-to-philosophers evolution; the modern notion of ‘species’ is not akin to the biblical ‘kind’, and so on (and on, and on).
Like the poor fisherman who can only tell his ‘fish tales’ about the fish that got away as he has no evidence to show for it, so too there’s no evidence here of any evolution—we are simply expected to accept the evolutionists’ word on it. But unlike the honest fisherman who truly did observe ‘the one that got away’, there’s something fishy here about the evolutionists’ Dawkinsia tales of its origin, because they did not observe evolution. As Richard Dawkins himself has famously said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”8
The ‘Immortal’ Dawkins?
‘It’s a great honour, it’s a kind of immortality’—Richard Dawkins, on having a fish named after him, July 2012.
Richard Dawkins, responding to the honour of having a fish named after him, told BBC interviewer James Menendez,9 “I’m delighted, it’s a great honour, it’s a kind of immortality. And it’s a delightful little fish, well there are four species actually, and they’re all delightful little fish, and so I’m really very pleased, I’m very grateful to Dr Pethiyagoda and his colleagues.”
Dawkins used the interview opportunity to remind BBC listeners that evolution means that we too are merely evolved species:
“Species are divided into genera. So for example we are Homo sapiens and there used to be other species, Homo erectus, Homo habilis.”
Odd that he mentions Homo habilis when it’s been thoroughly discredited by evolutionary anthropologists themselves as being the much hoped-for ‘transitional form’ leading to man. (See Homo habilis hacked from the family tree.) And the facts about Homo erectus square with it actually being Homo sapiens. But then the interviewer provided Dawkins with a ‘free kick’ opportunity to defend his evolutionary fish-to-philosopher philosophy from the warnings of members of the public savvy enough to recognize its tragic consequences for society.
James Menendez (BBC): “I just wonder, because, you know, some of the comments made about you recently—you’ve been accused of a destructive form of atheism. I wonder whether this is also perhaps a chance to demonstrate the beauty of evolution and the sheer diversity.”
Richard Dawkins: “Of course it is. And anybody who calls me destructive has never actually read anything I’ve written. Unfortunately a lot of people read what other people say about me, and it’s terribly common of course, one does that all the time. But anybody who actually reads any of my books will find that they’re the very opposite of destructive. I am—my whole life—devoted to extolling the beauty and the wonder of the living world. And Dr Pethiyagoda in his paper very kindly paid tribute to that.”
One grieving father said of the effect of a Dawkins book upon his suicide-victim son, ‘It just destroyed him.’
Actually, and unfortunately, people have read things that Dawkins has written, resulting in them becoming “very upset”, or even resulting in their suicide. As one grieving father said of the effect of a Dawkins book upon his late son, “It just destroyed him.” See our short article: ‘The God Delusion’ and evolutionary teaching linked to tragedies.
Dawkins knows of this, for on his own website he has drawn attention to it, providing his readers with a hyperlink to it (mobile website), but is dismissive:
“I give it so that we can all see how utterly ridiculous the allegation is: http://creation.mobi/focus-332#god-delusion-tragedies”10,11
‘Christianity has an answer to the doctrine of hell—the doctrine of eternal life as the gift of God—but Dawkins has no answer to the hopeless purposelessness of atheism.’—Richard Barns, in The Dawkins Proof for the existence of God
Clearly Dawkins is sensitive to people pointing out the destructiveness of his writing. But he is certainly being disingenuous when he says that “Anybody who calls me destructive has never actually read anything I’ve written.” That’s because Richard Dawkins himself has written (in his book Unweaving the Rainbow—which we have also reviewed):
“A foreign publisher of my first book confessed that he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold bleak message … A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless.”12
Creationist author Richard Barns nails Dawkins on this in his book The Dawkins Proof for the existence of God. In relation to the above Dawkins quote re sleeplessness and purposelessness, Barns writes:
“This doctrine that robs adults of sleep and leaves teenage girls in tears is the evolutionary atheism of Richard Dawkins. The above quote is from the preface to his book Unweaving the Rainbow in which he attempts to answer this problem; but all he has to offer in that book is materialistic mysticism. He tries to make his readers feel that life has meaning but he has not abandoned his belief that everything reduces to particles of matter obeying the laws of physics. Thus life is meaningless and so is every value and standard that we hold dear. It is materialism that causes real distress and despair to those who take it seriously. Christianity has an answer to the doctrine of hell—the doctrine of eternal life as the gift of God—but Dawkins has no answer to the hopeless purposelessness of atheism.”13
Well said, Richard. Richard Barns, that is. Not the other Richard who presently disdains the gift of God in Jesus,14 instead limiting himself to the ‘kind of immortality’ apparently proffered by having a fishy namesake.
