Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

Tim Robbins

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

santing

Reading and listening to Dawkins, one get the impression that he is (negatively) obsessed with religion. He has his own crusade.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

As a Christian, I'm not concerned at all with Dawkin's assaults on my religion. At least he shows his true colours, the real motivation that drives the anti-Creation movement.

And it is honest enough for him to attack Christianity as creationist, for he knows that this is both the teaching of the Bible and the historic position of the Church. That many of its modern leaders have chosen to conflate God's account with Darwin's is a comment on their pliability, not on the religion. Christianity - the apostolic teachings - is just as opposed to evolution as ever, and Dawkins knows it.

I'm delighted to report that God has enlighted a good brother who had been intimidated by the evolutionary colossus:
Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5774

Puck

Here we go again. Anyone fancy a pint?

As for Dawkins, I think he's developed a taste for the camera and loves the attention this kind of stuff gets him.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As a Christian, I'm not concerned at all with Dawkin's assaults on my religion. At least he shows his true colours, the real motivation that drives the anti-Creation movement.

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

thebaldsoprano

I haven't seen him interviewed much, but what I have seen I don't like.
A lot of the attacks he uses on faith based religions could equally apply to atheism and agnosticism.

Dave147

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I haven't seen him interviewed much, but what I have seen I don't like.
A lot of the attacks he uses on faith based religions could equally apply to atheism and agnosticism.

How could it equally apply to agnosticism?

thebaldsoprano

Dave147 wrote: »

How could it equally apply to agnosticism?

Well, from one interview, he was arguing that religion is like a virus in the way that the main religions gain converts.

As an agnostic I'll happily argue my point and this also leaves open the possibility "gaining converts".

There was other fairly inflammatory and meaningless stuff like parents passing their religion on to their children because it was "the right one" and "it's always the right one".

Now if I do have kids some day, I'm pretty much going to tell them to go figure out the God question for themselves and find something that works for them. This is essentially leaving them without knowledge (a gnostic), which could be argued as passing the "right" religion to my kids.

All fairly meaningless really and I was less than impressed.

Flamed Diving

I don't like the way he portrays evolutionary theory as an alternative to god/s. This is very misleading and untrue.

The Mad Hatter

Does Dawkins annoy me? A little bit. Like many people, he seems to be a little too certain of his opinion as fact.

But he's not as annoying as, say, the misspelling of 'programme'.

amacachi

I had been told by a friend to watch the last episode and I really couldn't believe the smugness of the presenter. As was said, why not talk to Priests who do get evolution? Why treat the topic with the same fanaticism and the creationists? His point would've been gotten across even better had he spoked to a Catholic Priest or Anglican Vicar, to show that Christianity and Evolution can be compatible. There were just so many different things in the programme that annoyed me. Not least his constant use of "Darwinist". As if it makes him something.
I'm agnostic btw.

Dog Fan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Does Dawkins annoy me? A little bit. Like many people, he seems to be a little too certain of his opinion as fact.

But he's not as annoying as, say, the misspelling of 'programme'.

Ah, but we don't know if they learnt their spellings in the US of A.

Dawkins annoys me too, and for that reason my emotion over-rides anything he says. I'm automatically predisposed to ignoring him. I just feel that he's got a drum to bang, and he enjoys doing so.

I'm Catholic, and happy in my faith. Is it something I can prove logically? No.
At the same time it is something that I don't believe can be logically proven to be false.
Some of my teachers taught me that "faith is a gift", but I'm not sure how that pans out when one considers the billions of believers of other religions on this little world of ours.
Must open a thread on ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue sometime!;)

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Pro-reason agenda, eh? And yet he pushes this agenda - something that apparently isn't possible for people of faith - by misrepresenting the views of his targets.

I was going to watch the programme but I just knew it would be used as a platform for Dawkins to do his anti-religious thing. For many people, it isn't a choice between God and evolution - or God and science, for that matter. Apparently Dawkins doesn't get this simple concept. More likely he chooses to ignore it for the sake of scoring a few easy points.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Reason? That sounds like purpose, which there isn't any in evolution.

