I love him, he's a darling man, and I'm sure he wouldn't take exception if I described as a sweet old dear, not being the gentle soul that quite obviously he is. I speak platonically of course, and I speak of Richard Dawkins, or more accurately Professor Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, or more accurately still, and a tad surprisingly, Professor Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL. Clinton indeed, well I never! something newly discovered when I went in search of the man's letters, named after Daddy by all accounts.
Love him or hate him, and much would depend on your religious beliefs, and I say, intellect and intelligence, and it is not of the design type of intelligence that I speak. But there again I suppose it is, but how one equates intelligence and Intelligent Design heaven knows, if you will pardon my pun. As I say, love him or hate him but don't deny him his well earned status of one of the world's leading intellects of our age.
Another misconception that Google has today righted, for I thought Dawkin's philosophy was original, but no, he readily admits to being guided by, and adopting the philosophy of Stephen Gould back in the Eighties. And why shouldn't he have taken that advice, obviously a much younger man at time, and Dawkins is after all, a biologist and not a professional television show guest, though I might add, he equips himself well these days in that area.
Is this about appearing on television then, well not really? What it is about is recognition, or more precisely, the refusal to recognise. The refusal to recognise the validity of the other side's argument, for to do so, to respond to the argument of the other side, would in fact, give recognition that there is indeed an argument to be argued and would, by accepting the challenge, validate the fact.
This then, the relative piece from Dawkins, Why I Won't Debate Creationists.
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive:
"Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
And that my dears, is it in a nutshell, and if I might make so bold, something to remember on occasion.
For a while now I have wanted to sit down and write a few dispassionate words, not always an easy thing given the amount of lies and propaganda that bombards us daily. Lies and propaganda bad enough, but blatant lies and propaganda that's a bird of an entirely different colour, a different species even. And if I consider all the institutions, all the sources that are shamelessly fostering this blatant propaganda, then I think I have the right, if not a duty, to get a tad warm now and then; but today no.
I read two articles in the Mail yesterday that I wanted to make mention* of, both relating to the Catholic Church as it happens, but of that a little later. Hard as it might be for you to comprehend, but I do read the Mail on occasion when I visit my Mother, the papers being passed on second hand to her dear self. But it was a comment left at the McCann Gallery that finally goaded me into writing.
With all the structure of a creationist argument against evolution, and with sentiments expressed towards the gallery that I'm quite sure were disingenuous, for I have seen previously, examples of what issues from a place called the chaosraptors, thankfully though, little enough. And the content of this comment? nothing. Nothing to argue so little recourse left to them but to attack others, not me I add.
Something we have become rather accustomed to of late, and something I need not explain further, I'm sure you would agree, as I'm equally sure would Goncalo Amaral.
So with the good Professor Dawkins in mind, we don't argue with the other side, for they are armed with nothing, save a tissue of lies, a bucket of vitriol, and whatever else they can manage to scrape up. Whereas we on the other hand have more than a little pertinent data, that in any just society would be sufficient to call for the arrest of ten men tenfold, but what are a few details in this safe, just and tolerant society that the Home Office tells us that they are building for us, but who wants to live in Utopia I ask myself?
We, on this side, are also possessed of something else, something elementary, something that without it, by the wayside would we would have fallen long long ago; we have right on our side, every last one of us crusades under that banner. We have right, you know it, I know it, and equally important, our adversaries know it.
And by adversaries I'm not talking about the demented McCann cultists, I'm talking about the establishment of this country. This corrupt and sordid Government, the equally corrupt and sordid forces of law and order, if you will pardon me the term. The Association of Chief Police Officers, self serving bunch that they are. The National Policing Improvement Agency, guest of honour tonight, non other than, Gerry McCann!
But special mention must be made, must be signalled out, for the consummate, the inimitable, man of twenty five years policing experience, non other than Jim Gamble of the CEOP, guest speaker today, you guessed it, Gerry McCann!
Right on our side, without it we wouldn't do what we do, I certainly wouldn't. Right on our side, it's a banner but it certainly isn't a shield, it offers no protection, ask what protection it afforded Robert Green when he was arrested in Aberdeen on trumped up charges ask Robert Green what protection it offered him the second time when he was re-arrested in Warrington and dragged up the motorway on trumped up charges, his only crime being to seek justice for the serially abused Hollie Greig, a brave woman, her and her mother both. Ask Robert Green, brave brave man that he is, ask him why he crusades the way he does, why he hasn't fallen by the wayside, I wonder if he might reply, we have right on side?
But as Newton said so many years ago, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, something that is being realised by the even more sordid and corrupt establishment North of the border. they have give it there best shot and it hasn't worked, the Genie is out and there's no way he's going back in that bottle. The game's up, you just don't know it yet.
One day there will be justice for Hollie Greig, one day there will be justice for Madeleine McCann, and why?
We have right on our side.
Our day will come, and we will have justice.
* I shall leave this for another occasion.