Dear Bennie
I hardly think that the scientist in charge of the Genome project, who is Christian, fall into the category of:

".... to the point of denying the utility of all the sciences."

The evidence totally contradicts that oft spouted mantra.

CJ.. yes we sing to Him. Often and with great enthusiasm :)

Jon J
"How do vocal Christians react now to the exposure of this silliness?"

Well...you say by generating more silliness. I suppose we cannot avoid that charge. When Paul proclaimed Christ at Athens.... there were those who Mocked "What is this babber speaking about" and those who believed.

It goes with the territory. But for those who are called.. the gospel is the power unto Salvation. We proclaim...and you the hearer decide to believe or not.. in the end.. all who are called will believe.

Our prayer is that you and all here will become as some of us are.. firmly founded in Christ and growing to maturity in Him.

Polycarp I was talking about creationists.

Intriguingly, it is the author of this piece himself who seems to have decided unilaterally that the descriptor "childish" is the one that needs to be examined and addressed.

In the example he provides:

"There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else ... has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point"

...the word Dawkins uses is "infantile".

This can equally be paraphrased as "childlike", as "childish".

Both "infantile" and "childish" carry pejorative overtones, and I have no doubt that Dawkins was aware of this. But the author chose to carry this nuance over into his article without placing it in context.

Intended insult apart, Dawkins was describing the childlike position of deferring to external authority, not a childish - e.g. emotionally immature - attitude.

Stripped of any unnecessary overtones, his assessment is a perfectly accurate reflection of the religionist's approach to life.

The authority figure - the surrogate parent, who separates for the child the notions of right and wrong - obviates any need for independent thought. Pulling the cat's tail might be fun, but it's wrong. Picking one's nose may make a tasty snack, bit it's not nice. Smacking one's younger sibling might be gratifying, but reprehensible. All these are accepted without question or argument.

Religion invokes an authority figure to draw the line between what is seemly and what is not. The subject goes along with this interpretation with childlike faith that the determinations are just and justified.

The sleight-of-hand is apparent when the author bounces off his own straw man into...

>>But there are plenty of intellectuals, even professors on par with or outstripping Dawkins for academic standing who hold that a concept of God is intellectually justifiable, even necessary, to make sense of the world.<<

There's no need for a "But".

Dawkins agrees.

He points out that children accept unquestioningly that an authority figure who dictates their actions is both intellectually justifiable and necessary to make sense of the world.

It is not "childish" to do so, simply "childlike". As in innocent, untutored, unworldly.

The most childish of all are the children of darkness who rejected and still do reject the Light. They make up silly little dogmas about how the world happened (evolution) not realizing that one day their father (the devil) will be thrown into hell along with all his children. They continue to argue against their Creator and insist on their own way. They want to live by their own little hypocritical rules and think they are clever in mocking their Creator.

Jesus summed it up accurately when He said 'For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.'

The childish ones are those who refuse to bow their knee to the Only one who can save them from sin.

So what am I now runner? The Antichrist! smile.

EVO

You write a good letter Runner.

Are you the Antichrist EVO?

Wheres your microchip?
On the forehead or the right hand (Revelation 13:16-18 / 14:9-11)?

Someone apart from myself ought to write on the Antichrist so we get different perspectives.