Probably a stupid move, but I'm truly irked with the way these kind of philosophizing threads on science vs religion tend to spin out. Has Dawkins and ilk really got all the theists on the ropes as assumed? Is it really all down to arguing about the right to take comfort in religious-ideals-as-opiate-of-the-masses? Can someone point me to a truly objective, point-by-point comprehensive rebuttal to what this credentialed individual has to say: I do NOT apologize for the fact he is not a polished orator like say Kenneth Miller. But then I've never been impressed by style as against substance.