Oh god! This is why I hate living in Oklahoma.

Prior to this video I commented on Dawkins' lack of ability to communicate his message effectively.
I take those statements back and can see his value in doing this. This was a good presentation that gets the message across well. I still hold to the belief that he's not as charismatic as he could be to maximise on the PR game that needs to be played. He still has the air of a scientist, and is no smooth talker.
But I think this style of presenting makes it worthwhile him not focusing on actually being a scientist.

He still has the air of a scientist, and is no smooth talker.

He may not appear "smooth" but he weighs his word carefully, and I find him to be crystal clear if you actually listen to what he says, instead of what you think he is going to say. That being said he is a scientist, and not a PR person or politician by profession. He readily admits that his "cause" might be better served with a gentler or smoother and more politically correct presentation,, but his style is simply to present his case as he sees it, and leave the gentle diplomacy to others.

Personally, I think that is a better approach. We've got more than enough politically correct airheads filling the airwaves with empty, meaningless platitudes, filtered beyond recognition so as not to offend or shake anyone's already firmly held beliefs and opinions.

I've replaced the embed with a higher quality version from http://www.richarddawkins.net/

Even if such an inane law had been passed by the legislature in OK, I would think it would be found unconstitutional if ever taken to court, as it is clearly a suppression of free speech. First amendment protections are to be most vigorously defended when the speech in question is offensive or controversial, as I recall the gist of previous adjudications on the matter....

i think dawkins is a twat, but i really do want to live in a world where all university speeches start with real applause like that.

just a quick question: how come he never speaks against the jewish religion??? is he a jewish??? Anyway: religion is hate...

>> ^solvent:
how come he never speaks against the jewish religion??? is he a jewish???

Lets see, that would be the Torah, or Old Testament as some call it..

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins

That being said, he was raised as an anglican Christian, So he tends to stick with that when he challenges specific religious claims. What he mainly does speak against, however, is Gods, any and all gods, the abrahamic, hindu, norse or greek gods, or the more deistic god of the enlightenment, and most certainly the creationist God that people try combating science with.

Speaking of Creationist loonies, Heard the recent exchange between Ray "The banana Man" Comfort and Blogger and Biology Professor PZ Myers? Its hilarious.


Ray Comfort:"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

PZ Myers response:"I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female – they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female."

Comfort counters...At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history.

At this appalling ignorance, most of us would just give up, But not PZ, instead he lashes out the most embarrasing (for Comfort) putdowns in the history of ass-whopping:
Elephantine errors from Ray Comfort

Wow.

That is just astounding. How can you even start to argue that something is wrong and so clearly have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING of it? It just drives home the point that people that buy into the creation "theory" (sic) just do so in an utter vacuum of ignorance...

Not a smooth talker??? He's a better orator than any of the network news anchors, but this particular video is meh.

He is a very good speaker... though some US citizens have difficulty understanding words with more than two syllables... or someone who speaks in 'that dern funny accent'.

It's a parallel universe where the teaching of evolution is as forbidden as the teaching of free market capitalism, American history and conservatism everywhere else!