But the atheist is strangely unsympathetic.

He seems unable to comprehend that both evolution and creationism can easily exist together.

Now I'm not an organised religion fan. I don't believe in God but neither do I disbelieve.

I think there is more to it than our tiny minds can understand.

But the Archbishop's point - that Darwinism does not rule out God - was fair enough. Unless you believe that the the exact details of the creation story must be regarded as fact, they do not preclude evolution.

By refusing to acknowledge that, Dawkins loses a lot of sympathy.

The Creationist movement is the one that claim evolution is incompatible with the teaching of the Bible, not Dawkins.

Dawkins point is the creationist hypothesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (A hypothesis cannot refute a theory)

The C of E has, as usual, backed down in the face of evidence and social change. The mainly American Creationists have not backed down.

To the Creationists in the US evolution is wrong because it doesn't agree with the Biblical account.

Why should Dawkins acknowledge the Creationist hypothesis anyway? It has nothing to do with science and fact. To debate with Creationists is to give them a kudos that they don't deserve.

Your perspective is based in the UK where Creationism is practically unheard of. If you look to the US you will find a very different outlook and Dawkins portrayed attitude would make a lot more sense to you.

I agree with JK- at least the Archbishop can open his mind to accomodate other views. Not all Christians think Adam and Eve as written in the Bible is literal fact. Some- like me- believe it is allegorical. Dawkins blank refusal to accept any other way of thinking is infuriating. But of course he can only base his thinking on facts, not theories, because he's a scientist- that's his job. Which just makes me think he's wasting his time debating with religious types.
Not everything in life can be proved, not everything is cold hard fact. Faith is more than just wishful thinking. More than just our genes.

Blondini wrote:
Dawkins blank refusal to accept any other way of thinking is infuriating.
I bet Dawkins blankly refuses to accept the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too. Disgraceful.

Blondini wrote:
I agree with JK- at least the Archbishop can open his mind to accomodate other views. Not all Christians think Adam and Eve as written in the Bible is literal fact. Some- like me- believe it is allegorical. Dawkins blank refusal to accept any other way of thinking is infuriating. But of course he can only base his thinking on facts, not theories, because he's a scientist- that's his job. Which just makes me think he's wasting his time debating with religious types.
Not everything in life can be proved, not everything is cold hard fact. Faith is more than just wishful thinking. More than just our genes.
At the risk of appearing pedantic there are some important subtleties here.

Proof only exists in mathematics.

Theory is fact, for example gravity is a theory. It's often misused to mean hypothesis

God/gods is/are a hypothesis which is why it has no place in a discussion on, for example, evolution.

It's not a science vs religion thing it is simply a hypothesis cannot be used to refute a theory.

I remember reading that ALL of us can be traced back to 4 people via DNA profiling according to the latest genetic science.

That could mean that the "Adam and Eve" version of events may not be as far fetched as the evolutionists sometimes think.

I do believe that there is Evolution - but our own existence right now and our ability to clone etc shows that "creation" is possible.

I believe in God as I have pointed out before - and though I find organised religion flawed I do believe that the "heart" of religions is a spiritual truth and Jesus teaching is probably the best way to live a life - with forgiveness - no judgement and with love.

I have no problem with people who choose to believe in nothing - whenever I hear a great song or go to a great gig which moves me I believe a little more that we are part of creation and a bigger plan.

BR wrote:
I remember reading that ALL of us can be traced back to 4 people via DNA profiling according to the latest genetic science.

That could mean that the "Adam and Eve" version of events may not be as far fetched as the evolutionists sometimes think.

I do believe that there is Evolution - but our own existence right now and our ability to clone etc shows that "creation" is possible.

I believe in God as I have pointed out before - and though I find organised religion flawed I do believe that the "heart" of religions is a spiritual truth and Jesus teaching is probably the best way to live a life - with forgiveness - no judgement and with love.

I have no problem with people who choose to believe in nothing - whenever I hear a great song or go to a great gig which moves me I believe a little more that we are part of creation and a bigger plan.
Jesus was certainly judgemental, he condemned many people for the way they lived.

He was also quite clear some people are assigned to Hell and if that isn't being judgemental I don't know what is. His outburst of violence would undermine a claim to unsullied love.

Why do you believe Jesus' teaching lead to a better way to live than, say, Buddha's?

...oh ...evolution and abiogenesis are quite different things and ought to be discussed separately.