- Sri Lankans baptise new fish genus for atheist Dawkins, http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/302733/sri-lankans-baptise-new-fish-genus-for-atheist-dawkins, 16 July 2012. Return to text.
- Sri Lankans name new fish genus after atheist Dawkins, uk.news.yahoo.com/sri-lankans-baptise-fish-genus, 16 July 2012. Return to text.
- Viz., Dawkinsiaarulius, D. assimilis, D. exclamatio, D. filamentosa, D. rohani, D. rubrotinctus, D. singhala, D. srilankensis, D. tambraparniei. Return to text.
- Pethiyagoda, R., Meegaskumbura, M. and Maduwage, K., A synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces: Cyprinidae), Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 23(1):69–95, June 2012, http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief23_1_12.pdf. Return to text.
- In their paper (Ref. 4), Pethiyagodaet al. more formally wrote: “Etymology. The genus is named for Richard Dawkins, for his contribution to the public understanding of science and, in particular, of evolutionary science; gender feminine.” Return to text.
- New Genus of South Asian Fish Named After Richard Dawkins, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/new-genus-of-south-asian-fish-named-after-richard-dawkins/, July 2012. Return to text.
- Similarly, when the Higgs boson media circus flared in July this year, atheists gloated over their ‘God particle’, with one blogging: “Suck it, creationists.” But there was really nothing in the Higgs boson news to give them any basis for their God-denial—see Scientists claim to have confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson—but fail to credit God who created it. Return to text.
- ‘Battle over evolution’—Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network. Return to text.
- BBC Newshour, Dawkins fish—Richard Dawkins talks to James Menendez about the new group of fish named after him: Dawkinsia, bbc.co.uk, http://audioboo.fm/boos/886789-dawkins-fish?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#t=2m14s, 16 July 2012. Return to text.
- The Richard Dawkins Foundation, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646657-no-fence-to-sit-on, 3 August 2012. Return to text.
- On seeing this, one of the Dawkins website bloggers wrote in response: “So apparently, of the millions who have read TGD [The God Delusion], 2 felt suicidal. Think about this statistically. If this establishes any causal link whatsoever, it seems TGD prevents suicidal feelings.” The Richard Dawkins Foundation, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646657-no-fence-to-sit-on, 3 August 2012. Return to text.
- Dawkins, R., Unweaving the Rainbow, Penguin Books, London, 2006, Preface, page xi. Return to text.
- Barns, R., The Dawkins Proof for the existence of God, www.thedawkinsproof.com, 2nd edition, 2010, p. 30. Available via creation.com/store. Return to text.
- As per John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Return to text.
Mr Dawkins, you used to make me feel like a fool. The stuff you write about(your philosophy), had me feeling like the poor girl who took her life as she thought that there was nothing but emptiness, hopelessness and no purpose to this useless existence called life. Actually that's how it is for Mr Dawkins now and unless he has a radical salvation it's how it will be for him for all eternity.
