Richard Dawkins is a "Child Abuser"

"you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?...Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder."6

But what about an atheist child or a Darwinist child?
Considering that Richard Dawkins particularly referred to children choosing their own cosmology and that his main point is that parents abuse their children by teaching them a particular religion before the child has developed the cognitive abilities to weight evidence, make comparisons, and finally make an unbiased choice I will now prove that Richard Dawkins qualifies as a "child abuser" by his very own definition. I do not take this task on lightly and so in order to demonstrate that I am not merely making an assertion I will present evidence particularly from Richard Dawkins' Royal Institute of Christmas Lectures 1991 (or as they are known on Richard Dawkins' website "Growing Up in the Universe"). These lectures where made to an audience of children and make for a good example of Richard Dawkins abusing, indoctrinating and brainwashing children by pushing his own unproven beliefs, fallacious logic, faulty information and one sided biased information.

I plan on writing some reviews of these lectures sometime in the near future. For now you may watch them for yourselves and you will see that Richard Dawkins is behaving as a proselytizer.

It may be of interest to note that in 1991, while Richard Dawkins was presenting lectures to children and assuring them that life began in a primordial soup, John Horgan was enumerating some theories as to how life came to be to the readers of Scientific American (see the post here for a succinct version of Mr. Horgan's article). You may be thinking that, after all, Richard Dawkins was lecturing to mere children while Scientific American is a well respected journal. Yes indeed, this is just the point. Richard Dawkins was, to whatever extent and with whatever, if any, amount of forethought, presenting one of many theories as if it alone were fact (he did present the concept of panspermia as a "fantasy"). He introduced the concept of the biotic soup by stating "Some people think_" fair enough, but then he offers no other options and so the children are not only being "brainwashed" but specifically "indoctrinated" by being offered limited information but they are just asked to believe. Richard Dawkins stated, "Nobody knows how it happened but somehow_And after that Darwinian evolution and life took off."

For further examples, in the very first lecture he tells the children that science has a great deal to say about questions such as "where does life come from? What is it? Why are we here? What are we for? What is the meaning of life?" And what is the scientific pronouncement regarding life's meaning? In lecture 4 he tells the children, "we are machines, built by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA." Elsewhere, he has added that this is "every living object's sole reason for living." Alright now children, now you know that you are machines whose purpose in life is to copulate. But remember, whatever you do: do not ever, never ever, behave as if you are machines whose sole purpose is to copulate.

He refers to the science field as "about the most worthwhile way in which you could possibly spend your short time in the spotlight."

He shows them paintings of various ape to man progressions walking through pretty flowers and also paintings of an insectivore, "an early mammalian like reptile, an amphibian and "a fish, just coming out of the water; just leaving the water, and coming to the land" and tells the children "Those are all your ancestors." Fanciful artwork plays a very important role in Darwinianism, when you do not have evidence you can hire an artist to invent some.

He also claims that if aliens were to ever come to earth, "They'll probably find us pretty childish, but they will be quite kind about our science. They'll pat us on the head and say, 'Well, what you know about Universe is pretty much correct. You got at lot to learn yet, but you are doing fine. Keep it up.' That's what they would say if they were talking to our scientists. What if they were talking to our best lawyers or literary critics or theologians? I doubt if they'd be so impressed."

He misleads the children by making false claims about creation myths as well as caricatures of what science is, "Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in scientific method," he declares.

He finally implies that his worldview is smart and will lead them to give up on their ignorance:

"Growing up in the Universe partly means evolving from simple to complicated, inefficient to efficient, brainless to brainy. But it also means growing out from parochial and superstitious views of the Universe. Going up to a proper scientific understanding of the Universe, based upon evidence, public argument, rather than authority or tradition or private revelation."

This seems quite enough to demonstrate that he is, by his very own definition, a "child abuser." Yet, in the near future, I will endeavor to strengthen this point by demonstrating that his lectures for children are meant to convert children into the worldview of absolute materialism. And that he makes this apparent by appealing to authority, by presenting very narrow and convenient arguments and evidence, by caricaturizations, passing off mere speculation as fact, etc., etc., etc.

So there you have it children: science determines the meaning of life, is worthy of your trust and faith, and will make you smart enough to do away with your childish religious superstitions. All this at a Christmas lecture mind you, which I am sure is purely coincidental.

1. 1. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), p. 326
   
2. 2. Richard Dawkins, Now Here's a Bright Idea
   
3. 3. Wired Magazine online: Gary Wolf, The Church of the Non-Believers (found here and here)
   
4. 4. Richard Dawkins, Now Here's a Bright Idea
   
5. 5. Richard Dawkins, Now Here's a Bright Idea
   
6. 6. Richard Dawkins, Now Here's a Bright Idea