What makes me smile laugh about this whole evolution "debate and controversy" is that it only exist because people don't agree with it's implications. Why no corresponding debates about gravitational theory? Relativity?Evolution is a more factually supported theory than both those theories.

Fred, Birmingham, UK

David - how can such an intelligent person, as you undoubtedly are, make such a mistake as to assume that if you can't explain or understand something, you have to invent a god to do so?

alan, germany,

David: you are right to some extent, however given the existence of anti-matter, the law of conservation is likely still to apply.

The article: I find there to be a lack of understanding as to what Dawkins was teaching. Scientific deductive reasoning, which just happens to discourage belief. yey!

Cris, Oxford, England

".....unscientific dismissiveness and inexcusable ignorance of the evidence of the Bible"

I'm sorry Jeremy but the contradictory and confused ramblings of the bible on their own do not constitute 'evidence' of a god. Evidence is tested and analised, not followed blindly without question.

richard, norwich,

David Cotterell,: "There had to be a creator and on an unimaginably massive scale, if you start from there you end up with God."

No. Or at least you almost certainly don't end up the gods of our religions as suggested by your capitalising. That's a huge illogical leap.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

The Law of Conservation of Matter says it all. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed - so how did it come into existence? What entity created it?
There had to be a creator and on an unimaginably massive scale, if you start from there you end up with God.

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, England

Dawkins book, "The God Delusion, his UHI lecture in Inverness, and recent TV documentary on Darwin, all share the same things in common, - scientific generalisations and unscientific dismissiveness and inexcusable ignorance of the evidence of the Bible.

Jeremy, Glasgow, UK

Read the old testament and you will see lots of evidence (if you can believe what is written, and some do believe it is the word of god without error) that god is sexist, racist,cruel and unbelievably violent and demands to be worshipped.
Well you can if you like, I will remail anti-theist.

m wilson, bidache, france

Every age has its myths. The present age is no exception (as Dawkins exemplifies it), it appears to believe that it has no myths.

Adam, Calne, England

I had a religious upbringing, Welsh Baptist to be exact, and grew up a Christian because the concept of 'non-belief' just didn't exist. Libby's take on Dawkins actions is not only inaccurate, but irritating, given that children right across this country are denied the basic knowledge Dawkins offers.

Alun Williamson, Chepstow, Wales

I am still waiting for the answer;- was Adam circumcised? If so who did it?

m wilson, bidache, france

No - the Bible is quite clear on this if you read it - circumcision is part of the covenant between God and the Israelites as given to Moses. Well after Adam...

Gorson Burgess-Parker, Foxt, England

You can certainly understand religion, but be sure to keep hold of the intelligence that tells you that belief is based on fear, wishful thinking and the imagination of bronze age zealots.

C Smith, Norwich, UK

You either believe because because you were told to, or - as
a catholic once told me - because god "revealed" himself.
I did't believe the false and devious arguments of those who told me I should believe.
And, god - if your're listening - I'm still waiting for you to reveal yourself to me.

alan, germany,

Libby: "implication that, gee, Nature is too cruel to have been invented by God!" It's pretty obvious to most pet owners that mammals, if not others, have minds. Chimps are demonstrably self-aware and can reason. If a god did design the process then it's extremely cruel and a very odd design.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"They reckon that an omnipotent being capable of giving humans free will is equally capable of setting a cosmic ball rolling - Big Bang, abiogenesis, all that <snip>"

This is Deism. It's multiplying (invisible) entities beyond necessity. There's no reason to consider it a valid hypothesis.

Chris, London, UK

If the world was arbitrary and had no meaning, such feelings would have no bearing to the point of it not existing. If the whole universe was dark and we had no eyes, the concept of 'dark' wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't wonder otherwise.

Shane Blacklee, London,

Those ideas point to there being something more than atheism; whilst Christianity stipulates humanities free will - hence the malignity of the world.

Shane Blacklee, London,

That nature is simply too cruel to have been created by the monotheistic conception of a benevolent, omnipotent God is one of the most devastating arguments against the existence of God. Describing such an argument as, inter alia, 'wet' is obtuse - and, more importantly, doesn't refute it.

Arron Fitzgerald, Reading,

I am still waiting for the answer;- was Adam circumcised? If so who did it?

m wilson, bidache, france

"...have this notion of short necked giraffes sitting round a tree hungrily longing for the day when their necks have evolved..." It's called the 'Arms Race' in evolution: the trees were shorter too back then so only taller ones tended to survive and they evolve together.