I think reason is one of the weakest points of Dawkins! If you eliminate a reasonable God, than "sense" is as good as "nonsense"!

sdep

I rather prefer Steve Jones. In communicating his enthusiasm for all things Darwinian, he generally keeps clear of religion. When, as in this recent public lecture, he does discuss it, he points out that he has no time for creationism, but says he takes no issue with the late Pope's position that humans evolved from a common ancestor with all other species, yet were divinely infused with souls somewhere along the way.

My personal feeling is that evolution is too important to see it reduced to a weapon in arguments over religion.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, he attacks any and all faith-based systems. He's not targeting yours exclusively. It's not an "anti-creation" agenda. It's an actively pro-reason agenda.

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

Memetic selection is 'Pseudoscience'? In all branches of sociology and anthropology that I'm aware of, memes (or mild variants) are accepted pretty much universally.

Which anthropologists from what university reject the idea of memes and memetic selection?

.

thebaldsoprano

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Galvasean

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Well he's certainly a militant atheist anyway. So yes, I suppose he could be described as a fundamentalist.

bus77

PDN wrote: »

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

I don't know who would get the 'pro-reason' job in this whole scenario.

But I do know Oxford making Dawkins, who describes himself as a Polemicist (As Gaeilge: Messer) head of public relations for science at the college is very, very queer.

santing

robindch wrote: »

Memetic selection is 'Pseudoscience'? In all branches of sociology and anthropology that I'm aware of, memes (or mild variants) are accepted pretty much universally.

Which anthropologists from what university reject the idea of memes and memetic selection?.

From Wikipedia ...

The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise understanding of what typically makes up one unit of cultural transmission remains a problem in debates about memetics.

It seems that indeed everybody accepts them, but nobody knows what they have accepted!

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions. Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

Flamed Diving

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hmmm, just wondering, are there any atheists that'd regard Dawkins as a 'fundamentalist'?

Let's face it, every belief system has 'em...

Coooool, see what he did there?

thebaldsoprano

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Coooool, see what he did there?

I'm not even sure I see it myself. If it's of an inflammatory nature, I actually didn't mean it this time

PDN

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I'm not even sure I see it myself. If it's of an inflammatory nature, I actually didn't mean it this time

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

FWIW, I agree. Dawkins is simply awful when he tries to go outside of his discipline. If he wants to contribute to the creation of a secular society he should simply stick to making the contribution that he is very well qualified to make - to explain what evolution is about, and what the evidence for it is. I was terribly disappointed in the first programme. He was practically an example of life imitating parody, as all I could think of was the title of Oolon Colluphid's bestseller in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "Well, I Think That Just About Wraps It Up For God".

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Indeed, but in fairness there is a bit of a gap between the 'we haven't a clue' position and the 'God decided to communicate to us in what seems to be a quite convoluted fashion, best accepted without worrying too much about why'.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin".

His next program will be called "The Genius of Dawkins"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion.

Apart from his incredible arrogance, this is what bugs me most about him. This man for all intents and purposes is an anti-christ. I'll bet he's ruined the last shred of faith for hundreds of people. I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

He may be an expert on evolution but he knows feck all about Christianity.
God have mercy on him.

thebaldsoprano

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

Ah, now I see. Yes this is a bit of a touchy subject for these sensitive souls alright. I'd better not say any more on the matter, tempting as it is...

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

Would you not blame Christianity for that, rather than Dawkins?

Of course not. Each side has its view point Kelly.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

If you eliminate a reasonable God, than "sense" is as good as "nonsense"!

I think it is comments like that that keep Dawkins working away day after day

Schuhart

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

In fairness, I think this is a statement he makes himself.

I didn't have the same reaction to the Selfish Gene, which I simply found to be a good book about evolution. But, indeed, I have noticed a disquiet in some other folk I discussed it with. The idea of people being gene-perpetuating machines is something that, indeed, seems to strike to the core of some folk.

But that's just a tool for understanding how evolution works. Its not the sum total of what we are. If it was, we wouldn't be contributing to this thread.

I think this marks a potential break. There are those of us who take what I've termed in other posts as the atheist leap of faith. That's the idea, encapsulated in a quote of Carl Sagan's, that we're better off trying to use reason to explain reality. The other is the idea that reality is too awful to contemplate, so we'd better pretend its not there. Its all about, if you can recall, being a child in trying to get in sleep after seeing a horror movie. Are you going to look under your bed to see if there's anything there, or convince yourself if you keep your eyes closed it won't eat you.

