No, you are repeating already debunked assertions. The claim that Dawkins views on memes are held in the same regard as Behes ideas on ID by the science community is ludicrous.

Great, but I didn’t say that. I said I think memetics is nonsense, and I have said some others do too. If you do not beleive me, look up the names I have given you. You are the one who thinks that the number of people who think something is so, and who thinks somethioing is so, is very important. I’m the one looking at the arguments. You aren’t ecven willing to read them because you think someone who you disagree with may like them. Has it ever occurred to you that david Stowe could be right, and IDers, creationistys, and dawkins fans could all be wrong? Since you are so keenj on where arguments come from: Of all those parties, who has the least obvious self interest in accepting or rejecting dawkins arguments: Dawkins, IDers, or a conservative retired agnostic Australian philosopher?

It’s just as well you don’t have any credibility left to destroy.

I’m not really worried about you beleiving me: I have given you what I see as fact, and you are either misrepresenting it or ignoring it. Sooner or later, you will think about this again.

Because if he doesn’t then he is knowingly engaging in deception, a deception whose goal is to fill the minds of other people’s children with shite. Unbelievable that this would have to be pointed out to you.

Hello? Lots of people in the USA are very tolerant of creationism: they just think its someone else’s opinion. They don’t think it is shite even if they disagree with it. What is wrong with saying that this is the case with Behe? How does it exonerate him? It doesn’t. It just makes him not a pathological liar. Just amazing, the out and out venom.