Kate normally does a good job, but that was pure crap. He never once referred to believers that way. Many learned people and men of science are followers of faiths. Dawkins, more than anyone, knows that.
From what I am gathering the Dawkin's lecture sounded like a revivalist meeting for atheists without the music and dancing.
He didn't really touch on theism much at all. His only mentions of it seemed to be tied to religious interference with human knowledge/education. Particularly when it comes to the advancement of science. His arguments against "design" were soundly rooted in biological evidence, which was the meat of his talk. There was very little "revivalist" hooting and hollering, it was a quite somber lecture that was packed to the gills (fish reference for those in attendance) with information. So, you gather wrong.
I went last night and Dawkins really only touched on religion in the Q & A session. He was definitely preaching to the choir last night.
Not doubting that he had a lot of information but this sounded like a lecture given to those who already accept Dawkin's ideas and for lack of a better term, strengthen their resolve in those ideas, than meant to win over those who don't ascribe to Dawkin's ideas.
Well it's not like this took place at Liberty University (a place where he has spoken before) or something. Hell, even then he wasn't concerned with winning anybody over. He says what he has to say, in a very matter of fact manner. You either take it or leave it. This was a forum for people who were fans of his work (Houston "Progressive" Forum, high price point, copies of the book going out), no reason to try to speak to an audience that isn't even there...
is this more that evolution is talked about because it disproves religion, or is it just about evolution? i thought that not too many people would argue that anymore.
One statistic that he cited, has cited before, and which Sam Harris also regularly cites, is that about 40-45% of the American population still takes the Bible literally in terms of the creationism story. In other words, they think the world is less than 10,000 years old. That stance is mutually exclusive to the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
