Richard Dawkins says he was radicalised by 9/11.

Speaking for myself, when hordes of murderous nutcases actually started killing one another over some fairly ordinary cartoons, that's when I realised I wanted no part of religion anymore.

I still read the Bible, the Koran and other holy books, just as I still Shakespeare and Homer. But I don't believe either Hamlet or Zeus were real.

I'm genuinely saddened by your post, Clownfish. It's just incredibly dissapointing when people decide to turn away from their faith because of the actions of religious people.

However, I don't think it's a necessary step, or even a logical one. Why would you abandon a worldview because of it's adherents not following it's ideas? Or any would someone abandon religion because religious people do wrong? It doesn't seem logical to me at all. On an emotional level, I feel ya, but on an intellectual level I can't say that I see any logic in your complaints. I'll admit though that it's easy to let the emotional side get the better of you.

On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam. Each religion is different, and needs to be judged accordingly- even if you're only looking through a sociological lens at the good/bad done in the world.

^On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam.^

They are almost the same ,from the same part of the world but Christianity is 600 years in advance.
Spanish inquisition is where Islam is now.

under one god,

Ah so I see that you understand how a species can evolve from a common ancestor into two district species. Well done.

As I stated previously the definitions of species and genus are made up by humans to allow the classification of the similarities and differences between various lifeforms. Note: prior to genetic sequencing many species have been incorrectly classed in a particular genus based on morphological similarities. In reality there is no clearly defined line between species and genus. It just makes it easier for us to relate one animal to another.

Proof that a species has evolved "out" of a genus into another genus would assume that what is classified as a genus remains constant. This is not true, as all the species in all genera are constantly evolving.

I would be interested to hear how you understand this topic along with explanations for the evidence of evolution we can observe, such as artificial speciation and the changes we see with bacteria and viral adaptation to artificial selection.

Stephan Chelada, I liked your article.
The term 'survival of the fittest' was first coined by Herbert Spencer, who was closer to an economist than a biologist. Apparently, when he read Darwin's treatise, he was struck by the parallels between evolution and laissez faire economics. In fact, he used Darwin's theory as an apology for free market capitalism; it was 'natural'.
Although Darwin came to use the expression himself, (better soundbite), I believe he was initially disturbed by the concept, as giving the wrong impression.
Imagine a picnic, attended by people of all ages, from babies to geriatrics, suddenly attacked by a pack of wolves. 'Survival of the fittest' would suggest those in their prime should just flee, and leave the children and the weak to be savaged.
It is impossible to know the full potential of a small child; how 'fit' he or she will one day be.
It's fortunate many people are capable of a little more compassion, a little more 'humanity', than the free marketeers.
And yet, 30,000 children are still allowed to die, every day, from poverty.
You're right, Stephan Chelada. There are a lot of critters walking around on 2 legs, that just ain't Human.
www.avasay.com

Stephen, I can see you scratching your head in genuine bewilderment over the scientists‘ failure to see the holes in their “arguments” and the religious obstinately holding onto unfashionable beliefs.
Almost.

You write: “The Theory of Evolution placed a permanent question mark over the literal interpretation of the Bible.”

But this is only true for NON-BELIEVERS. (For believers, "God's word" as a matter of faith and belief trumps "patchy evolution theory" as a matter of faith and belief.)

Yet you ponder how can this be explained, as if belief in the biblical account of creation is an anomaly in the face “all of the scientific evidence”.

Other posters have addressed the lack of credible evidence, and you insist that: “An important part of scientific inquiry is that one should constantly question a theory.” Presumably, the Theory of Evolution falls outside of this rigorous approach to fact gathering?

According to the scientists, “religious beliefs are an impediment to human progress”, and according to you this is based on three (non-scientific) reasons which you then attempt to deconstruct in your rush to remove the barriers between science and religion.

Consider this: some scientists hold religious views. Therefore, science and religion are only incompatible in the mind of NON-BELIEVERS.

Your argument that “adherence to self-discipline and the importance of a set of rules is a common factor in all past and present belief system” is NOT TRUE of Christianity. In fact, the New Testament preaches the very opposite path to salvation – not through the law, not through your own actions, but through Christ.

How do you reconcile the fact that religions DO cause conflicts to your argument. It is true to say that not all conflicts are founded on religious differences. However, many of them are and will continue to be. It has nothing to do with science, so why?

To your “scientific” arguments for religion holding back progress, please deconstruct:

- Do you check your brain in at the door when you enter a church?

And:

- What proof do you have that God exists?