It's just more crap from the Grauniad.
Ms Malik has completely missed the point of Dawkins' tweet, and her logic is ludicrous.
Today is the first day of Eid, the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. I took the day off, as Eid on your own at work without family can be a rather bleak affair, and was surprised to find that when I logged on to Twitter (not a nice place over the past few days) there were lots of genuine Eid messages from non-Muslims and Muslim fasters, luxuriating in their first morning teas in a month. Even David Cameron's "Eid Mubarak" registered quite low on my cynicism scale. I posted my own Eid greeting, and proceeded to bask in the unfamiliar good will of the morning.
OK, so it's party time for Muslims. And maybe Dawkins could have chosen a different day. Ho-hum.
Then Richard Dawkins, like a guest arriving too drunk to a polite and civil party, crashed into Eid. His tweet, apropos nothing at all, jarring with all the rest stated:
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
Clearly, Ms Malik has no grasp of what Dawkins has been saying for years: that Islam actively works against rational science, and evolution , which is after all, Dawkins' pet subject, in particular.
Now, some are accustomed to Dawkins being a bit of a troll.
Some are equally accustomed to gargbage in the Grauniad
But this, in its deliberately obtuse (say what you like, but Dawkins is not a stupid man) baiting, was a new low.
So, Ms Malik, how do you feel about the death threats he has received from Muslims, eh?
Most on Twitter engaged with his logic on its own terms, pointing out that he himself had earned fewer Nobel prizes then every single Muslim who has
You are not comparing like with like, are you Ms Malik? FAIL.
, that more Muslim Premier League players had scored more goals than all Nobel prizewinners put together,
Hardly relevant to the progress of science. FAIL
that Hilary Mantel had sold more books than someone who had sold none.
Even more surreal. FAIL
All statements as valid and as nonsensical and as inconclusive as his original tweet.
Thus demonstrating that you have failed to understand his tweet.
To wearily engage with his logic briefly: yes, it is technically true that fewer Muslims (10) than Trinity College Cambridge members (32) have won Nobel prizes.
Yes, but why?
But insert pretty much any other group of people instead of "Muslims", and the statement would be true. You are comparing a specialised academic institution to an arbitrarily chosen group of people. Go on. Try it. All the world's Chinese, all the world's Indians, all the world's lefthanded people, all the world's cyclists.
Ignoring your inbecilic reference to cyclists, you do have a point here; a question to be answered. So let's.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of left handed Nobel prize winners is pretty much what normal distribution would expect. You seem to claim otherwise, but I suspect this is more sloppy journalism thatn a serious pov.
As for the Indians and (especially) the Chinese, there is a lag in the awarding of Nobel prizes. But this is easily explained by the time-lag between the work which merits the prize and the awarding of the prize. But we see huge amounts of evidence that that situation is likely to change in future. Just look at R & D spending, education spending, the translation of textbooks into and from Muslim languages, and patent registrations. The contrast between Muslim nations and other, emerging nations is dramatic. Dawkins is right.
Secondly, if one is to try to address what Dawkins is really trying to say, which is that Muslims as a unit throughout history have done nothing since the Middle Ages, and that is clearly attributable to their stupid religion, then one must point out that a Nobel prize is not by any means a suitable or universal enough criterion. It has only been going for a little more than a hundred years, the prizes it awards are for excellence in academic research which is far superior in western scientific and academic institutions due to the socioeconomic development of the north, rather than due to any inherent cultural-religious deficiency in the south – which, should be pointed out, is made up not only of Muslims.
I've explained the timing issue. But Ms Malik has failed to account for (or even acknowledge) the lack of science in Muslim nations in any other way. FAIL.
The whole process of trying to parse the painfully obvious fallacy reminded me of the task of arguing against extremist Muslim clerics when they try to denigrate non-Muslims, the same momentary sense of helplessness and not knowing where to start.
Painfully obvious fallacy?!
My irony meter has just broken.
The same opinion with an agenda dressed up as fact. But one usually takes academics and scientists more seriously and tries to engage. With this latest salvo, I am afraid that we must consign Dawkins to this very same pile of the irrational and the dishonest.
Sorry, Ms Malik, but it is a fact. Dunno if you are yourself Muslim (your ahem! journalistic record suggests you might be) but your inability to understand the argument, but instead to accuse Dawkins of being irrational and dishonest is exactly what Dawkins is, justifiably, railing against.