new corruption that is falsely referred to as "science" -- that of the Dawkins/Hitchens ilk

Guest, it would appear you have never read much of Dawkin's actual presentations. He is analytical and scientific in his data and in his analyses. I would hazard a guess you are reacting against your own perception of 'conclusions you don't like'.

But...let us not start that thread all over again. IF you have read The Blind Watchmaker I think you will agree he is not unscientific.


A