I thank God, through Jesus, with all my heart that He picked me up and took my sin and gave me His righteousness and a purpose. Now I read about Mr Dawkins and marvel at the blatancy of his foolishness. Mr Dawkins, you need to know the love of Jesus, He is certainly NOT an imaginary friend. Anyone who reads Mr Dawkins' stuff should know that there is a creator otherwise there is nothing but despair. Read Romans 1. Thankyou thankyou thankyou and bless you JESUS.
These fish are positive proof of God's creation. Let's send Richard Dawkins a Jesus Fish symbol to put on his bumper. He sure could use a little Good News today.
It's interesting just how similar Dawkins' evolutionary philosophy is to Anton Lavey's Satanism philosophy:
We're just animals, nothing more, nothing less.
Great article. Succinctly put with a clear exposure of Deceitful Dawkins and his Gospel of Hopelessness. Well done, and thank you.
Back in 2009 I was going through depression. At the time I was attending church services regularly, which done NOTHING. However, after reading Dawkins' books, they enlightened me and put me on the path of recovery, as it gave me something to shoot for in life. Studying evolution, GAVE me a purpose, it did not subtract it. Now I am studying zoology.
I received no answered prayers, signs or anything from your so called God. As for those distraught children, I was very distraught when i found out Santa and the tooth fairy were not real, but I got over it.
Graham D., Australia: You write that you went through depression while attending church services regularly–I did too. The difference is that you felt that the church experience did nothing for you, yet for me it was the defining moment of my life. I encountered Jesus Christ the Creator and Saviour. How can we have such different end results? You must understand that going to church in itself will not change your circumstances, or you, any more than going to a garage regularly will change you into a car.
I too discovered that Santa and the tooth-fairy were not real, but it didn’t damage me. Belief in God is not about answers, signs, or feelings–at its heart it is a living relationship of Person to person that covers every aspect of your life.
Sadly, Dawkins is a false Messiah and I am astonished that you believe his books have enlightened and given you purpose in life. Dawkins himself says that we live in a universe which has ‘no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference’ – Dawkins, R., River out of Eden, Weidenfeld and Nicolswi, Chapter 4, 1995. Now that, Graham, is really depressing. Jesus is the only Person you should be seeking for the answers you seek to the meaning and purpose of your life. I would urge you to read the message at Good News as this gently explains what you really need to do.
To Graham D,
The only Savior of men , women, boys and girls is found in the pages of the Bible, not necessarily in a Church. Check out what your Church is telling you.
To Graham D.
Once you have finished your study of Zoology and realise the gigantic gap between how things came to be and how things are, perhaps then you will realise your mistake and come back to God. Until then, good luck with your depression because it will come back 10-fold once you realise you have no purpose under evolution.
They said,"...universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined,..".
Firstly what is beauty and awe in a godless humanistic evolutionary paradigm, it just is. Random firings of synaptic electro/chemical reactions with no meaning and no cause except blind cruel, again an abstract thought, chance. They have stolen, I don't say 'borrowed' deliberately, our world view as pointed out all across this God-ordained site. Now the 'religionists' imaginations' ... Well, he can't be talking about the Jews nor the Christians because we both know the Heavens declare the glory of the Lord and display the works of His Hands.
So, "Your move, Creationists..." -- we don't need to, you've done it for us by displaying our world view, our sense of moral outrage, and also the primal sin of pride. As Jonathan Sarfarti says while blindfolded often ... checkmate.
I really don't understand why he finds "immortality" through having a fish named after him pleasing. Or anything pleasing at all, on that note. I used to think that like an atheist, and it was the single worst thing ever to happen in my life. No matter what you do, or what you think, you can't escape the harrowing feeling of pointlessness and depression. Who cares if there's a fish named Dawkinsia if everything will die and that's the end of it? Why even bother getting up in the morning, none of it will matter once you're dead anyhow.
It's such a hopeless and bankrupt philosophy.
How one could claim to see beauty in anything through those glasses is beyond me.
