Replies

It's really funny you have to stoop to characterizing Dawkins as a 'rabid' atheist in order to find anything at all wrong with his characterization of Kurt Wise. In fact, Dawkin's criticism is eminently moderate and reasonable. He lauds Wise's command of science, and nails the problem:

When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that '. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.'

... (my ellipsis)

This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink.

Me neither. And people who are capable of abandoning reason and logic and evidence and science to embrace, as Dawkins accurately characterizes it, a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders, are scary people.

"...In fact, Dawkin's criticism is eminently moderate and reasonable. He lauds Wise's command of science, and nails the problem.."

I totally agree. Why do you think I included it? And why do you think I included a link to my profile page which provides hot links to the two Galileo / crevo-evo items??? DUH!!