[AndrewC]

No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)."

You will note that this comment is made about this "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" . Thus he accepts it not because of politics, but because of the science. Why does he have to deny politics enters in to the situation? Because, it does often figure into the situation as in the case of Sterberg.

[Right Wing Professor]

Dawkins said he voted LibDem in the last election. I think this was mainly because they were the only unequivocally anti-war party. Theoretically, they're to the right of Labour on economic issues, and have a historical connection with liberalism in the older European sense (free trade, market capitalism, no state ownership - what we'd call social liberal/ economic conservative), but British politics are all over the map ideologically at the moment.

I've pinged Thatcherite, since obviously he's got a much better perspective.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why does he have to deny politics enters in to the situation?"

Because Gould and Clive Bradley said that politics was why Dawkins allegedly considered non-gradual evolution heresy. He was answering their allegations.