If you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane

[Sententia]

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

 

[Sunstone]

I question whether it was ever said, given that it's a creationist who reports it.

 

[Viinasu]

i'd have to say that they're none of the above (well, most of them anyway), but that they take their religion WAY too seriously. they're so into it they can't even accept facts with tons of proof to back them up if it contradicts their religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I question whether it was ever said, given that it's a creationist who reports it.

I did a quick search & couldn't find the quote except on anti-ToE sites.
Does it appear in any dependable neutral place?

 

[Sententia]

I question whether it was ever said, given that it's a creationist who reports it.

Meh... Its a quote of a quote of a quote really. I have heard Dawkins on creationism a few times. He may have said something similar to that lol. I guess I should watch the "PBS Evolution" series to see if Kathryn was just randomly quoting Answers in Genesis.

[youtube]jcnffHe5oB0[/youtube]
YouTube - PBS Evolution 1 - Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1/12)

Link to the series if your bored.

 

[Skwim]

I question whether it was ever said, given that it's a creationist who reports it.

Dawkins did say it, and explains it . . .

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

By far the largest of the four categories is "ignorant," and ignorance is no crime (nor is it bliss—I forget who it was said, "If ignorance is bliss, how come there's so much misery about?"). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid, or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so. It is not intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid, or (probably) insane. It's just true. The difference is that not many people think Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer, or that the Earth is flat, so it isn't worth calling attention to their ignorance. But, if polls are to be believed, 100 million U.S. citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago. This is more serious. People like this have the vote, and we have George W. Bush (with a little help from his friends in the Supreme Court) to prove it. They dominate school boards in some states. Their views flatly contradict the great corpus of the sciences, not just biology but physics, geology, astronomy, and many others. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to question conventional wisdom in fields that you have bothered to mug up first. That is what Einstein did, and Galileo, and Darwin. But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting—influentially and powerfully—vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My "arrogant and intolerant" statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.

Not only is ignorance no crime, it is also, fortunately, remediable. In the same Times review, I went on to recount my experiences of going on radio phone-in talk shows around the United States. Opinion polls had led me to expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little of that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as was freely confessed. When I politely and patiently explained what Darwinism actually is, they listened not only with equal politeness, but with interest and even enthusiasm. "Gee, that's real neat, I never heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (or insane, or wicked). They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.

source and more
​

​

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkins did say it, and explains it . . .

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

By far the largest of the four categories is "ignorant," and ignorance is no crime (nor is it bliss—I forget who it was said, "If ignorance is bliss, how come there's so much misery about?"). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid, or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so. It is not intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid, or (probably) insane. It's just true. The difference is that not many people think Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer, or that the Earth is flat, so it isn't worth calling attention to their ignorance. But, if polls are to be believed, 100 million U.S. citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago. This is more serious. People like this have the vote, and we have George W. Bush (with a little help from his friends in the Supreme Court) to prove it. They dominate school boards in some states. Their views flatly contradict the great corpus of the sciences, not just biology but physics, geology, astronomy, and many others. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to question conventional wisdom in fields that you have bothered to mug up first. That is what Einstein did, and Galileo, and Darwin. But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting—influentially and powerfully—vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My "arrogant and intolerant" statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.

Not only is ignorance no crime, it is also, fortunately, remediable. In the same Times review, I went on to recount my experiences of going on radio phone-in talk shows around the United States. Opinion polls had led me to expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little of that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as was freely confessed. When I politely and patiently explained what Darwinism actually is, they listened not only with equal politeness, but with interest and even enthusiasm. "Gee, that's real neat, I never heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (or insane, or wicked). They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.

source and more
​

​

Thanks for running that down.

 

[RedOne77]

The quote seems generally true, but some people are just too brainwashed by their religion, although you could put that in under "insane".

 

[LuisDantas]

Superb quotation, Skwim. And of course, nice explanation from Dawkins himself. I agree completely.

 

[Madhuri]

Although true in most cases, I think the statement is arrogant.

 

[Valjean]

How so, Madhuri?

 

[Peacewise]

"Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid, or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so."

Actually I do think this is an arrogant thing to say.

It is arrogant because it is aimed at a (hypothetical) person and belittles them for getting something wrong, further it labels that person as having to be ignorant, stupid or insane, when it's quite likely they are simply ignorant in this single case of Joe Dimaggio and his cricket playing status, the labels applied by Dawkins are generalisations of the entire person, rather than specifically applying to the single incidence of their lack of knowledge about Joe and cricket.

 

[Valjean]

The statement might be blunt and impolitic, but interpreting it as belittling might be reading more into it than was intended.

 

[Danmac]

By checking a box, should we consider that a scientific finding, or a baseless opinion based entirely on ones faith about his or her opinion?

 

[Sententia]

By checking a box, should we consider that a scientific finding, or a baseless opinion based entirely on ones faith about his or her opinion?

How about poll results from a post in a debate forum on RF. :yes:

 

[Smoke]

Dawkins:

"I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under 'insane' but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself."

 

[Madhuri]

How so, Madhuri?

I think that the majority of people (at least that I have come across) who do not believe in evolution really don't know much about the theory at all.

The reason I think that the statement is arrogant is because it fails to recognise that a lot of the things people believe is due to information that is fed to us, not because we have had personal experience of it. I believe in evolution because of the information that I have been told, watched or read not because I've seen the process take place. So there is also a group of people who do not believe in evolution who are educated but have either had significant life experiences that seem to contradict the theory of evolution or have been fed information that contradicts evolution that is equally or more convincing to those individuals.

In other words, we're all ignorant people. We go with the best sounding argument at the time. And so our opinions and beliefs are always changing. It's arrogant to imply that those who do not believe in evolution are ignorant without recognising that those who do are generally quite ignorant as well.

 

[fallingblood]

I think Dawkins has a tendency to come off as brash. However, I think he is on the spot here. Especially when he qualifies his statement with follow ups.

Dawkins seems to have the tendency to be taken out of context though. The same thing happened in Ben Stein's Expelled movie.

 

[Valjean]

I think the problem is that "ignorant" has a negative connotation.
Ignorance is not necessarily a character flaw, it's simply the inevitable result of complexity. All of us are ignorant of more subjects than we're competent in.

Dawkins is using "ignorant" in the strict, denotative sense.

 

[YmirGF]

Dawkins is using "ignorant" in the strict, denotative sense.

Thus his comments are simply stating the obvious and as such, can hardly be described as being arrogant. He is merely voicing the uncomfortable truth.