And, in fairness, reason does not necessarily lead to atheism. It just does for a lot of us.

robindch

santing wrote: »

From Wikipedia...

Well, in all fairness, PDN did claim that anthropologists -- presumably in general -- reject the idea of memes as pseudo-science. I was rather hoping that he could back up his claim with some evidence. Wikipedia, wonderful and all as it often is, is not written exclusively by anthropologists.

santing wrote: »

It seems that indeed everybody accepts them, but nobody knows what they have accepted!

Well, out of interest and as you don't seem to accept that they exist, perhaps you'd care to explain what you understand by them, and then show why such things are impossible?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions

If you're interested in finding out that this is not really the case, then I recommend Susan Blackmore's excellent 'The Meme Machine' (TOC here).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

Memetic theory does not "explain away" religious belief, it explains why religious belief happens, and how religious belief spreads from one person to another and sustains itself over long periods of time. It also explains much more -- transmission of "culture" in the broadest and narrowest senses, languages, humor, music, architecture and so on. It has predictive and applicative power far beyond the fascinating, if single, area of religion.

I suspect that a lot of the hostility to this simple and economic explanation for the existence of religious belief arises from the fact religion can be explained simply. It must be rather like looking at the skeleton of a dear friend.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

His next program will be called "The Genius of Dawkins"

I suspect that many will refer to him as such in time. I'm not sure I'd call him a genius, but he's admirable to me for standing on the front line of the cause of science.

kelly1 wrote: »

Apart from his incredible arrogance, this is what bugs me most about him. This man for all intents and purposes is an anti-christ. I'll bet he's ruined the last shred of faith for hundreds of people.

Well that must indicate some very weak faith or some very strong reason. Or both, for that matter. Anti-christ is not a term I would bandy about so lightly in a world with such genuine horrors in it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

The truth hurts. It hurts a lot, in fact. Dawkins himself emphasizes the need for humans to find their own purpose and to face the quite troubling nature of reality. He's not speaking of nihilism, but existentialism. He's trying to bring truth as well as hope.

For those with a strong faith, this is irrelevant. It matters more to those struggling with the conflicts between faith and reason.

kelly1 wrote: »

He may be an expert on evolution but he knows feck all about Christianity.
God have mercy on him.

Spare us please, nobody needs your wishes of mercy. I know you mean well, but it comes of as quite patronizing.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Spare us please, nobody needs your wishes of mercy. I know you mean well, but it comes of as quite patronizing.

Please try to remember where you are.

If Noel expressed such a sentiment in the A&A forum then it would certainly be patronising and you can object all you like. However, in the Christianity forum it is perfectly OK for a Christian to wish God's mercy on someone.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

My view would be on the meta-physical question soft-atheism is the most rational viewpoint, but that does not infer atheists are the most rational people.

Even if you look at Dawkins, if his objective really is to get more atheists, or less creationists, he'd be far better off using changing his tactics. But he's letting his personal disdain for religion, manifest through his arrogance to the point he even irks many other atheists.

The chances are we all have a mixture of rational and irrational viewpoints.
How you define irrational and rational objectively is another day's work.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

The dogmatists without a dogma -- that sounds more like Zen Buddhism to me

Any sign of those anthropologists you mentioned?

Minder

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

A bit late in the day, but I believe Dawkins dig on the church and the preacher in question stemmed from an attempt by the church to close an exhibition of skulls of human ancestors found in the Rift Valley. Is there something in the exhibition that the faithful need protecting from?

The Mad Hatter

I did think he was great on Doctor Who, though.

'But it's an imperical fact. Those planets didn't appear in our sky - we went to them. Look at the stars - they're different.'

thebaldsoprano

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The chances are we all have a mixture of rational and irrational viewpoints.

Yeah, agreed on that.

Tim Robbins

Minder wrote: »

A bit late in the day, but I believe Dawkins dig on the church and the preacher in question stemmed from an attempt by the church to close an exhibition of skulls of human ancestors found in the Rift Valley. Is there something in the exhibition that the faithful need protecting from?

If he wanted to bring Religion into it, he should have some how pointed out the majority of Christians that have had a scientific education have no problem with evolution. Dito the majority of Christian Churches. This glaring act of omission, is a propaganda technique.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Please try to remember where you are.

