Whereas I have far from any great liking for Dawkins, this epitomizes
what Dawkins says in his book "The Selfish Gene". Quote "for readers
who don't bother to read beyond the first few pages...." unquote.
In fact, Willis doesn't seem to have read beyond the preface and
would fit very nicely into Dawkins' category of "memeoid" for writing
This is the worst of politics and one of the reasons I find it so
difficult to defend a theistic view amongst my peers. As soon as wind
of the "G" word is heard, I feel instantly relegated to "crack pot"
with no further ado. How can anyone even find neutral ground on which
to merely *suggest* the existence of God in an environment where
people are so conditioned to respond to the god of the YEC.
As scientists, we need to either express our objections as to what is
wrong with Dawkins' hypothesis/methodology/conclusion, point out a
compelling alternative, or determine where theology comes into the
picture. Frankly, with a little bit more thought, and a lot less
emotion, at least two of the above can be achieved, without any "red