As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?

Dunno, I've read three of his books but could not be bothered to listen to him or most of the other people that the religious imagine are "atheist leaders".

However, if you had the amount of hate mail that he says he has been getting since the 1970s, you might be a bit snarky too.

After he declared that down's syndrome foetuses should be aborted someone said:

"A speech by Dawkins is like an episode of Game of Thrones....it goes on for an hour and then something horrible happens at the end" :-)

He has contributed a lot to science, but Stephen Jay Gould managed to sit down and talk with Creationists, and corrected common misconceptions ("evolution is a tree not a ladder"), while writing books which were a pleasure to read. The debate over evolution and creationism has become way too heated.

Nowadays Dawkins is something of a celebrity scientist. He met his wife when she was acting in Doctor Who, they were introduced by his friend Douglas Adams (RIP), who wrote a couple of scripts for the show. If Adams had edited some of Dawkins' speeches they might have had some warmth and humour. I'm a believer in evolution, but find his speeches and books totally cold and uninspired. "Unweaving the rainbow" was supposed to express his wonder at nature, but it felt to me like the rainbow was lying unravelled on the carpet.

Dawkins has his own ideas about the finer details of evolution, and not all biologists agree with him. Selfish gene theory may or may not explain social behaviour in bees and ants, but it doesn't explain it in termites or naked mole rats. Memes are a cool, far out concept but far from being proved. Dawkins cannot be unbiased on these kind of topics, and should any of his ideas get discredited it could discredit the whole of evolutionary theory in some people's eyes, if he is treated as the main spokesperson.

It's hard to say. He's written some good books... but in less thoroughly planned and un-edited settings, he often comes off as arrogant and a complete jerk. It's probably because he IS a complete jerk. I know people who have had to interact with him, and I get the general impression that he's even worse in person. He also seems to love controversy and the attention that it brings, which means that he doesn't always act in the best interests of whatever he's promoting, whether it's science education, or atheism (as an atheist myself, it drives me nuts that people seem to view him as sort of an "atheist pope", especially since he has a history of being inflammatory).

In other words, yes, he sometimes does more harm than good. He should stick to writing books. That allows him to think his ideas through a little more thoroughly, and an editor can help filter out most of his arrogance.

It isn't that they are incapable of understanding it, they refuse to do so.
Facts mean very little to the religious. Reality takes a back seat to pretense for them.
Dawkins for me is a non-issue, I never read anything he wrote other than as described and quoted here.
Even if he is a complete idiot, science can not be denies on those grounds.
Science is the real deal, religion is the pretend alternative.
I'll stick with reality thanks, even without the likes of Dawkins.

You misunderstand, the bulk of evolution deniers in this day and age are beyond being reasoned with, dawkins caters for those who are interested in reality with educational books on the topic, while ridiculing those who evidently refuse to be reasoned with, since there is no other avenue you can take with them.

Where is it written that only one side of an argument gets to be rude and nasty?

People like Dawkins are just "preaching to the choir." No offense to the man, but no one listens to him to learn more about evolution, just for reinforcement for what they already believe. Creationists don't read any books, let alone Dawkins'.

If believers are threatened, it is more likely to be by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson than a Dawkins.

Watch your category, Mike Exeter - somebody moved your question (I moved it back).

Did Mr. Dawkins make you cry?

As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?

- He does not serve pablum, he is tenacious, assertive and sometimes angry, but at least he is not nuts or psychopathic like fundies.

Evolution is a simple and easily explained idea even if its details are more complicated.

- Yes, change over time, but fundies have a problem with just that.

It is a damning indictment of the poor education of society

- BINGO, and fundies want to make it worse.

Richard Dawkins is arrogant, smarmy, sneering, contemptuous

- Your opinion.

to a British listener even the very way he speaks is pompous.

- I thought that was the way all educated Brits sounded.

I believe he causes more problems than any kind of education that he provides.

- Go ahead, "believe" what you want.

Does anyone know of anyone who doesnt already understand science ever being enlightened by him?

- Yes, me, 7 1/2 years of university/college education and I can still learn from most people. Except the fundie/creationists. I try to listen to their youtubes, but anyone with functional brain cells can only take so much stupid and lies.

Dawkins is kind of awesome, and I do not believe that he does more harm than good. We need someone like him to be the antithesis of someone like Michael Behe.

That said, I'd still trade him for Carl Sagan The Next Generation in a heartbeat.

I used to have the same view. Since I have read a number of his books, watched him on YouTube and happy to report I shall be watching him live later this month. I think if you set aside any bias you might have, which I had to do and read or listed carefully to what he writes or says, you may change your opinion. He is simply consistent and intolerant of ignorance and lies. He needs to be as forceful as he is sometimes because those promoting religious nonsense are far more persistent and aggressive than the good professor.

I am no Dawkins fan, but this whole evolution vs creation discussion has gotten out of hand. Both sides insult the other. Civil debate is very difficult. Dawkins responds with his own insults and then rebuttal for what he considers insults.

Let me give you an example, with a link to the original question:

Original Question:

Woodpeckers: how do evolutionist/ atheists explain this bird?

My Response:

What do you find strange/unique about woodpeckers?

Their Response to my request for clarification of their question:

Oldpilot: your ignorance about these 3 creatures is self evident by your question + what's more. You're an intellectual WANKER! No answer from you just drivel, go away, come back with a formulated answer!


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150825031909AAkGCBk

As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?

---- Personally? Well, I think that, if you need the established facts to smile, buy you dinner, and kiss your *** as a precondition of accepting their reality....then you aren't going to do anything important with that education in the facts....so, you might as well remain ignorant...it makes your fear and cowardice less dangerous.

Just imagine if religious terrorists had been left ignorant of how to use C4.

Him and James Randi would get on like a house on fire. 2 dopes, plus science isn't about disproving things just because you don't personally believe in them, well some scientists think that.

Richard Dawkins misunderstands evolution and there was an ongoing battle between him and Stephen Jay Gould, while Gould was alive. I side with Gould on practically on issues. Dawkins have the tendency to take the opposite and the wrong side when disputing Gould.

The very fact that your question was moved is proof positive that evolution makes some go poopy pants.

"As someone who believes that communicating the science of evolution do you agree that Richard Dawkins does more harm than good?"
No. Have you ever read any of his books? I think he does a very good job communicating evolution theory.

"Richard Dawkins is arrogant, smarmy, sneering, contemptuous"
I don't agree. The only cases where I have clearly seen him express contempt was when confronted by religious idiocy. I don't think people should be respectful of every idea or belief, no matter how ridiculous. Let's face it, if you believe the bible is a historical account, or if you say things like "you can't have morals without gawd!", then you deserve to be treated with contempt.

"even to top scientists (such as E.O.Wilson)"
How? They disagree on a certain topic. There is nothing arrogant about disagreeing with people. Scientists disagree about all kinds of things and have debates all the time, there's nothing unusual about that. Dawkins said “I greatly admire EO Wilson & his huge contributions to entomology, ecology, biogeography, conservation, etc." and "Edward Wilson has made important discoveries of his own. His place in history is assured". That doesn't sound arrogant, smarmy, sneering or contemptuous to me.

"to a British listener even the very way he speaks is pompous"
There is nothing pompus about the way he speaks. He has what British people would call a "posh" accent, but if you're judging people on their accents, then it's you who has a problem.

I agree that Richard Dawkins is a pompous douchebag and his fanbase consists solely of mouth breathing atheist basement dwellers. I don't know about doing harm or good.