Proponents of evolution are faced with the daunting task of supporting a thesis that presupposes both the accumulation of beneficial mutations that increase complexity of being,...  

...and the requisite stasis of natural processes, which always operate on its eternal material...  

...in a cosmos that has the capacity to navigate the "razor's edge" between the "always changing" and the "always remaining the same," without the benefit of intelligent thought.    

The humor of the situation is glaring to a staggering degree.  

The very proponents of so-called enlightened science, who endeavor to pass themselves off as the only intelligent humans on Earth, eschewing every form of organized religion, have themselves dogmatized a religious-sounding meta-narrative, that requires the absolute obeisance of its professors, under penalty of the "death" of the careers of honest scientists, who doubt some tenet of evolution.  

Sorry to "POPE your bubble," but your Faith is showing.  

Started with eternal ooze, and ended with Humanity.  We have got Humanity, but we still have a world-full of slimy ooze.  

This seems to be a case of the "haves" and the "have nots."  
Some ooze did not "make the cut," and were forced to remain Naturalism's original "Trailer Trash," until this very day.  
Pardon me, but I have yet to hear any outcry against the injustice fomented on marginalized slime, who were not allowed to evolve into some higher form of life.  

Now that is not very fair, is it?  
Evolution continued with a paramecium, again with the purpose of ending with Humanity.  We have got Humanity, and we still have a world-full of slimy ooze, AND paramecia.  

This seems to be a case of the "haves" and the "have nots."  
Some ooze and paramecia did not "make the cut," and were forced to remain as Naturalism's expanding "Trailer Trash," until this very day.  
Pardon me, but I have yet to hear any outcry against the injustice fomented on marginalized slime and paramecia, who were not allowed to evolve into some higher form of life.  
Now that is not very fair, is it?  

(See what I mean?  This could become ad infinitum, ad nauseum very quickly.)  

Evolution still continued with a worm, fish, frog, salamander, alligator, cow, dog, cat, monkey, aboriginals, then Wall Street financier, who buys Washington politicians (in an homage to their original ancestors, apparently topping the hill, starting down the other side,...)  We now have Humanity, basically, and we still have a world-full of slimy ooze, paramecia, worms, fish, frogs, salamanders, alligators, cows, dogs, cats, monkeys, aboriginals, Wall Street foxes, and Washington chameleons.  

This seems to be a case of the "haves" and the "have nots."  

Some ooze, paramecia, worms, fish, frogs, salamanders, alligators, cows, dogs, cats, monkeys, aboriginals, Wall Street foxes, and Washington chameleons did not "make the cut," and were forced to remain as Naturalism's expanding "Trailer Trash," until this very day.  

Pardon me, but I have yet to hear any outcry against the injustice fomented on marginalized slime, paramecia, worms, fish, frogs, salamanders, alligators, cows, dogs, cats, monkeys, aboriginals, Wall Street foxes, and Washington chameleons, who were not allowed to evolve into some higher form of life.  

Now that is not very fair, is it?    

Logically, one would expect the culture of mutations to be somehow incompatible with the culture of stasis.  

How would mutations know where to "draw the line" on changing?  

How would a simple, unemotional, static cosmos start in simplicity and end in simplicity, with no ability to change?  How could we be here?  

How could simple substance start and end on time and at the correct locations, without an Intelligent "Starter and Stopper," policing the interactions between natural processes?  

We have a superhuman problem here, but we have no GOD to help us with such a superhuman problem.  

Dude, will somebody please go call Charles Darwin to help us with this one?  

Oops, my bad.  He doesn't exist any more,...or...does he?  

Richard Dawkins does not believe in the Existence of God.  

At least that is his story, and he is apparently sticking with it,...all the way to old age.  

At 71 years of age, Richard Dawkins has less than thirty years, (all things being equal) to convince himself that GOD really doesn't Exist and one day die a happy atheist.  

However, Richard Dawkins is on record believing that death is the cancellation of human existence.  

This means that when he dies Richard Dawkins himself will never even know that he ever existed.  (Presuming that his belief is actually true, that is.)  

Giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, liking Richard Dawkins and embracing his worldview will have  absolutely no lasting value for the Richard Dawkins that exists today, and to the contrary, disliking Richard Dawkins and rejecting his worldview will have absolutely no lasting negative effect  on the Richard Dawkins that exists today.  

