logic, theology, rationalism and empiricism. It is still stuck with David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Hume attempted to show that some of the most fundamental concepts, such as causality, identity, substance etc. on which our knowledge of things depend are illusory. The problem with your argument is that, as usual, you have not understood Dawkins's point. He is not opposing Obama with oranges. Instead he takes the claims of religion and scrutinises them on scientific principles and finds that those claims do not add up. You write as though it is all done of a piece that religion is this fluffy bunny and big bad Richard comes along and tries to bash it with his big club called Science. When it is not like that at all. Instead Dawkins has noted that the fluffy bunny rig is just a suite and underneath is a writhing mass of contradictions that can be teased apart and seen to be just smoke and mirrors. You almost get there with your talk about meterology and the shape of the earth and the cosmos then you ignore the lesson of that. This is just yet another tired hatchet job by someone who either hasn't read Dawkins or hasn't understood him. From a biophysicist who operates in the minutiae of biology to see things in such monolithic wholes is disappointing. I think you are just one of the people who thinks Dawkins is rude or disrespectful and you are trying to find stick to beat him