I’ve written before about Conservapedia, the web site that is using the same software as Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia of the US christian right’s view of the world.
Usually their nonsense is just amusing. But their article on Richard Dawkins has recently verged on libel. They seem determined to promote the opinion that Dawkins is not a professor. On the off-chance that sanity breaks out eventually and they article is cleaned up, here’s an archive of what it currently says:
Richard Dawkins is the holder of a donated “post” at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the University of Oxford. The “post” does not entail “substantial teaching.”
Currently Richard Dawkins claims on his resume the academic authority of a “professor” at the University of Oxford, but his “professorship” is actually described by Oxford as a “post” during which Dawkins enjoys the income pursuant to the donor’s intent. Leading universities do not permit the “buying” of a professorship for someone. The post becomes a “professorship” when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process.
The special terms of this gift allowed Richard Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of “professor”. In other words, the gift establishes an endowment for future professors, but is held initially as a “post” by Dawkins who was apparently never subjected to the full peer review election process specified in the endowment.
As of October 5, 2007, the Oxford University’s Zoology Department lists the status of Richard Dawkins status as “other” rather than as “academic”. Since March 30, 2005, Dawkins’ online resume has stated his academic credential as “Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford,” when in fact Dawkins’ position is at the Museum of Natural History, an institution merely owned by the University of Oxford. The title “professor” is misleading, if not fraudulent, as the position donated for his benefit does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of “professor”: “a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education.”
It’s a shame that these enemies of reason feel they have to resort to such underhand tactics. They can’t argue with Dawkins’ points about religion so they resort to trying to undermine his academic standing.
It’s worth reading the discussion page associated with the article. You’ll see that there are quite a few people arguing on the side of reason, but that the loudest voice denying Dawkins’ title is the owner of the site. And he is the final arbiter of what the page says.
Maybe its because I’m reading through the eyes of a man who’s sceptical (at best) about the existence of God, but reading the discussion is… well, its like watching a car crash. Its shocking that people can be so insistent in their arguements, then offer precisely zero proof to back ANY of it up. Part of me is hoping that Dawkins threatens a libel suit on the owner of the website before anyone reads the article as actually takes any of it in.Favourite quote of the discussion:”That is a primary tactic of atheists – denial of reality to suit their own convictions”Arghhhhh, its so frustrating – like watching 2 gutter rats argue on Jerry Springer. They believe in an invisible, untouchable, unprovable entity that lives in the sky, and accuse people who ridicule the idea as denying reality! Could someone check the definition of “Hypocrisy” in the dictionary for me??I think all “links” to this site should be text only from now on. Actually linking is essentially helping to promote it from a search engine point of view, and I’d hate to see this site turn up in the top 10 SERPS for any searches on Dawkins. People that demand their views are respected then launch a personal attack on people whos views differ do not deserve to have their opinions heard.
You’ll notice, I hope, that the link to the Conservapedia article is on the words “verged on libel” rather than the words “Richard Dawkins” :-)
Argh, that excerpt is a crying pain to read. It should be posted to the “blog” of “unnecessary” quotation marks.