However Darwin's theory, accepted as some marvel of logic, was very liberating to science because educated folks -- the leaders of the times -- had indulged not so much in a "biblical literalism" but more a stiffling intellectual and social literalism. In England, see Dickens. The prior generations -- to some significant extent -- thought everything was known, so why ask.
A question is an appreciation. Every "appreciated thing or event or person" is both a blessing and a question. An awareness provoked at the spiritual level. When we stop asking questions, we have stopped appreciating, we have stopped drawing out the Divine -- stopped our blessings, made G-d lonely by our estrangements.
The grass of intellect and spirit no longer sprouts -- our mechanical lip-services trod it down.
Hooray for Darwin! Hooray for Huxley! Hooray for Wilberforce!
Still, I reserve any kudos for Dawkins and his kind.
I suspect that deep within Dawkins’ psyche, tuck firmly away so he cannot be conscious of it any longer for fear of the implications to his past, is the desire to make God recognize Dawkins even if it is by decisive refutation of his own mouthings. A bitter, self-absorbed man is resulting from this contradiction within the hidden heart of Dawkins. Darwin rejected God out of despair in the same hidden desire un fulfilled. And it cannot be realized, God will not rebuke a man in order to fulfill a man’s demand to be recognized by his creator. Faith is the opposite of this twisted pride. Ultimately, seeking a means to disprove the designer of it all is an act of obsegious pride. God will not be manipulated.
If Dawkins does a scientific paper, it had better be as error free as any other paper I read.
I leave philosophy to philosopers.
Ideas I prefer to define into levels of solidity: notions, hypotheses etc. Oh, yes, and bull sessions.