It may be correct that Dawkins does not directly use evolution to attack religion, however, below he calls anyone who does not believe in it a few choice names. As many Christians still do not believe in evolution they would be included in his indictment on non-believers in evolution so an indirect attack on the religious has effectively been made. Not a very nice one either. He even call people who teach their children religion child abusers
This is what I don't like about Dawkins' personally; this is all very arrogant. He insults people who claim not to believe that evoution is true and, what is more, he claims that parents are engaging in child abuse by teaching their kids YE creationism. It's little wonder that some people consider Dawkins to be such a pompous blowhard. I loved reading his books years ago but now he seems just as dogmatic and arrogant as, say, Jonathan Sarfati.
In my judgment, in some ways Dawkins has become the mirror image opposite of creationists like Sarfati. Both Dawkins and Sarfati are arrogant, both are blowhards, both defend their beliefs with dogmatic rigidity, and both are insulting to people with opposing views. For Dawkins, anyone who does not accept evolution is stupid, insane, or ingorant. For Sarfati, anyone who does not accept biblical creationism is stupid, ignorant, or just a God-hater.
Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and has also faced charges of committing elementary errors.[3][4]
The website True Free Thinker notes:
Moreover, note that with regards to assertions without adequate evidence evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagans list of the best contemporary science-popularizers which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Lewontin specifically mentions Dawkinss vulgarizations of Darwinism (find details here and here).
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in The God Delusion.[5]
In 2010, a new discovery regarding the eye further discredited the evolutionary quackery of Richard Dawkins.[6] In addition, in 2010, the journal Nature featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: Atheism and Mental and Physical Health).[7][8]
Concerning the social science of history, Richard Dawkins has engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists.
Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are conservative Christians which is not surprising. The Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."[9] In the United States, CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.[10]
Ah! Conservapedia! The unbiased, completely objective, scientifically accurate, and academically respectable encyclopedia of all sound knowledge!
Here's the thing: maybe Dawkins has made errors and I am open to investigating any errors and unsubstantiated claims that Dawkins might have made. If he is truly guilty, Dawkins needs to be shamed for sloppy scholarship. Personally, I wasn't impressed with his book
The God Delusion and consider it to be his worst book.
But I have trouble taking conservapedia seriously, though. The author believes that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible which strongly deminises an author's credibility in my opinion. Worst, he quotes from a Christian apologist James Holding who is not only a complete hack when defending Evangelical Christianity but is also a world-class jerk, too. I am convinced that Mr. Holding is a very evil man, period.
