Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, outspoken atheist, and cover model for this year’s Scientific American Swimsuit Issue. He has authored many books including The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, and is currently working on a new book entitled Charlie Sheen and Other Evolutionary Mutations.
Greetings, fellow rationalists. I’ve been asked to write a guest commentary on an issue that has been on the minds of RyanGarns.com readers for the last 16 months: does Ryan Garns exist? With this essay, I hope to prove (as would many of Ryan’s ex-girlfriends) that he does not exist.
First, let’s look at the facts:
- Mr. Garns has not written a post on his website since November of 2009.
- Mr. Garns has neglected to regularly update his Facebook and Twitter statuses.
- Mr. Garns has not returned the movie Extract which he received from Netflix back in August 2010.
- Mr. Garns has received numerous unsolicited letters from JCPenney, Publishers Clearing House and the Church of Scientology — all of which have suspiciously gone unanswered.
- Mr. Garns is a registered Independent, which is about as close to being non-existent as you can get.
These facts point to the inescapable conclusion that Ryan Garns does not exist.
Now let’s discuss the counter-arguments for the existence of Ryan Garns. Typically they fall into one of three categories: a priori, a posteriori, and a posteriori in a red wine sauce. For example, a typical a priori argument might go like this:
|Socrates:||Phaedrus, I want you to think of the funniest blogger imaginable.|
|Socrates:||Does this blogger exist in real life?|
|Socrates:||Is Ryan Garns the funniest blogger imaginable?|
|Socrates:||Ergo, Ryan Garns exists!|
|Phaedrus:||Can I go now?|
As you can see, this type of dialectical thinking is laughable, especially when performed by grown men wearing togas. Only a deluded simpleton would think it achieves anything resembling logic.
“But wait,” argues the deluded simpleton. “How do I know that you’re really Richard Dawkins? Aren’t you actually Ryan Garns posing as Richard Dawkins for purpose of this silly blog post?”
If I were, then that would also mean that you’re Ryan Garns posing as Richard Dawkins posing as a deluded simpleton for the purpose of asking that silly question.
“Hmm… good point,” says the deluded simpleton. “Does this mean we could get sued by the real Richard Dawkins for the unauthorized use of his name?”
Oh. Right. In that case, I am Ryan Garns. Just kidding, folks! I’ll be back again soon (hopefully) with more drivel…