"dawkins could be a genocidal, infanticidal, racist, sexist, homophobic, murderer .... But unlike the god of the bible, his message is backed by evidence"
Essentially I agree with your statement. I don't completely because it implies (whether purposely or not on your part) that everything Dawkins states is backed by science and therefore correct. Even if his entire discussion is founded on science, not all of his conclusions necessarily follow without fault. I guess that's the subtle point I feel has been missed throughout this entire conversation. I think the guy is brilliant. But I also think he's fallible and can sometimes be smug in his criticism of those who have the right to criticize him. I'm not suggesting that would be you or me, but instead credentialed individuals who know what they're talking about.
I keep looking back at my previous posts to find if I have made a denial of Evolution or Natural Selection or if I've even suggested that what Dawkins writes is crap. I think he is a bright and provocative individual with a lot of good things to say. But I fail to understand those who worship him and don't want to take note of the flaws that other scientists point out about his work. It seems that not only are the other scientists somehow diminished but also anyone else who points to those authoritative individuals.
I have read three of his books. I've seen many interviews with him and have heard a lecture or two from him. I'm not an authority on him as you seem to be. However, I don't need to be in order to explore both sides of an issue the way experts debate them. That I have done. And that is my main incentive for concluding that Dawkins is not correct in some of his postulates. I've admired him for exposing religious hypocrisy and vitriol, not only in a historical context but by current examples. Yet, I differ from others in that I don't believe the guy walks on water. Perhaps that is an exaggeration of how vehemently he is defended. But the lack of effort from many individuals to directly address some of Dawkins' problematic proposals is enough reason for me to think they lack a certain degree of criticality.
