It appears that Richard Dawkins, the high priest of all the people who are smarter than all of you, seems to be quite unnerved by the the coming documentary Expelled. On his site he has written a diatribe of sorts about all the stupid people who made the documentary Expelled. It is interesting to observe Dawkins' tone. He describes all involved with the project as untalented ignoramuses, who should be embarrassed to be breathing. It is quite remarkable the arrogance that oozes from his writing.
Perhaps he simply does not realize that telling everyone: 1) I'm starter than you 2) You are an idiot 3) You have zero talent, just might not be the most effective method of persuasion. Of course, this is not his play in life as he and the new atheist crowd do not desire dialog, only ridicule. Quite frankly, it appears that he thinks all believers in God should be lobotomized. The choir of the high priest certainly loves to sing when Dawkins preaches.
The post's commentary on the film Expelled is also quite revealing and shows that Dawkins is obviously threatened by the documentary. He goes to great length to interpret his role in the film so to ameliorate his role in a certain segment of the film. Apparently, he wanted to give his own spin on the scene where he declares that life could have been intelligently designed by ET.
One final note of comment to engage one of the philosophical points he attempts to levy against the film. In the documentary, the filmakers apparently examine the application of Darwinian survival of the fittest to social theories and practices of the early 20th century. Apparently the Nazi philosophy is focused on heavily in Expelled whereby the Nazi's wanted to eliminate the weak so that the fittest could survive and create a superior, more evolved humanity.
Dawkins then goes on to explain this is a commitment of the is-ought fallacy. Simply because nature IS a certain way - survival of the fittest, red with tooth and claw, does not mean that it OUGHT to be that way. In other words, Dawkins explains to us that all that nature is, all reality is for that matter, is a complex evolution of matter/energy. There is simply nothing else. Yet then he goes on to say that we OUGHT to create a society that is the exact opposite of Darwinian reality. Let me say that I agree with him - I want no Darwinian society; I agree with him that we ought care for the poor and live for the good of all not simply the strongest, most fit among us. However, my question for Dawkins is precisely from where does he derive his OUGHT. If nature all there is, there is nothing else here. No moral universe, no higher truths, no reason beyond practicality to dictate what anyone OUGHT to do. So I think he is massively missing the point. I thank God he, unlike the Nazis, is living a contradiction. He is living inconsistently with his own view of the world.
Dawkins simply has no reason for not wanting his Darwinian world to be society's reality. Believers in a purposed creation, a moral universe where we OUGHT to live in accord with what is good, right and true. He is smuggling beliefs which do not flow from his deepest convictions. He is stealing his OUGHT from other places because it is simply not found is his IS. We have a reason for desiring a world contrary to the doldrums of Dawkins' Darwinian reality...for we know that his world is an impostor. For this universe does indeed have purpose, meaning, a moral law and its correlative lawgiver. It is to him that we all must give an account...