Apologies Dan S de Merengue, I hadn't noticed these questions of yours.

>>Pericles, I'm trying to properly follow and understand your position. For Dawkins' atheism, evolution is important. For you it is not.<<

"Dawkins atheism" is presumably identical to mine, in that neither of us believes in the existence of God.

Dawkins, it would appear, regards the descriptions of evolution that began to appear in earnest in the nineteenth century as important to the peace of mind of some contemporary atheists. To quote him again, "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". In my view, this is no more than thinking aloud. So it is inaccurate for you to say "[f]or Dawkins' atheism, evolution is important". He merely postulated that it might have been important, back then, to some unnamed section of the community.

>>Dawkins is obviously quite opposed to religion. Does this have or not have anything to do with his understanding of science, or is it just his personal leaning or preference?<<

Is there a meaningful difference between the two? Sorry to answer a question with another question, but it doesn't seem to be very useful question, to ask me what explanation someone else may prefer.

>>With your disagreement with Dawkins, Does this mean you are sympathetic with Madeleine, Dawkins is not the best spokesperson for atheism?<<

There is no such thing as a "spokesperson for atheism". Dawkins simply describes what he sees as the aspects of religion that damage our society, and condemns them. He happens to be an atheist, sure. But I have heard enough supposedly religious people hammering away at the evils associated with the beliefs of other religious people, to know that his atheism is practically irrelevant to his principal theme: religion causes harm.

So a question for you, on the same train of thought.

Which body of people do more damage to your own version of religion: people who, in your opinion, have completely the wrong idea of God, or those who don't believe in God to start with?

I missed one.

Dan S de Merengue said:

>>Pericles, who challenges that Dawkins would hold science as being antithetical to religion...<<

That is a gross misstatement of my position.

Of course, to a religious person, science is not just antithetical, but anathema. The more we discover about our universe, and the planet upon which we live, the less need there is for people to cling to explanations that have nothing more than a form of mysticism to support them. Dawkins merely points this out, asking "when are you guys going to wake up?"

>>In one interview ('Expelled' film documentary), speaking in the context of a hypothetical court case investigating the effects of evolutionary teaching, Dawkins said, “If they called me as a witness, and a lawyer said, 'Doctor Dawkins, has your study of evolution turned you towards atheism?' I would have to say, 'Yes'.”<<

That is a personal statement, not a generic analysis of why people choose not to believe in the existence of God. To many people, myself included, it is the absence of any evidence whatsoever that persuades us that Gods are a figment of our collective imaginations, and have been since we first were able to articulate the question, "how did we get here".

It does help, of course, that I find the billions of hours spent by scientists examining the tangible evidence, and drawing their conclusions from it, more persuasive than the logical tap-dancing favoured by the religious, when asked to explain "how did we get here".

The minute - no, the nanosecond - following the presentation of credible, factual evidence of a supreme being, I will be delighted to change my position. That's what scientists do.

>>Evolution naturally leads to atheism, at least in Dawkins' thinking<<

You do persist in getting it ass-backwards. Evolution itself doesn't "prove" anything, since it still leaves open the question, where did it all start. It is however incompatible with the beliefs of young-earth creationists, for sure.

Once again, just for the record: Dawkins does not speak for me, nor does he validate or invalidate my own atheist stance.

DSM,

You accused me of a personal attack, yet I cannot see any sign of anything personal in what I wrote. All I pointed out was that neither atheism nor evolution need each other, and are perfectly capable of standing on their own.

Fundamentalist Christians need evolution to fail and have tried in vain for decades to find cracks in the theory. Scientists are perfectly happy that there are not fossil records for every stage in each creatures evolution, just that each fossil found fits neatly into the evolutionary chain.

Whilst the nature of evolution is such that there can never be absolute proof, there is such an abundance of corroborating evidence that any other explanation is highly implausible.

Shadow Minister, you are right -- evolution is only a theory.

You are being over-generous by stating that "there are not fossil records for every stage in each creatures evolution", when in fact very few stages have fossil records, if at all.

The basic weakness of the 'theory' is that it has no plausible explanation of how life started in the first place in such a harsh sterile environment.

Raycom,

Two issues with your post:

1 the theory of evolution deals with how life adapts to its environment by evolving. It is not primarily concerned with how life originated, which is a separate branch of the life sciences.

2 Your comment that "evolution is only a theory" would imply that there is a viable alternative. Any theory is only valid until something is found that conclusively disproves it. Over a hundred years and millions of the best minds have yet to find anything that disproves evolution. The only others alternative theories put forward are creation, and intelligent design, both of which have been conclusively discredited.

So whilst evolution "is only a theory" it is the only one we have, and all the evidence so far shows that there is very little reason to doubt it.

Praise the Lord, Eureka, I have seen the light! Evolution is only a theory, but religion is fact. Wow, what a load off that is. And here's poor silly me thinking it was only the existence of God, the origins of life, and the origins of the Earth and of the Universe itself which as yet remained mysterious and uncertain and full of wonder - plus a few other bits and pieces of no great consequence, supposedly.

But lo, which religion? Which teachings from the mouths of men, and which men, and to what purpose? Such a considerable diversity and range of choice warrants extraordinary evaluation.

Pericles,

"... to a religious person, science is not just antithetical, but anathema."

How can you say that? Are all to be tarred with the same brush? Where is this hypothetical person, representative of the religious? Do I mis-quote or misrepresent intention perhaps? I shall put this aside.

For some, religion and science may be incompatible, even anathema, but was it not an early Islamic empire which set about aggregating knowledge with the purpose of extending understanding, and advancing the study of mathematics, geometry, astronomy and science in general, as well as art and architecture? Are there today not theologians who are also scientists? Is not a huge proportion of mankind almost totally dependent on advancements in science for the comforts, health and longevity they enjoy? But then, are we to believe that the religious amongst these only accept this good fortune reluctantly and with great aversion?

Any incompatibility between science and religion can only be a construct of men, and men are fallible, but not the Universe, not the laws of nature, and not the limits of our true understanding.