*Why cannot he come up with irrefutable scientific evidence that God does not exist?*

Raycom, you cannot prove a negative, so for the same reasons that
you cannot prove that the toothfairy and Santa do not exist.

Try it, you will fail.

Yabby: "the toothfairy and Santa do not exist."

THEY DON'T?

Well that's just screwed my entire day.

Seriously, what is the point of this article? It fails to achieve what it is asking scientists to do; present science in a palatable form so that even religious fundamentalists can understand it. At the same time Andrew Baker takes a swipe at Dawkins who has probably done more to promote science and rational thought than Baker has in his entire life. Therefore, I find a personal attack on Dawkins by Baker as suspicious.

Is Dawkins egotistical? Who knows? Who cares? Character flaws do not prove that Dawkins is irrelevant. Nor does reading his publications mean that science will stagnate, as the author claims. Only if science is prevented from searching for truth and knowledge, for evidence and the constant revision of interpretation will it cease to flourish. Such as happened to science in the past due to superstition and religious dogma.

I would tend to agree with Ozandy albeit with a slightly different emphasis.
I would suggest that simplifying science for the uninitiated is a worthwhile activity. However there are simplifications and plain misleading simplifications. The latter seems to be largely the province of those with an axe to grind. i.e. the journo with no science back ground is given an assignment to write on something as complex as AGW. The journo is also under editorial pressure to sex it up to grab attention. Hence the grossly simplified title. Often they take professional qualifiers and turn them into absolutes...therefore giving the average mug punter a distorted perspective of both the topic and its import.

Dawkins tends to overstate his position as a campaign for atheism by allowing his topic to be overwhelmed by saleable evangelistic zeal/controversy. His books tend to both tunnel visioned and myopic seemingly ignoring his topic's rightful place in the wider human context. Thus leading us to almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses.

Conversely the Human CONTEXT allows for complexity well beyond our comprehension.
Every new discovery adds another layer of complexity(questions) to be answered.

As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs.
I do share his concern that religion dressed as science has no place in public education and governance.

Ultimately what isn't clearly conveyed to the public is the true place of individual issues firstly in the context of individual scientific discipline then in the overall multi discipline Context. e.g. A geologist's failure to find evidence of AGW or a lack of definitive predictions do not out weigh the overall balance of probability gleaned from many disciplines.

I am suggesting that it is most often commercial motives that dominate over objective scientific discussions. The latter don't sell as well as controversy and sensation..

The number of publisher that will take on such unemotional discussions are limited and shrinking fast.

Examinator

I think that Dawkins makes an important contribution to our understanding of the human condition. I don't think his is the final word, but I would place him way above the likes of Andrew Bolt (who fits the description of the journalist you made above).

If anything, Dawkins provides a good starting point. Are we just the sum of chemicals, responses (and bacteria)? Or are we greater than the sum of our parts? I found Dawkins' book, "The Selfish Gene" rather dispiriting, maybe I want to think that there is something more than just blind life. However, articles like this one are regressive rather than generative. Dawkins has made significant inroads into our self-perception and I am sure that he is the last person to say that scientific thought ends with him.

"However, the picture-perfect science that Dawkins portrays ... "

where does dawkins portray science as picture-perfect? why pick on dawkins? are you really suggesting dawkins is wrong to distingish ID from evolutionary biology on the basis of reasoning and evidence? if not, then what the hell is your point?

it never ends. some smug twerp reads a bit of kuhn and feyerabend, and we have to put up with the resulting silly sermon of false egalitarianism.

Here is an interesting essay which, among other things, describes the effort to encircle, and thus control every one and every thing, via the reductionist method of both exoteric religion (theology), and scientism (hunter-gatherer behaviour and motivation)

1. http://www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm (scroll town for the essay url)