Does Dawkins actually resemble "The Voldemort of Science" ?

[memester]

It's bit unusual, I think, for well-known people in Science, or involved with Science as reviewers, those types, to be circulating talk of a famous Scientist being referred to as "The Voldemort of Science".

That's a very very harsh criticism. It seems unusual to me to see it becoming a nickname..
Let's examine Dawkins labeling of Deniers of his version of Evolution, as the equivalent to Holocaust Deniers. Not as he says "History Deniers" only, but actually by equivocationl, likening them to Holocaust Deniers, and applying the same social penalty he feels he should personally apply to Holocaust Deniers. He also calls for others to apply the same personal social penalty to anyone refusing Dawkins' version of Evolution; an Olden-Tyme "Shunning".

What I'm looking at is my own analysis and it's faults vis a vis going the best route in analysing his statement and naming logical fallacies he commits and error of mine in overall argumentation generalship. This is done as a prosecution of Dawkins' statements.

Thanks for your comments about that, or additions you might offer.
Mention of what appears to be a nickname for Dawkins with some, is found surrounding publication of the book "The Selfish Genius".

From book reviewer to other book reviewers, there are words coming out which I find unusual for the field of Science review.

I'm going to start my argument by examining Voldemort's character and methods, as understood through explanations given about Harry Potter characters.

Then on to Dawkins own words on the "Denier" issue as explained on TVO Allen Gregg in Conversation recently, as he relates Deniers of his version of Evolution to Holocaust Deniers, and the penalty he is calling for.
i'll post the interview section here in this post and some other materials for reference.

thanks.

Here's book review of "The Selfish Genius" with the Voldemort nickname introduced up front, not well explored, then going to an inadequate explanation regarding "mixed feelings" as if that constituted reason for the Editor to name Dawkins' "Voldemort".

I think I can show that likely, why the name is being applied is for a more legitimate reason, than for mere attack over disagreement. It's being applied because of fears raised, due to appraisal of Dawkins' means and methods .. I think Dawkins words and actions offer us evidence of similarity between the "Dawkins character" and the "Voldemort character".
Review - The Selfish Genius

The "Holocaust Deniers" interview. It's near the start of conversation.

TVO.ORG | Video | Allan Gregg - Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth - Full

Please feel free to offer comments related to anything you may deem "related in any way".

Voldemort
WIKI

Rowling fleshed Voldemort out as a self-hating bully: "Well I think it is often the case that the biggest bullies take what they know to be their own defects, as they see it, and they put them right on someone else and then they try and destroy the other and that's what Voldemort does

Rowling alluded to this saying that Voldemort is "incredibly power hungry. Racist, really".[44] Rowling has also stated that if Voldemort looked into the Mirror of Erised, he would see "Himself, all-powerful and eternal. That's what he wants

Basically, Voldemort is a most vile creature who will use any illict means at his disposal to eliminate his perceived enemies.
He subconsciously sees fault in himself, transfers that fault to others, and then attempts to destroy them.

[memester]

David Sloan Wilson has questioned Richard Dawkins theses on three main points: 1. Complex traits usually evolve by conferring reproductive benefits. Dawkins did never test if human religiosity had been adaptive, nor if it could be today. He'd relied solely on anecdotes. In contrast, by scientifically analyzing religious community teachings and practices i.e. among Jains and Calvinists, Wilson motivated many researchers into the Evolutionary Religious Studies.
2. With Dawkins theory of the "selfish genes", the author had tried to rule out any means of natural selection working on higher orders as individuals - silently dropping Charles Darwin in the process. Together with one of the main founders of modern sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, (not related) David challenged this already widespread dogmatism. Religions turned out to be good testing cases of multilevel selection processes and today terms as "group selection" have been fruitfully brought back into scientific debate.
3. For more than 30 years, laypeople believed in Dawkins "Memes", without any clear definition, any observations, experiments, studies or just testable hypotheses supporting the claim. David was among those who pointed out that this emperor wasn't wearing any clothes - memetics are bringing forth pseudo-scientific "metaphors" as is Intelligent Design.


In his new book "Evolution for Everyone", David incorporated religiosity and religions into his wider, darwinian worldview. To many atheists, agnostics and religious alike he proved that sound science is about respectfully exploring and discussing, not debunking phenomena we have yet to understand from the perspectives of the natural sciences.

*DARWIN* said:

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

Darwin 1871, 166


Dawkins describes his battle for Darwins ground !

The intervening years since Darwin have seen an astonishing retreat from his individual-centered stand, a lapse into
*** sloppily unconscious group-selectionism****
… We painfully struggled back, harassed by sniping from a Jesuitically sophisticated and dedicated neo-group-selectionist rearguard, until we finally regained Darwin’s ground, the position that I am characterizing by the label ‘the selfish organism…”

EO Wilson said

In a Darwinian sense the organism does not live for itself. Its primary function is not even to reproduce other organisms; it reproduces genes, and it serves as their temporary carrier... Samuel Butler's famous aphorism, that the chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg, has been modernized: The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA. (Sociobiology 1)altruism . . . [is] self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others. (ibid)

sounds like Dawkins, only smarter ? It's EO Wilson, before Dawkins, before The Selfish Gene.

Dawkins against Darwin.

who is lying ?

Dawkins said

David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.

Excerpt of response from DSWilson

Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey

let's see more on what this is about

[pagan]

interesting stuff. yes i remember reading the selfish gene many years ago and the idea of memes etc. Dawkins was to me a very interesting and thought provoking writer in the creative sense. How much he has changed over the years. He is now hell bent on destroying all dissenters. Phrases like 'the enemies of reason' etc are so extreme they are ridiculous, and fortunately dawkins has become a caricature of himself so now we can laugh at him. I find his programmes very entertaining simply because he cant contain himself and you don't have to wait long before his bile just has to come out and 'bingo' there is a statement so ludicrous, opportunistic and emotive while beautifully constructed, that it is hilarious. As a pagan i would love to hear him put me and my spiritually down. It would be a delight....... twice over. First because of the rational and linguistic skills of his attack, and secondly the thought of my mere existence upon his state of mind. lol

He is like an eeyore who has finally snapped and lives only to convince everyone to kill tigger and his interminable cheerfulness...... funny as A.A.Milne.