Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (bystander @ Mar. 23 2008,19:23)|
|No doubt many of you would have read Dawkins' review of the movie. I wonder if Kevin will include this and enlighten us where it was unfair? I think that it might have been too facty for him.|
No, he has this cunning riposte.
...If it's so "poorly constructed and utterly devoid of any style, wit or subtlety," why doesn't he just take a cue from Eugenie Scott and ignore it? Methinks you protest way too much, Sir Richard.
Let me guess, Kevin, if he had ignored it, you'd say "See Richard Dawkins didn't have any criticism of it!"
More seriously, while I wouldn't deign to speak for Dawkins, I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head.
- Genuinely interested in promoting public understanding of science.
- Personally opposed to attempts to pass religiously motivated bullshit off as science.
- Offended by attempts to associate his profession with Nazism.
- Offended by attempts to associate his personal philosophy with Nazism.
- Offended by being tricked into participating in the film.
- Offended by the producers treatment of his colleague.
- Is a militant atheist, and sees easy opportunity show religious wackos for idiots and assholes they are with minimum effort.
- Is pissed he let PZ carry the AK this time.
Or who knows Kevin, maybe he really really loved it but doesn't know how to express himself well ?