This theory fits the available evidence better:

The theory of sufficient genetic potential

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theory-sufficient-genetic-potential.html

Hi Team
the point I'm making is not that there is no evidence for a scientific view of things.. of course there is.
But Dr Dawkins has made a very profitable career out of 'bagging' "the Church" along with every other religion, and so, some scrutiny of his position is quite justified.

The most important thing to scrutinize is 'his presuppositions' which determine the shape of what he presents. "I hate all religion"

From this, we need to ask, "how many people are being influenced by an articulate person who's theories and attitudes are based on....'hate'" ?

Personally, I'd rather have something like 'Honest enquiry' at the foundation of a movement which sought my attention.

I should in fairness point out, that Dawkins himself does not exude 'hate' in his personal manner, and is quite warm hearted in his approach, which is good for us all.

I don't find the same thing in the manner or methods of some other media favorites.

Check this out :) Dawkins..'stumped, fidgiting, grasping for words'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_KIRTa7jI

bless him.

The big, big difference Boaz, is this.

I can disagree with your christian-centric view of the universe AND disagree with Dawkins bitterness at religion in general without being at all inconsistent.

You see, being an atheist means that you don't need a thought-leader. I can accept that some people - Dawkins, Hitchens etc. - feel strongly about the impact of religion on the world that they occasionally allow emotion to overcome rationality. But because atheism is an absence of belief in a deity, it also carries with it a responsibility not to replace that absence with a presence of some kind.

Evolution is not a religion, it is a theory. And as such, it is constantly being tested, and constantly expands our knowledge as it does. There is absolutely no chance that we will ever discover everything there is to know about our history - we simply don't have the time, or the mental capacity.

But where you need to replace this absence of certainty with some form of emotional support, I don't. Nor do I have to support Dawkins' view - it is just another viewpoint, among many viewpoints whose only connection is the fact that they don't constantly refer to an artificial emotional and spiritual construct as their justification.

Um, criticising one point of view doesn't automatically prove another view is correct.
Maybe both views are wrong.

Yeah, I watched that video Boazy. It is unfortunate that Dawkins is not fully educated in molecular evolution and mechanisms, but then again, he a behaviourist eh? Oh well, we all have our little mental blanks don't we? There is an answer to the question though.

I tend to think that persons like Dawkins are trying to make a stand for science against the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. That they themselves come across as fundamentalists themselves will happen I suppose, but it's better than the alternative. :)

All responses thus far can be described as balanced and valid, from each persons worldview.. excellent :) thats how discussion/debate should be right ?

Pericles.. actually rather well said.. I am having a 'bash' at Dawkins mainly because he puts himself out there rather.. and is very high profile. At the last Australia day celebrations, there was a prayer meeting set up in Festival Hall (Melb) by Catch the Fire Ministries, and while the 1000s of people were entering, there was a little dutiful delegation of Atheists handing out 'The God Delusion' to all and sundry and engaging Christians in 'sidewalk psychotherapy' to release us from our bondage :) I rather commend them for this step of adventure, because they are quite safe in Christian hands, no one will 'bash' them with anything other than a few well chosesn verses of scripture.

Rache.. agreed. No argument with that, the weakness of one view does not prove another, but may I say the weakness of one view which is criticizing another specific view, does lend more credibility to the other view, while not proving it.

Bugsy.. feel free to expand on the molecular theories, but may I suggest a listen to this before you do?

http://www.bethinking.org/categories.php?CategoryID=1
Look up the 'advanced level' for "Has science eliminated God" by Alistair McGrath (former Atheist) now Christian (but who is criticized by some Christians for his 'strange' views on some aspects)
http://undergroundreformation.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/alistair-mcgrath-and-carrying-the-torch-of-bad-theology/

McGrath is not my 'chunk of 2 x 4' with which to beat the daylights out of atheists, he is just one of many thinkers who seems to have the science behind him to make intelligent comment (unlike myself in that field)

DAWKINS IS RIGHT on one issue for sure. He highlights the unusual thinking which would 'praise God' for the one child saved from an earthquake, in which 1000s of people died. To me this is like praising God for the nice spring weather, but silence in the winter gloom.