To Graham D., Australia
I too suffered from depression - like you I stopped going to Church for a time. Depression is a real lonely and hopeless state, and you find you cannot trust your intellect or emotions. I used to pride myself in my intellect and reasoning Unlike you I turned to God and asked him personally to confirm his love for me. Throughout my time of depression (2.5 years) the only solid thing that sustained me was the truth of God's word and his promises. I understand your need for a purpose in life but "Evolution" is not that purpose. As said by Patrick C - it is a living relationship with God that will bring meaning and purpose to your life. Please as you study zoology - make use of the resources here on this website and the reviews of Dawkins' books.
As stated in the article - Do not disdain the gift of God in Jesus - He offers freely - true "eternal life" not a ”fishy namesake."
All scientists and science-lovers get strong mental stimulus and satisfaction by the contemplation / investigation of natural phenomena and their underlying causal narratives (to use a Dembski expression). In the vernacular, we get a 'buzz' from it. And like all human beings, we desire to maximize the buzz.
Scientists and science lovers also get that buzz when investigative instrumentation improves and we (the whole human race) get better potential access to the nature-study source of our investigative satisfaction.
AND I'm pretty sure that philosophical materialists / reductionists (like Dawkins, Provine, and Sagan) experience that same type of buzz--an extra buzz--when they envision a supposed reality that reduces to an only-the-material-universe-exists state (to their metaphysical-choice state). This envisioned 'reality' makes potentially possible a (far) future scientist-inspection access to all of that 'reality'. What a contemplative buzz or rush! Such metaphysicians are quite willing to be (big) fish in a much smaller 'reality' pond. (Add to that the associated mental-relief buzz that comes from avoiding a future day of judgment and the enjoyment-buzz from gaining supposed intellectual autonomy.)
With respect to the article, the following dynamic may be at play: Dawkins, Provine, Sagan and other philosophical materialists are so filled with that extra pleasurable buzz that they insulate themselves from the horror of their meaningless 'reality'. They are emotionally insulated from it enough that they can openly write about the consequential meainglessness.
But among those of their readers (who blindly believe their meaningless / lawless 'reality' to be real) are many people who do not receive that same buzz and who are thus hit, full force, by the nihilistic horror of that viewpoint. People who sometimes make tragic responses.
Dawkins can't emotionally connect with what happens there, can't (or won't) generate a personal sense of responsibility... and keeps writing that deadly notional poison.
Dawkin's book has persuaded many that their life is purposeless and meaningless. Genesis says that man was created with purpose but because man's rebellion he became subject to the judgement of God. The good news is that Jesus came and took the judgement of God on his shoulders. This means that one day those that believe in Jesus and his redemption of mankind will once again know the perfect purpose of God and those who chose to reject him will know the judgement of God.
To Graham: I understand depression crippling your fellowship with God, but a lot of people miss what being Christian is all about. It's certainly not about just reading your Bible or going to church. It's about putting everything aside to follow God- only then will you see these "signs". God said in the OT, that you cannot see His face, but the "back parts". Which means once you truly give your life to Him which means going through sanctification, you can see what God is doing in your life. I know that every time I have done this, my prayers have been answered and there are miracles in life. Not delusional miracles. Go back to the drawing board Graham- from the basics of the Gospel. And yes I am like you, when I am in depression, I find studying science or knowing things more than people a temporary bandaid. But it's not a cure to the hole in your heart.
Attending church services is not the way we come to know who Jesus is and what He has done for us. I did that for 35 years and felt the same way as you. It was then that I repented and turned away from my sinful life and Jesus found me. I realised that all my church going was to no avail as long as I had my back to God. My repentance meant a 180 degree turn in the right direction and helped to provide my way to God through Jesus. You can never expect to see the Light whilst you are walking in darkness.
