Richard Dawkins out? His essay for UnHerd are behind a pay wall, but here is a summary and some comments in "The Guardian".
Everyone who hates Dawkins for his "transphobia" is mocking him on YouTube for thinking that the LLM Claude is conscious (and for gender-swapping Claude to Claudia). Soon enough creationists will join the fray, just wait. Kind of a sad ending, really.
Richard Dawkins' full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins — not Eugene Richard Dawkins or Eugene R. Dawkins.
He was born on March 26, 1941, and he is best known as an evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion.
Would you like more background on how he came to be known as Richard instead of Clinton?
Richard Dawkins was born Clinton Richard Dawkins, but he has gone by Richard for most of his life. The name "Clinton" was given to him in honor of a family tradition—specifically, his father’s nickname in the army was “Clinton,” and it became his son’s given first name. However, Dawkins has always preferred to use his middle name, Richard, in daily life and professionally.
This is not uncommon in British naming customs, especially in cases where the first name is traditional or honors a family member, but the person prefers to use a different name.
Would you like a brief timeline of his life or career highlights?
No, there is no indication whatsoever that Richard Dawkins' name was ever "Eugene" at any point in his life.
Extensive biographical sources — including his own writings (like An Appetite for Wonder, his autobiography), interviews, and official records — all confirm that his full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins. There is no reference to "Eugene" as part of his legal name, a nickname, or a pseudonym.
If you saw "Eugene Richard Dawkins" somewhere, it was almost certainly an error, misattribution, or confusion with another person. Do you remember where you came across that name?
Ah, that makes sense — and you're absolutely right to question it.
Referring to Richard Dawkins as "Eugene R. Dakwins" is almost certainly a deliberate distortion rather than an honest mistake. Publications like Answers in Genesis (AiG) or Creation Ministries International (CMI) are known for strong ideological opposition to Dawkins, who is outspoken in his criticism of creationism and religion more broadly.
Here’s what’s likely going on:
"Eugene" may have been chosen as a snide reference to eugenics, attempting to link Dawkins to a discredited and morally loaded ideology — despite the fact that he is not a eugenicist in any classical or policy-advocating sense.
"Misotheist" (meaning "God-hater") is also a rhetorical choice — Dawkins is a self-described atheist, not someone who believes in God and hates Him, which is what "misotheist" implies.
"Dakwins" instead of "Dawkins" is likely just an additional mocking twist, though it could also be an intentional typo to suggest confusion or undermine him further.
These tactics are sometimes used in polemical writing to ridicule or delegitimize opponents without engaging their arguments seriously.
If you're curious, I can help track down the specific article or passage where that phrasing appeared.
No worries — and thanks for the clarification.
Given the corrected spelling of "Dawkins," it's even clearer that the use of "Eugene R. Dawkins" was not accidental but part of a rhetorical strategy. These publications often use loaded or misleading labels to shape reader perception — especially with figures like Dawkins, who they see as ideological adversaries.
In this case, the name "Eugene" likely wasn't a mistaken identity but a pun or symbolic jab, subtly linking Dawkins to eugenics, even if he never advocated for it in the sense they imply. It's a way to discredit him through emotional association rather than factual critique.
You're right to approach such claims skeptically. If you ever want help fact-checking or unpacking more of this kind of rhetoric, I'm happy to help. Would you like to look at how Dawkins himself has addressed accusations of supporting eugenics or similar claims?
 |
| AI´s fantasy version of the First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA) |
Previously posted on January 3, 2022.
Isn´t it strange that most atheists-materialists believe that the universe is inevitably going *their* way, while claiming to believe in blind evolution and attack teleology as unscientific? And yet, it seems that the blind process of chance and determinism invariably ends up with the English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes...at least if you are, let´s say, an English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes. Funny how *blind* evolution never ends with, say, a militaristic Preussian junker, or a French Bonapartist named Bonaparte. Or a hideous Thugee in darkest British Raj.
Of course, if you are a libertarian, blind cosmic evolution somehow manages to always end with libertarians, never with Stalinists or Latin Rite Catholics. Or even Kamala Harris. If you are a left-liberal disaster area with California Crazy values, blind evolution will inevitably (at least after 15 billion years or so) take you to the sunny shores of Crazy California, that notorious left-liberal disaster area. Even more weirdly, all the scenarios above always converge on humanity inventing some ingenious machine that can take us to the stars and eventually "become like gods" (hiss).
But that´s not teleology either. Naaah. Cuz that would be UNSCIENTIFIC!!!
