with while still trying to be true the scientist you are. Well you have failed, but don't worry nobody has proved him wrong, which is part of your problem. I see EO Wilson had go at 'Selfish' genes based on data he hasn't gathered yet, which you have to agree is poor. Though it's understandable, Wilson is not young and likely fears he might not live to see these mythical data published so he has to get his blows down in a book. Still doesn't make him right. So do you have any actual arguments against specific points Dawkins makes or are you just going to stick in the generalities? How much of him have you actually read? The issue is summed up by the title of Dawkins's "The Magic of Reality - how we know what's really true". 'True' in this context means 'scientifically verifiable' - which is acceptable as one definition of 'true', but only one. Entire libraries have been written on the subject of what is 'true'. Any attempt to limit definitions of 'truth' to 'scientific verifiability' only plays into the hands of those who are all-too eager to misrepresent science as a religion, when it's nothing of the kind. It does the rationalist cause no favours. Science with a capital is better termed scientism. For the most part I think you're arguing with a straw man Syliva. The reason why science is the enemy of religion is that it demonstrably steps onto the territory that religion