Yes, you have.
However, if you're going to try to assert that because of his political shortsightedness, he should be scorned in his entirety as a human being, and that therefore his scientific views should be scorned and/or ignored and/or have been discredited as a result, then, well, congratulations, you've commited the age-old fallacy (and cheap and sleazy debate tactic) of the ad hominem argument, and I laugh at your pathetic attempt and at your intellectual dishonesty.
And I laugh at you baseless assertions conjured up out of thin air. My attacks on Dawkins' views are a direct result of his ad hominem cheap shot at folks in Kansas. As they say in the court rooms on TV, he opened the door. My attacks on his views on religion are not only warranted, they are true.
And if you're *not* doing that (and it certainly *looks* as if you are), then what in the hell *is* your reason for repeatedly dragging such irrelevant side issues into a science discussion?
See above. Again, Dawkins is no virgin. He attacks religion constantly. His attack on the folks in Kansas gave me ample reason to review his bigotry. I posted his views and links to his articles exposing those views. In return I got "creationist liar". Big freaking deal. That bothers me as much as an 80 degree day laced with sunshine on the golf course.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish, and what do you expect the result to be? Yeah, Dawkins is a knee-jerk British leftist, but he's hardly alone, there are millions like him. So bloody what?
I am exposing Dawkins for what he is. Keep in mind this is a conservative website dedicated to doing just that. And believ you me, I'll continue to do it when it is warranted and I've got the spare time.
Whereas to you, apparently (and a lot of other folks unhappy with evolution), ideology and politics trump science/truth/evidence. And we all know where *that* leads...
False assertions. Evolution is not a cause of happiness or unhappiness in my life any more than the fact that we breathe air. Truth is truth, nothing can trump it. The truth as I see it is that both Marx and Dawkins would've or would ban religion if they could. I've provided ample evidence to support that opinion. In return, I have gotten no countermanding evidence but loads of Creationist Liars. Shrug.
Here's what you're obviously missing: The science *does* trump ideology and politics -- or more accurately, it's separable from them. If Dawkins is right on the science, he's right. Period. No matter *what* other things he may say, believe, or do on other subjects. And if he's wrong on the science, he's wrong. His personal politics is completely irrelevant -- except to people unclear on the concept of arguing the science on its merits, and who therefore have to spew bile about the man's views on *other* subjects in a cheap attempt to sidetrack the actual discussion of the science.
I was with you until the bile spew ad hominem bs. The you lost me. Like I said truth is truth. If you don't like the mirror being held up to Dawkins, tell him to stick to science and shut his bigotted mouth concerning religion. Otherwise, he's fair game.
Now do you want to discuss the science -- or what Dawkins may have written about it -- or do you want to keep waving the ad hominem brush around despite the fact that no one's falling for it? And no, your being aghast over us not falling for it doesn't carry any water either.
Again, you wave the ad hominem flag as a silencer. It won't work. There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out Dawkins veiws on religion when he makes bigotted attacks based in religion on an entire states population. If that causes you and the "list" angst, so be it.
Einstein was a socialist. Thomas Edison and Henry Ford had anti-semitic views. Werner Heisenberg worked on the Nazi atomic bomb project. Do we question relativity because of Einstein's political beliefs? Of course not. Do we stop driving cars or using light bulbs because of Ford and Edison's political beliefs? Do we reject quantum mechanics because Heisenberg did not defect from Nazi Germany? Do we question the value of their scientific and technological achievements? No, of course not.
It is for these reasons I reject the relevancy of constantly bringing up Dawkin's political beliefs. As others have also noted, they are neither relevant to science in general, nor evolutionary biology in particular.
You are not "exposing Dawkins." His views are well known. The only purpose to bringing up Dawkins' political beliefs is to smear those people who support evolutionary biology must be lilly-livered Bush-having leftists. This is a cheap tactic of guilt by association.