Presumably, it´s not anthropocentrism either, then.
One of the few exceptions to the rule seems to be Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that evolution can turn out in a way we *don´t* like. Which seems pretty reasonable, if the process is supposed to be a blind-folded one. (Or even a teleological one - what the heck makes us think *we* are the purpose of the universe?) Hence his quip: "Let´s try to teach some altruism, since we are born selfish". Dawkins has also said: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one, at that". Dawkins have drawn the conclusion nobody else dares to draw. Everybody else is engaged in a kind of ontological cheating. I used to think that Dawkins´ perspective was terrible, dark and depressive. Reading "The Blind Watchmaker" almost turned me Christian! Or at least Platonist. Today, I suspect he is on to something. And no, I´m not an atheist-materialist. But the plane of existence we are stuck on in this round, sure as hell seems godless...
LOL. This came up when I asked Bing AI to imagine "Atheism". The Good Delusion by Richard Dallkins. Or is it Ichard? One of the guys on the coffee mug does vaguely resemble Dawkins, but who is the other one? Nick Pope?!
Some disturbing thoughts in this one, but it´s the darkest blog on the web, so why be surprised? Some quotes:
>>> In six thousand years of recorded history, there have only been a limited number of great civilizations, which collectively make up a very small percentage of the total number of peoples and societies across world history. And the preferences, customs, traditions, and laws of most societies are observably not capable of creating or sustaining any form of civilization, let alone one that approaches the heights of Western European civilization circa 1800 – 1950.
>>>No civilization that comes to be dominated by individuals from a society with dyscivilizational values can sustain itself in a functional manner over time. The more that Western Civilization is influenced by non-Christian, non-European people from societies that never successfully established their own civilizations and with values that contradict the historical values of Western civilization, the more likely it is that the resulting societal structure will not transition into a post-Western civilization with post-Western values as expected, but rather, collapse entirely into a post-civilized state.
>>>Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have already discovered that post-Christian society is worse for atheists than Christian society ever was. Both internal and external foes of the West will almost certainly come to the same conclusion in time.
>>>There is an older version of the Russian tale of the scorpion and the frog. In the Persian tale, which dates back to 1487, the scorpion is riding the back of a turtle. Unlike the frog, the turtle survives the scorpion’s sting due to its hard shell, tells the scorpion that it is wicked, and drowns it in order to prevent the scorpion from harming anyone else.
>>>So, this naturally tends to raise the question, which civilized societies are frogs and which are turtles?
A somewhat peculiar analysis of why so many atheists have embraced "the trans cult". From that most peculiar on-line zine Spiked. I wonder if even the author takes his analysis seriously...
I have also noticed that many atheists are "woke", but I assume the reason is simply the Zeitgeist. Many Christians and Neo-Pagans are pretty "woke", too.
The trans-gender subculture is indeed a form of extreme individualism, but its attacks on biology have nothing to do with religion or science either way. It´s rather a direct consequence of its individualism - the "Me" can remake even its own biology, cuz "Me" (period). Note also that trans-genderism existed before Dawkins published his book "The Selfish Gene"!
Note finally that another sector of the same subculture, the Queers and Non-Binary people, don´t care about remaking their bodies at all. If gender is all in our heads, all we have to do is to declare our subjective gender identities (and perhaps dress a bit differently).
A very short presentation on "epic fights in science" (or is it Science) featuring uncouth Gerrie mama Sabine Hossenfelder.
The most interesting piece of info is that Fred Hoyle was essentially denied the Nobel Prize by some angry committee, although it´s not entirely clear why. But sure, Hoyle was controversial and the Nobel Prize olympians apparently decided to make an example of him.
And no, I didn´t know that Edward Wilson and Richard Dawkins (of all people) had a public feud. Hmmm...
A little reminder. The place of Homo sapiens ("Homo deus") in the evolutionary tree of life.
Exactly. You can´t even see us. However, if you can find "Animals" under "Ophistokonta", that´s where we (and our 300 years short Civilization To End All Civilizations) can be found.
Or to quote Richard Dawkins again: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one at that".
Just so!
Isn´t it strange that most atheists-materialists believe that the universe is inevitably going *their* way, while claiming to believe in blind evolution and attack teleology as unscientific? And yet, it seems that the blind process of chance and determinism invariably ends up with the English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes...at least if you are, let´s say, an English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes. Funny how *blind* evolution never ends with, say, a militaristic Preussian junker, or a French Bonapartist named Bonaparte. Or a hideous Thugee in darkest British Raj.