Richard Dawkins also seems to believe that death ends the human's essential person, but to the glee of myriad earthworms he will create a chain of "delicatessens" to their most excellent nourishment for time to come.  

What lasting value is the word of a man, whose ultimate goal is to have his flesh experience both ends of a worm's alimentary canal, without his consciousness presence, being there to document the experience for posterity?  

What lasting value is the word of a man, who will not even know that he ever existed, in less than 50 years?  

Interesting, just by expressing the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, we may logically surmise that, when there are many "fat and sassy" earthworms in the world, (thanks to his great gift to them) we may be asked,...   

"Do you believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins?"  
"No.  In agreement with his own belief system, he does not exist, since the Now is the only thing that matters."  

If I was asked, "Why do you hate Richard Dawkins?" I would first chasten the questioner for linguistic malfeasance."  

"Linguistic malfeasance?"  

"Of course, I have given no one permission to redefine my words, based on the dictionary, that life has firmly embedded into the reader's mental capabilities.  If I ever come to the point of actually hating anyone, then I will say, 'I hate you!'  

"Until then, no one has my permission to read my words, and without questioning me point-blank about my words, to label me a 'hate-monger,' unless that same soul wishes to be labelled, 'a two-year-old child, who is throwing a temper tantrum, followed by picking up their toys and going home.'

"I don't despise atheists.  I despise what they stand for...  It seems that I read those very words for some old scientist, who comes across as being just as old and slipping as Darwin was, when he published the book that popularized the excuse that comprises the foundation of Dawkins' 'scientific' studies."  


According to Cathy Lynn Grossman in USA Today, dated March 24, 2012,...

"Dawkins didn't appear until five hours into the event, but few seemed discouraged by the near-constant rain or drizzle. They whistled and cheered for his familiar lines such as:  

"'I don't despise religious people. I despise what they stand for...  

"'Evolution is not just true, it's beautiful...'"  


Pity is certainly more accurate to the feeling that I have toward Richard Dawkins.

I do not know much about Richard Dawkins, except for his evolutionary atheism, and his beliefs in atheistic evolution.  
Hatred is too heavy of an emotional investment toward the man.

I actually love Richard Dawkins with the agape' love that Jesus Christ of Nazareth has always had for him in the providing for the salvation of Richard Dawkins' soul.  

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the One,...  
...Who left His stable home life in Heaven to enter the stable home life on Earth,...  
...Who lived The Perfect Life,...  
...Who died the Perfect Sacrifice to Atone for Man's Sin,...  
...Whose first Earth-suit was properly stored in the rock-hewn wardrobe/tomb that was in many ways similar to the rock-hewn stable into which He was born,...  
...and Who returned on the Third Day to that same wardrobe, changing it into the new eternal human body, that He still wears today, (and which He will continue to wear for Eternity.)  

Jesus' Resurrection is itself a fulfillment of the apparent prophecy that He declared at the Marriage of Cana, when He turned the water into wine.  Transformation comes at the moment that it is needed, not during the time of storage.

I pray for Richard Dawkins to be saved, and I really do hope that he has not already become a modern-day pharaoh, of whom The LORD has judicially rejected for the last time.

WOW!  Maybe he will get SAVED.  I pray for that.  (John 6:44)

Of course, I had better hurry before he does, if I want to be publicly ridiculed by the World's Biggest FOOL.  (Psalm 14:1)

I do hope that he remembers that we Christians like that sort of thing, public humiliation, ridicule, taunting, etc.  

It is so wonderful!  

It drains from the atheist's allotted word-count, during their time on Earth, and we get the spiritual equivalent of "a Purple Heart as well as myriad other decorations."  ;)

Richard Dawkins lives in the British Commonwealth as I recall.  

The Royals are still England's most significant family by birthright.  
There is a certain carriage and presence that attends Sovereignty.  
When one is in the Presence of Sovereignty, one knows.  One is foolish to ask.  

Begging pardon for being so coarse, but Richard Dawkins is the World's Biggest FOOL, not in the sense of lacking intelligence, but in the sense of his inescapable knowledge of GOD in his heart, and WICKEDLY choosing to rebel against Sovereignty, Who will be his Everlasting Judge.  

By the way, the indictment against his malfeasance of intelligence has already been recorded in the Records Office of The Celestial Court, THE Highest of all courts.