This post is a bit more ope to interpretation than the post with the words the other way around? People seem to be responding to different interpretations of the original question. (Ironic that we are talking religion then.)

I am not quite in tune with Richard Dawkins on everything, but I have to take issue with Rev Goose gander saying he has shallowness of thinking! He is possibly the most gifted evolutionary biologist we have seen to date. The leaps in understanding how we got to where we are today and why we have, for instance ten fingers (put in anything you wish at this point) are down to the work of Dawkins and those he inspires.

In the meantime, evolutionary biology doesn't exactly fall in line with what religious scriptures dictate, so naturally he came under fire from an early stage from those who think scriptures are "true." (as opposed to representing the science of the day, which they were really doing, and are useful historical documents for all that. The Principia is still a good historical document despite some of the fundamental basis not holding up to more recent findings.)

So just because people who claim to be learned told him he was wrong, he quite rightly questioned their evidence base. the knives have been out since, and all because he regularly proves the Emperor has no clothes.

Strange that the casual dismissing of him came from somebody with Rev in his title eh? If a family member needed treatment and genetic breakthroughs were to provide that treatment.. well let's put it this way, beats the hell out of praying for them!