Of course, if you are a libertarian, blind cosmic evolution somehow manages to always end with libertarians, never with Stalinists or Latin Rite Catholics. Or even Kamala Harris. If you are a left-liberal disaster area with California Crazy values, blind evolution will inevitably (at least after 15 billion years or so) take you to the sunny shores of Crazy California, that notorious left-liberal disaster area. Even more weirdly, all the scenarios above always converge on humanity inventing some ingenious machine that can take us to the stars and eventually "become like gods" (hiss).
But that´s not teleology either. Naaah. Cuz that would be UNSCIENTIFIC!!!
Presumably, it´s not anthropocentrism either, then.
One of the few exceptions to the rule seems to be Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that evolution can turn out in a way we *don´t* like. Which seems pretty reasonable, if the process is supposed to be a blind-folded one. (Or even a teleological one - what the heck makes us think *we* are the purpose of the universe?) Hence his quip: "Let´s try to teach some altruism, since we are born selfish". Dawkins has also said: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one, at that". Dawkins have drawn the conclusion nobody else dares to draw. Everybody else is engaged in a kind of ontological cheating. I used to think that Dawkins´ perspective was terrible, dark and depressive. Reading "The Blind Watchmaker" almost turned me Christian! Or at least Platonist. Today, I suspect he is on to something. And no, I´m not an atheist-materialist. But the plane of existence we are stuck on in this round, sure as hell seems godless...
Richard Dawkins made me Platonist.
That´s almost literally true. Years ago (circa 2000 or 2005), I was reading some of Dawkins´ heavier books, either "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene". Or maybe both. The book (whichever it was) almost literally turned me Platonist, Deist, or even quasi-Christian (I dare not say "Anglican"), since the worldview of reductionist materialism and sociobiology sounded so bleak and meaningless. But is the worldview of Dawkins (or "the reality of evolution") actually so bad? Let´s see...
If Neo-Darwinism is right, there is presumably no true altruism anywhere in nature, and even among humans, we should expect it to be relatively rare, except perhaps in cultures where we deliberately teach altruism from a very young age. By "true altruism" I mean a completely selfless act directed towards a complete stranger, who morever can´t or won´t reciprocate in any way, shape or form, a fact known to the selfless giver at the time. The Sermon on the Mount could perhaps be seen as an even more extreme version of true altruism.
But is the non-existence of such altruism really such a bad thing?
In nature, and usually among humans, there are "only" two kinds of altruism, none of them being "true": genetic altruism and reciprocal altruism. Genetic altruism means altruism towards your kin (perhaps off-spring or siblings), while reciprocal altruism means "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine". An example of the first would be so-called helpers at the nest among birds, an example of the latter would be birds in a flock warning each other for predators. (Even the seemingly selfless worker-ants really confirm this, since they are genetically related to each other and to the queen that spawned them.)
Now, imagine a world in which every creature is a true and completely selfless altruist. It´s obviously difficult to do, but let´s try it! Imagine such a perfect world for eternity. It would be utopia. Or indeed Heaven. It might even be a very, very good thing! Can such a world exist? Yes, it probably can. In Heaven, that is. On our plane of existence, on the other hand, not likely!
Down here, evolution and change are facts. Even if we assume that a world of true altruists would last for billions of years, it only takes one mutation to upset the apple carts. It´s reasonable to assume that such a mutation can and would happen. How would the world look like if only *one* creature would be anti-altruistic, while all the others remain selfless? The one selfish creature would turn all the others into its slaves, using and abusing them at its pleasure. And no, they wouldn´t resist. They are completely selfless, remember? The almost complete absence of selfish genes turns into a nightmarish recepie for tyranny, slavery, and parasitism on a truly global scale.
Yes, "selfish genes" do create a lot of problems for humans, but is the alternative really so much better? Indeed, I would even argue that at least reciprocal altruism is true socialism - all for one, one for all, we work for the government, if the government works for us. Genetic altruism sounds more "tribal" and "right-wing". Perhaps those are the only options for the human species: either reciprocal or genetic altruism? Of course, they don´t necessarily contradict each other.
I´m almost tempted to say "thank God for selfish genes"!
 |
| "Wow, I really love the American Humanist Association. Is it one of our front groups?" |
The American Humanist Association is so woke that it has decided to strip Richard Dawkins of an award he got 25 years ago. LOL! Clown world strikes again. Of course, nobody has ever heard of the AHA, while everyone knows about Dawkins, so somehow, I think he´ll manage...
