Poor Richard

I've long admired Richard Dawkins. I think he's the finest popular writer on evolution in our day.

As an atheist, he's claimed religion has no "special expertise to offer us on moral questions." And certainly, he goes on, religious leaders have no special insight into science.

Fair enough.

Dawkins has been opposed to the Iraq war from its inception, regularly speaking out on the subject. His latest piece is part of a campaign in The Guardian of letters from prominent Britons to Clark County, Ohio, hoping to dissuade them from voting for Bush.

I'm not going to discuss his claims. They're the same arguments--baseless assumptions, flat-out incorrect facts and condescending Bush-bashing--we've been hearing for quite a while, reheated. Please read his letter if you don't believe me.

Here's my question, Professor Dawkins. You properly take religious leader to task for making arguments beyond their expertise. And here you are, a British scientist who's spent half his life in labs and the other half among a social set with rather limited politics. So why should anyone take your simplistic arguments regarding the complex questions of the war on Iraq seriously?