Scary Alarm Clock

I am paraphrasing both Glenn Beck and Richard Dawkins. Two individuals who believe very different things who are equally worth ignoring after you’ve read what they’ve said to see how ridiculous they are.

Another thing about this cartoon: this is proof I should not be drawing cartoons when my allergies are attacking me so aggressively.


5 thoughts on “Scary Alarm Clock

  1. Not sure if I agree with Prof Dawkins’ classification along with Mr Beck here. Though I might not agree with his militant atheism approaches, I have a lot of respect for his efforts to popularize science in our science-deprived society. His Christmas lectures on evolution with the Royal Institution were extremely erudite and amazing in clearing up removing misconceptions (and so are his books on the subject).
    Peculiar as it may seem, science has no way to refute the idea that life might exist on other planets, or that the evolution might have occurred by Darwinian means. For the first part of the statement, we cannot disprove conclusively the existence of life on other planets until an improbable search is conducted… the same applies to Russell’s teapot in the solar system, to fairies and unicorns, and to god.
    The Theory of Natural Selection is the only phenomenon we have observed so far in nature, and there is good reason to assume that it might be the case elsewhere (hence the word ‘probably’ in your transcription).
    I am assuming this is where you were going with your comparison in calling both people nutty. I will admit that he has fallen a bit by associating with the mainstream media (as part of his efforts popularizing science) and resorting to take cheap shots at GW alongside Maher, and has lost a bit of luster that comes from being an apolitical academic. But that is a far cry from the no-good worthless paranoid sensationalist racist drama queen that Glenn Beck is.

    • When Dawkins is only discussing Evolution, I think he shows his genius. When he talks about anything else (religion, politics and recently reviewing books about the humanities) he comes across as an egotistical, sensationalist, bigoted, drama queen just like Glenn Beck.

      Like Dawkins is an expert on evolution, Beck is an expert on conservatism in the United States (and why I read him as much as I read Dawkins–Beck is an easier read while Dawkins reads as if he were smarter). If one is going to at all draw/write about conservatives, then one should know what they’re up to and Beck is definitely an expert on rank and file American conservatives and Dawkins is his equal when coming off like a presumptuous prick.

      Regarding your second p, I like what you are saying and I agree with you. What Dawkins likes to do is pretend to the unread, particularly in the American south with Evangelical audiences, that there is only one thought in Evolution and that the understanding of the Theory of Natural Selection he prescribes to is as close to a law in science as the Laws of Thermodynamics are. I disagree with him here. If biology were so unified in thought, then why are there competing variations of the Taxonomy of Species? Why are there competing methods of comparing similar species and quite different species? Since he is so willing to criticize other disciplines of thought, why is he not then willing to listen to ethical discussions about the entire concept of a Taxonomy of Species or other ethical questions with in biology? This willingness to mislead viewers and readers about the disparity of opinion within his own field shows he has the same standard of ethics that Beck has.

      Thus the comparison.

      • I will concede here, Aaron, I am not aware of variations in the Taxonomic code. Could you please direct me to some references that talk about this?
        I cannot speak for Dawkins, but if there were such a case with regard to evolution, I am sure it is still being investigated and the lack of a consensus only illustrates the beauty of science… it is encouraged and gives room for debate and discussion on proper scientific grounds. I am not at liberty to go any farther as yet before I completely understand the issue at hand.

        As far as I know, Dawkins has ridiculed and criticized creationism and intelligent design, astrology, faith-healing, faith schools and religion (as far as I’m aware) and these have no scientific merit whatsoever. Yes, he is a prick and can be very condescending at times, but I think that is a result of putting up with people who come across that way. And as someone who dabbles in science for a living, I can assure that it angers me a lot when someone comes across wagging a finger at well-documented scientific findings based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion and a prayer book. I am sure you can back me up on this as a teacher.

        I’d really appreciate if you could direct me to the debate in taxonomy and its role in evolutionary theory.


  2. Aaron, I agree with you assertion that there is a certain level of convergence between the likes of Beck and Dawkins. Their extreme views are a product of binary thinking. One is a political fundamentalist (Beck), while the other is a “religious” fundamentalist (or “anti-religious” fundamentalist). Both are extremely doctrinaire, not admitting to shades of grey and hence are given to habitually reducing their opponents to mere caricatures. In this regard (binary thinking), there is little difference to be found among biblical fundamentalists /creationists, strict constitutionalists, logical positivists, and any religious bigots who believe that only their religious tradition is “true.” I say this one who spent the last thirty years as a teacher of theology. I, for one, have no axe to grind with atheists qua atheists. Neither atheism nor religion, nor science for that matter, necessarily leads to intolerance. However, binary thinking of whatever stripe inexorably does. Anyway, thanks for the wonderful cartoon(s) and enlightened discussion!

    • Thank you for the very astute observation. I agree about binary thought processes and how limiting they are and that is the common element between the two. I am trudging through Dawkins’ new book. Unfortunately, he has nothing new to say. I read Beck’s new book in a single sitting two weeks ago. Also nothing new to say. They are rather tedious, however they have a lot of followers. Those guys are even more scary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s