Listen to this. It is a diatribe of hate but no government agency will call it a hate crime. It is a blast of consummate ignorance but it passes for academic brilliance. It is a lie but the liar is posing as an apologist for truth.
Richard Dawkins, one of atheism's most vocal spokesmen said the following: "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He has a lot more in the same vein:
"They [Christians] believe this because they rate a particular bronze-age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book-Genesis. ... Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin's bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal." This "educational scandal" has Dawkins all stirred up and ready for battle: "The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give."
Richard Dawkins is an Oxford University science professor. He is an evolutionist and a militant atheist, with his atheism providing the philosophical basis for his acceptance of evolution and his evolutionism providing the alleged "scientific" evidence for his atheism. In other words, Dawkins is guilty of two egregious and deliberate errors: First, he pretends that he speaks from a position of pure science and evidence. He does not. He speaks from the presupposition of atheism and he interprets the facts to support his notion. Second, he would have us believe that his world view does not shape his scientific interpretation. But it does.
The Institute for Creation Research rightly pointed out, "What Dawkins proposes is not a faithless system. Instead of God, however, he enshrines science and reason. If something cannot currently be explained through natural means, it is only a matter of time before ‘miracles' will be satisfactorily transformed by science into ‘natural phenomena.'" Dawkins wrote:
"An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles--except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful."