“Paul Kirkley is a self-confessed Dawkins disciple.” As a Dawkins’ Fan, he does his best to defend his hero:
It’s become fashionable to knock Dawkins lately – with his most lazy critics falling back on the fallacious argument that he’s as much of a fundamentalist as the religious institutions he so energetically demolishes.
There is nothing lazy about recognizing that Dawkins is a fundamentalist. His Us vs. Them, simple-minded, black and white approach is clearly indicative of a fundamentalist mindset. Why else would a leading scientist point out that Dawkins is an embarrassment? And why would Dawkins ignore this criticism if he could easy smack it down?
The Dawkins Fan then gives it his best:
This is nonsense, of course, because, however passionate the professor may be about his subject, his arguments are always based on one thing: evidence.
LOL! Sorry, but that delusional belief has been refuted. The problem is that this Dawkins Fan has been drinking the Gnu KoolAid and has bought into Dawkins lifelong self-promotion tour. Thus, he would be unable to grasp the simple, empirically established fact that his hero’s arguments are not always based on evidence.
For the Gnu, “evidence” is just a Magic Word. They like to say it and type it. But they don’t know what it is.