The suicide response is just the clear consequence for the tragically smart ones that read Dawkins. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that; When you study something that teaches that you will amount to nothing and will go nowhere, does it really make sense to keep on going? And when you've come to believe the useless subject you've just wasted your time with, will what you say or do really matter after that? And why would you care for the opinions of others? Or why even bother reading or go on living?
It is habitual to attack Richard Dawkins for the pitiless indifference of an evolution world, but the point is to demonstrate that the world really has a purpose. Here there are two problems, first the world of nature where the life of an animal equals the meal of another, and in life, even Napoleon Bonaparte wondered if the foot soldiers knew what they were fighting for, while he, Napoleon, knew precisely what he was fighting for. The second aspect is theology itself, that it invokes the concept of God but as far as I am aware, no theologian has sought to demonstrate what spirit is, and thus what divinity itself is. So people take their lives not because of the Dawkins book but due to an emptiness that has been confirmed to have no issue, no outlet - as religion is thrust into their minds to be taken as it is, without demonstration of its factual reality, not just a sweet story of hope.
Graham D.: This may surprise you, but snide mockery ("your so called God") and callousness ("As for those distraught children") are not qualities that will impress us. In fact such hardness of attitude betrays you, for we recognize it as a shield behind which the "skeptical" hide, from themselves as well as others, their deep-down-inside knowledge that they really haven't found the answer outside of God but want to convince themselves they have.
The irony is that with your words you are attempting to deny God, but by your actions, you acknowledge His existence.
If you’re nothing but “matter in motion,” then why did you feel depressed at all? Why did you feel enlightened? You say that Dawkins’ books put you on the path of “recovery” but why did you feel anything was “wrong” with you? What is right or wrong if atheism is true? These are all things that make sense only if biblical creation is true and defies emotionless atheism. Let’s face it: if atheism is true, then you’re really nothing but a collection of chemical reactions that just happen to be going through the motions. Do you think baking soda feels depressed or enlightened when it reacts with acetic acid? No, it just does what it does. Why do you feel that you need something to “shoot” for in life if you’re just matter?
Truth is Graham, with your words you try to espouse atheism but by your actions, you are living as if you have purpose and value; that’s because whether you want to admit it with your words, your actions admit that you know God exists. If atheism is true, then you have no real value. If you’re just matter reacting, then why should you feel any emotions at all? If you’re just matter, then what makes you fundamentally any different than the dirt that I walk on? And most of all, why should I, or anyone, care about your experiences?
You might deny the biblical God by your words, but by your actions, you acknowledge His existence.
Dawkins may be clever, but he is certainly not right, nor does he speak the truth. Rejecting (all) the evidences, proofs, facts & wonders we behold around & amongst us, has a high price to pay: The mind(s) become(s) futile, darkened & foolish.
To Graham D,
Please know that no church can save you or change your life, only Jesus can who is still near you and calling you. You can hear Him as you evidenced by your reading this online site. Put your efforts of study into the Bible and meet your Maker Who is calling you.
Miki T. you are far far away from the truth. Why are you talking about Napoleon Bonaparte's view of life and blaming theologians for not attempting to demonstrate what spirit is? These are so distant from truth that you will never find it with such thinking. You find the truth by reading the word that the Creator wrote to you. He wrote a long book with all the answers, and you should read it. When you've read it, believe it and act on it. Acting on it means repenting of your sin and dying to the world and giving your life to God. When you've done these things, then you will live in the Spirit and will have your answers.
- It's a shame to name a fish after Dawkins.... as even this 'humble' creature is no doubt a million times more interesting than all the books Dawkins has ever written.
It would make more sense to name one of Dawkins's books after the fish; e.g. We could rename the God Delusion as 'The black spotted barb'
Graham tells us going to church didn't cure his depression. The trouble with modern society is that people imagine God is there to serve them when in fact man is there to serve God. People shouldn't ask what God can do for them but what they can do for God (and for God's kingdom). The apostle Paul had a 'thorn in the side' all his life.
