Dawkins incorrectly thinks his anti religious arguments, many of which are effective, also show the that God does not exist - non sequiter. And that Evolution is atheisms great weapon against the believer, when clearly God and evolution can coexist happily in a non religious context.

joe thomas, Godalming, Surrey, ,

Ivy:"Faith itself is non-rational."

Evidently it is rational if God is proving his own existence.

"..reason and intellectual inquiry do not "prove" God"

Maybe, but see above.

"a "leap of faith" is required- [commonly said by] believers."

This unchristian heresy is from Kiergarrd.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Hey, Jeremy Mt USA. Religious people assume far more than any evolutionist or scientist. There is evidence for the age of the planet and how life evolved and the process of gathering that evidence, studying it and learning from it is ongoing.
Religious people have nothing left to learn?

TM, Elderlsie,

I'm an athiest, I believe in Evolution but Dawkins attitude made me side with the believers. He came across as superior and unmovable.
Scientists are supposed to be open minded, not narrow!Science has been wrong before and sadly will be again- nothing smaller than the atom anyone?

AK, Pig Hill ,

the funny thing about Dawkins is the more virulent his atheism the nmore God affirming he becomes. sort of I hate you God so just to spite you Iwill insist that I don't believe in you. the sad/funny thing is that he just can't see it. I know because I've been through it myself

peter c, devizes, wessex

You evolutionists assume way too much. Simple example, ask how old the earth is and you get 20 different answers based on 20 different assumptions. Ask how people evolved and you get the answer from "primordial soup". Ask how the universe started, the Big Bang, what a joke, something from nothing???

Jeremy, Bozeman, Mt, USA

If you believe it, Jesus was the son of God and used parables to help people understand God in his stories. Why would you not think the 'garden of Eden' story was a parable too? If God exists and created all including the laws of physics, wouldn't he follow those laws in creating the world?

DH, London, UK

Lorriman: "Faiths claim that God reveals/proves Himself to the sincere enquirer. So hypothetically believers are rational."

Faith itself is non-rational. I was taught that reason and intellectual inquiry do not "prove" God, that a "leap of faith" is required- a common statement among believers.

Ivy, Columbus, USA

It seems humankind, en masse, isn't ready to lose the emotional crutch that man-made religion has to offer; nor can science totally refute the existence of a higher natural authority -- I guess we''ll just have to wait until evolution makes things a little clearer for us.

Gordon Lewsley, York, UK

The Origin of Species is a total misnomer. Darwin brilliantly described how development within a species.
Thousands of generations of Drosophilla (fruit fly) have undergone exteme selection experimentation , they may look very different but hey they are all still fruit fly.

jonathan lee, worcester, worcestershire

Dawkins has himself made major contributions to the field of evolution, "The Selfish Gene" being a seminal work of the 20th century.

That he more recently has taken on the unpopular cause of pointing out that the emperor (religion) has no cloths is a separate issue, though no less admirable.

Phil Dirt, Washington, D.C., USA

I take issue with the soubriquet of genius. Others were thinking along the same lines, most notably Wallace. It was time for the theory of evolution. It sort of evolved. Over the last 150 years, evolution has been developed and refined, and rather wonderfully explained by the discovery of DNA.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

Darwin sat on his findings for years because he wanted to keep his 'respectable' place in society. I t was only when other scientists were studying his field, he 'came out' and ditched his religious position. The old philosphical debate of did Man make God or did God make man is still very valid.

madamd, london, uk

What I find amusing with religion is that there are well over a billion Christians, over a billion Muslims, and several hundred million Hindus and all the rest.

So, at least a couple billion people are completely wrong and wasting their time........comedy!

How they don't see this amazes me.

Andrew, London, UK

Hendry:"Dawkins is..respectful of religion,..knows what a bunch of charlatans they..are."