If Noel expressed such a sentiment in the A&A forum then it would certainly be patronising and you can object all you like. However, in the Christianity forum it is perfectly OK for a Christian to wish God's mercy on someone.

Duly noted. I have to wonder though how a Christian would feel about having the mercy of the Earth Mother called upon them for their heretical belief in the Abrahamic God. Is there any context at all in which that would be considered inoffensive? I'd even feel offended on the Christian's behalf.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive. It won't happen again.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Duly noted. I have to wonder though how a Christian would feel about having the mercy of the Earth Mother called upon them for their heretical belief in the Abrahamic God. Is there any context at all in which that would be considered inoffensive? I'd even feel offended on the Christian's behalf.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive. It won't happen again.

If a Christian were to post in the Spirituality or Pagan fora then they would have no right to complain if they were subjected to wacky New Age claptrap.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sdep wrote: »

I rather prefer Steve Jones. In communicating his enthusiasm for all things Darwinian, he generally keeps clear of religion. When, as in this recent public lecture, he does discuss it, he points out that he has no time for creationism, but says he takes no issue with the late Pope's position that humans evolved from a common ancestor with all other species, yet were divinely infused with souls somewhere along the way.

My personal feeling is that evolution is too important to see it reduced to a weapon in arguments over religion.

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

sdep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

I was just quoting [edit:] paraphrasing the one-line summary given by Steve Jones (not sure of his religion, if any) in the link I posted. However, as far as I'm aware the Catholic and Anglican churches don't dispute the Darwinian view that life had a single origin from which all modern species - humans included - are descended.

santing

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church?

The position of the Roman Catholic church seems to be a mixture of accepting Evolution and accepting the revelation of the Creator God. Read it all at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM

kelly1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

The Church is open to evolution. What is not up for debate is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul. God might have created Adam from clay but evolution seems more likely. But who knows?

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church is open to evolution. What is not up for debate is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul. God might have created Adam from clay but evolution seems more likely. But who knows?

Well if you take the line that abiogenesis resulted in lifeless materials becoming simple life which then evolved into man then that allows you to claim both to be true. "Muck to Man" evolution as J C would say.

Since abiogenesis is a theory up for grabs, you can speculatively insert God :pac:

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Any sign of those anthropologists you mentioned?

Adam Kuper, Professor of Anthropology at Brunel University: http://newhumanist.org.uk/974

Scott Atran, Research Director in Anthropology at the Jean Nicod Institute of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique and author of "The trouble with memes". Atran, following his participation in the 2006 'Beyond Belief' symposium with Dawkins, Dennett & Harris wrote, "I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist."


Maurice Bloch, Professor of Anthropology at LSE and author of "A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes." in Robert Aunger's Darwinizing Culture (2000).

Aunger himself (a Cambridge anthropologist), although open to the idea of memes, disagrees strongly with Dawkin's use of meme theory. I understand he is representative of many other anthropologists who find the comparison between genes and memes to be frustrating and unproductive, particularly the idea of them being self-replicating.

Splendour

santing wrote: »

Reading and listening to Dawkins, one get the impression that he is (negatively) obsessed with religion. He has his own crusade.

Ahh, but it is not his crusade Santing. He is merely a channel through which the crusade is being operated. Why else would he be so adamant to speak out against Christianity?!

I for one (Christian), actually feel sorry for Dawkins and see in him childlike quality. It's almost like he's trying to prove evolution to himself rather than his viewer and readers. He has been in my prayers many times. And just like Wolfsbane I don't worry a jot about him being against Christianity-after all God is bigger than Dawkins and who knows; God's hand could be right in the middle of it all...

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

I actually like Dawkins at times, he can be very funny even when he's not trying to be. But I don't think he realizes how irritating he can be even to those who he thinks he is representing. I find it a breath of fresh air that a lot of atheist here will not just flock to his feet simply because he has the largest soap box from which he can spew forth his maligned view of religion. You should be commended for your free thinking. I applaud you for that.

He goes on about the genius of Darwin but haven't most of Darwin's original ideas been abandoned by modern day science? Aren't there many modern day evolutionists who would not recommend reading 'Origin of species' in order to get a good understanding of how evolution works? He might have got the ball rolling but surely there are others who deserve some plaudits too?