One certainly doesn't have to read Dawkins to get interested in studying the creation! Why give Dawkins credit for the work/s of God?
"Your move, creationists"? We already did. In fact, we've already made many moves. It's called Kepler's Laws, Pasteurization, Newton's Laws, Newton's Joules (units of measure), and the list goes on. We have MANY things named after us WELL before this Dawkins fish.
However, the fish that Dawkins has named after him will be "burned up in a fervent heat" (2 Peter 3:10), so sorry Dawkins, you will not be remembered forever on this earth. However, if you come to Christ, then you WILL be remembered forever in the Lamb's Book of Life and spend an eternity with Christ.
So you're saying that a fish evolved to a......fish? Well great, what is creationism to do?
So, there's comfort in evolution after all! Just get something named after you!
But seriously, such "comforts" are short-lived and are insignificant to the fact that, under evolution, there truly is no purpose, even if you do get something named after you. Dawkins finds comfort in the fact that a whole genus of fish has been named after him. How long will that comfort last? How long before the insignificance of this is realized by the people? A month? A year?
It shows how desperate Dawkins is when he finds comfort in something that could soon be extinct, possibly not leaving a single fossil behind. How can one maintain comfort in material things when all that is material will eventually be destroyed? Anyone who thinks they can find true comfort in material things is truly diluted, blind to the truth.
Only in the redemptive plan of God, through Jesus (Yeshua) the Messiah can one truly find comfort. A Creator who knew that His Creation was going to fall, yet created it anyways with a plan already in place to redeem it, and How carried out that plan for redemption by becoming a part of His own Creation as Yeshua, dying and rising again to defeat the intrusions of this fallen Creation, is the only One who can give you true comfort, that lasts even in troubling times. Even to death!
Evolution is wrong because Dawkins' worldview, unlike Christianity, doesn't offer "hope"?
"Religion is the opium of the people." Indeed. Religion may be useful, but that doesn't make it correct.
Dear Ryan, if evolution is true, then your comment is 100% legitimate. But if you can take the time to explore some of our more than 7,000 articles online (e.g. via the 'gateway' of clicking on the links in the main text and Related Articles/Further Reading below), you will likely have cause to pause and reconsider whether your starting paradigm is the correct one.
Indeed, Dawkins’ ‘philosophy’ is tragic in more than one sense. It has a tragic end and a tragic ethic, sure—but it’s also tragically irrational. As a not-so-random example: Atheist with a Mission.
The great irony of views such as Dawkins' is that, if they are correct, they are at once unimportant! How so? No arrangement of atoms has a value privilege over any other arrangement; value refers to something external to the arrangement, which the materialism that Dawkins espouses denies exists.
Bit sad that all an Atheistic Scientist can have is a buzz about a discovery, something that is soon gone. Perhaps that is why those who try to prove evolution produce so much Bad Science in search of their next buzz? I am privileged to be a Christian, where the Joy of each discovery and how it reveals the creator enables me (and any Christian, scientist or otherwise) to patiently wait and search for the next real scientific (or any other verifiable) discovery.
Dawkin's delusion; "He [the he in the quote is generic] really is attempting to ignore the discovered nature of things, as though by concentrating on the possibly upward trend in a single planet he could make himself forget the inevitable downward trend in the universe as a whole, the trend to low temperatures and irrevocable disorganization."
People who are disturbed after reading his book can see where it ends.
Dr. Dawkins still has not analyzed the flaws in the evolution theory. Mathematics, cold science, disputes the probability that all of the strings, quarks, atoms, molecules etc. were randomly created by the Big Bang and just happened to fall into a very orderly Universe. Pan Spermia, or spores came to Earth from Elsewhere just begs the question of the origin of life. When Objective Scientists, not humanist pseudoScientists, come up with a more accurate explanation of the Start of life, wherever, then Darwinism will join the Earth resting on a column of Turtles of ancient Egypt, as one more flawed and unsatisfactory theory.