That presumes the non-existence of God, which is unproven and unprovable, as Dawkins admits. Faiths claim that God reveals/proves Himself to the sincere enquirer. So hypothetically believers are rational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Goodric, "pinpoint a few missing steps" are you havin a turkish bath? Where does all that extra information required come from?
Magic eh

Kezman, Onchan,

Ben:"a god powerful enough to start off evolution would have to be so complex as to have evolved"

This isn't self-evident: like to elaborate?

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

The point of evolution vs god is that a god powerful enough to start off evolution would have to be so complex as to have evolved. Evolution is no longer considered a 'theory' by any serious scientist.

Mr Gill's talents seem confined to being rude to people in various guises as a 'critic'.

Ben, York,

The problem I have is that Dawkins rather cynically suggests throughout that you cannot believe in both evolution and a God. Was it Georges LeMaitre who said there are still scientists who labour under the misperception that the bible is intended as a disclosure of our origins?

John, London, UK

Cronan:"...does not mean that the explanation must be supernatural..logical fallacy often termed Argument from Ignorance"

Even if there were no evidence of a God, and no gaps, that would not mean that there is no god. "God in the Gaps" is a strawman attack.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Read the review. Decided to watch the second in the series.

As soon as we heard Dawkins narration we realised where we had heard that tone and voice before - the Noggin the Nog stories !

Joshua, London, UK

Lenny, good for you, but we don't care.

Steve, Torrington,

That scientists have yet to pinpoint a few missing steps in a process consisting of many millions of stages leads is, for "Lenny", conclusive proof of a process for which there is absolutely no evidence at all. Of course - how could I not see it? Thanks for coming, Lenny.

Goodric, london,

Lenny: Science not knowing all the detail or you not being able to understand something does not mean that the explanation must be supernatural. This is a logical fallacy often termed Argument from Ignorance, or God in the Gaps.

But I don't know why I waste my time with you.

Cronan, London, UK

Punctuated equilibrium doesn't explain a paucity of fossils,it explains changes in diversity.The fossil record is often misrepresented as scant but is pretty continuous. When Darwin wrote less examples were known than now. We've found a number of "missing links" to refuse to accept this is ignorant

James, St. Andrews, Scotland

While it is very reasonable to descibe Charles Darwin as our greatest biologist it is ridiculous to claim him as our greatest scientist. At best he comes in third on the list, behind Newton and Maxwell, whose contributions had much greater practical application.

David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA

Punctuated Equaliberium: Evolutionists, in order to explain the gaps in the fossil record evolution proceeds in the fossil record invent the grand idea where one species literally gives birth to another one: The lack of evidence becomes the evidence. Postulation? I choose God without reservation.

Lenny, Lancaster, US

Aristotle postulated different levels of causation including material causes (the physical cause) and final causes (the purpose). A watch has moving parts, which have the purpose of telling the time. An all powerful God could create humans using material causes - evolution. Why are we here, not how?

James, London,

Yes, Lenny - God made everything in 6 days and took Sunday off in the Garden while the kids pinched fruit and ruined it for everyone. Bloody kids.

Josh, Canberra, Australia

Natural selection IS understandable, Lenny. What is unknown is exactly how life first began as no sentient beings were there to record what happened...as there was no life!

We can, however, postulate how life may have begun, using clues that persist in all life today, such as RNA, DNA and enzymes.

SC, Poole, Dorset, UK

Natural selection is understandable: Wow. A process that is supposed to have began in some unknown primordial soup over a 4.5 billion in which life is to have began from raindrops upon rocks--big,bam,boom a few lightning bolts and somehow RNA molocules happened. You can take that-I take God.

Lenny, Lancaster, US

I really don't know what part of the Dawkins program was knocking religion. He was just putting the fact before an audience which is something most religions can never ever do. Dawkins is very respectful of religion, he knows what a bunch of charlatans they really are.

Hendry, Bristol, U.K.

The reason the brothel programme was a disappointment was that the producers didn't have the guts of the WI ladies, who came straight out with it: whatever feminists claim, prostitution cannot be eliminated, so the priority must be: protect sex workers against client violence and pimp exploitation.

JF, Canterbury, UK