Here’s what happens when you repeatedly accept interviews with Bill O’Reilly:
But, Mr Dawkins… If you have such disdain for Bill O’Reilly, then why do you appear on his show so much?
Today’s Biltrix is about teaching children to distinguish between myths and science and… religious discrimination.
What’s a myth? According to Richard Dawkins, the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs is a Myth. In the interview with O’Reilly, he calls it “the Judeo-Christian Myth.” Apparently, that’s what he calls it in his new kiddies’ book as well.
And he wonders, why should anyone be outraged about that?
Well, I for one am not outraged. It’s what I’ve come to expect from Richard Dawkins. Face it. His views are different from yours and mine. We should not judge him based on his opinions. He just sees things differently, but…
Whatever your views are on the matter, DON’T do this. If you’ve already ordered a copy of The Magic of Reality for your little nephew or niece, DON’T cancel the order. You could get sued for religious discrimination.
OK, I’ll just come out and say it.
Bill’s right. Richard Dawkins wants to indoctrinate children with his religious views: Atheism.
Well maybe that’s taking it a little too far. But the argument could be made for what I just said because of…
The missing point: Wait a minute! You are threatening to sue a country club on the basis of religious discrimination???
What? I thought you said your aim was to kill religion (see Tuesday’s post). That’s not illogical. That’s hypocrisy.
Oh! I see. Your atheism is a religion (it seems your views have suddenly changed, I never thought it possible) and our religion is a myth.
No, I cant’t recommend your new book for kids. All this would be just too confusing for our youngsters to handle, I’m afraid. It contradicts everything we’ve tried to teach them. Besides, there are some truths your science book just can’t teach them as well as their parents can.
It’s such a shame. I loved science as a kid. I still do. What I would have done to have a book like the one he’s selling in the video below… It makes a great promotional ad for the iPad.
Watch the clip. You’ll see what I mean. Decide for yourself if you think every kid ought to have one.
Did you catch the scene with Eve looking up at the Tree of Knowledge? If you did, watch it again and notice how it appears in the myth part. You can’t say it has nothing to do with religion.
Biltrix 
No, you don’t understand his logic. He is pnintiog out a fact. That is not evidence for (or against) evolution; it’s a statement about acceptance or non-acceptance of evolution. While argumentum ad populum is indeed a common logical fallacy, Dawkins is not committing it, as he simply is not claiming that evolution is true, because most educated people accept it as true, any more than he would claim that the organization of the periodic table is true, because most educated people accept it as true. The reason, of course, why most educated people accept evolution as true is the evidence in its favor. Dawkins himself is in that group; witness his book The Greatest Show on Earth. (If you’re a knee-jerk Dawkinsophobe, substitute Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True ).As for his use of the word almost, that is completely unsurprising coming from a scientist. That’s the nature of induction, and the way scientists talk. They know to leave room for uncertainty, unlike certain religious groups I could mention. Read Gould, Dawkins, Prothero et. al. The almosts are sprinkled around liberally. They are conspicuously absent in fundamentalist writings.Finally, your crack Awesome, about time is silly. No one seriously claimed that 100% of educated people accept evolution it’s probably true that not 100% of educated people accept the organization of the periodic table. Why not? As Michael Shermer stated in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. Which is to say that they, like the rest of us, are human, and therefore not always logical or rational.
All this article seems to be saying is that Dawkins contradicts himself by throwing the religious persecution card. This has nothing to do with anyone’s acceptance of evolution.
So who are you arguing with here?
Go back and read it again. See if you can get the point: the hypocrisy of Dawkins’ militant atheism (not his views on evolution, which maybe I accept).