This article is . . . well, aside from the atrocious editing, it's just awesome! 
More at the link.
So what do you think? Is Dawkins the perfect example of the arrogant, ignorant atheistard that pollutes our community colleges and welfare offices?

HOULD a well-known evolutionist be able to name the work on which the theory of evolution is based? You think? Especially if that evolutionist implies you aren't a real christian if you can't put the Gospels in order.
So what do we make of this exchange on the Today Programme last Tuesday: The Rev Dr Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that. Professor Richard
Dawkins: Yes, I could. Fraser: Go on then.
Dawkins: On the Origin of Species... uh... with... Oh God. Er... On the Origin of Species. Um. There’s ... there’s a sub-title...er, um... with respect to the preser... preservation of favoured races in the fight, in the struggle for life.
Wrong. On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, or the Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.
Does Dawkins’s fumbling ignorance mean he doesn’t hold with Darwinism? Of course it doesn’t, any more than he can assert I’m not a Christian if I haven’t been to church today. Though it may mean he should think more carefully before trusting himself on air.
It’s not the first time Dawkins has made a fool of himself. Some years ago I interviewed him for a BBC programme: Why People Hate Christians . . .
So what do we make of this exchange on the Today Programme last Tuesday: The Rev Dr Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that. Professor Richard
Dawkins: Yes, I could. Fraser: Go on then.
Dawkins: On the Origin of Species... uh... with... Oh God. Er... On the Origin of Species. Um. There’s ... there’s a sub-title...er, um... with respect to the preser... preservation of favoured races in the fight, in the struggle for life.
Wrong. On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, or the Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.
Does Dawkins’s fumbling ignorance mean he doesn’t hold with Darwinism? Of course it doesn’t, any more than he can assert I’m not a Christian if I haven’t been to church today. Though it may mean he should think more carefully before trusting himself on air.
It’s not the first time Dawkins has made a fool of himself. Some years ago I interviewed him for a BBC programme: Why People Hate Christians . . .
So what do you think? Is Dawkins the perfect example of the arrogant, ignorant atheistard that pollutes our community colleges and welfare offices?

Comment