Hugh, Bromley, UK

C'mon everyone. It must be accepted that the Religiosity lark began in days of Man's almost total ignorance of facts. We should by now have realised that It's continuance is kept alive by Impostors preying on credulous naivety. Use the head, take yourself back in time & give it some real thought.

Bill Davison, Wallsend, England

I am fully in accord with Libby Purves in her insistence that most believers are not Creationists.
Professor Dawkins however has all-but built his reputation on the opposite proposition, helping to bring about the very situation he claims not to want - a huge gulf between science and religion.

Debbie Kean, Auckland, New Zealand

What makes us reject the ferocity of natural selection and care? Why is there a feeling that there is something else? Did it evolve or was it waiting to be discovered? Should not the religious remember Galileo and leave the how, when and where to science concentrate on the why? RD may even help!

Colin, Hawarden, Wales

greg- looks like another cop out, about as good an answer as 'god is an alien'. i have a question? what evidence would it take? seriously?

Jamie T, aberdeen, scotland

Sam:"When god is proven to exist, we will believe. Till then, there is none"

This polemic absolutism is nonsense. That a God's existence isn't proven doesn't mean there isn't one "till then". Christians claim that God reveals/proves himself to the sincere enquirer. No good just sitting there.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

What is stupid is to believe that an omni-potent God (an impossible being) would use evolution, and then lie about it the Bible. Lazy thinking Libby, orwellian style double think allows you to hold two contradictory view and find the atheists guilty of thought crime.

Tom, Aldershot,

It heartens me that so many of the commenters support the show, Darwin, and Dawkins. I've seen episode 1 on the net, and found it a wonderful steppingstone to the information that is sure to follow later.

I, too, find evolution a total show-stopper for all the remaining religions out there.

Ivar, Richland, WA, USA

Darwin and Wallace both proposed theories of evolution, but did not agree completely. Darwin allowed for no purpose in evolution such as the emergence of human, nor intervention by any creative Spirit. Wallace did. Suppose Darwin was wrong and Wallace (the latter an OM & FRS, btw) was right?

Miland Joshi, Birmingham,

There is something called Theist Evolution which finds evolution and God not only compatable but for some pointing to God.

As for Libby Purves "Lying for Jesus" she does not as I understand she is a Deist. Get your facts right Sebastion!

Steven, Buckhurst Hill,

simon:"The argument for atheism is..very simple: if God created the universe, who/what created God?"

God is existence itself, so that question is meaningless (try it). Atheists like to think that in the beginning there was nothing: obviously impossible. The real question: is existence personal.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

The zealots categorically state that atheists are evangelists demanding belief in atheism once 'fossils are found as proof of evolution' or state that there has been no proof, 'ever' for ET. Such polemic absolutism is nonsense. When god is proven to exist, we will believe. Till then, there is none

Sam, Aylesbury, UK

"I think Dawkins was preaching evolution of as a fact, when its only a theory. "

Actually, it is only considered a theory in a very strict scientific sense. In layman's terms, it should be referred to as 'fact'. You're equating 'theory' with 'whimsical guess', or at best 'scientific hypothesis'.

Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, UK

No real conflict exists between the validity of Darwin's tangible evidence and well-discussed proposals to explain Evolution, and Christian belief. I say this as a University Professor in the Biological Sciences, and as a practising Christian. "Missing Links" are still being found nowadays.

Doctor David, Venezuela,

"The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism."

Ah, lying for Jesus I see. You people never disappoint. If your argument is as strong as you seem to think it is, why can't you people seem to stick to the facts?

Sebastian, Tamworth, United Kingdom

Libby following Prof. Dawkins reasoned reply to your article ,could you please clarify your religious beliefs. Do you for example believe in miracles,virgin birth,holy ghosts and believe your god listens and answers to prayers. I would be most interested and am sure other readers would be too.

iain rae, Tunbridge Wells, U.K.

Secondly, it is a huge leap from a god that simply set the “cosmic ball rolling” to a personal god that listens to prayers, knows everyone, causes miracles, and authored/inspired a holy book. And then, why assume that it was the Christian god, and not a huge number of possible gods.

Paul Steer, Bristol, England

"Molecules-to-man evolution requires information-increasing mutations, and no such mutation has ever been observed, ever."

Mark, Insertion, Duplication, and retroviral insertion are all established mechanisms of mutation that as you would put it "increase information".

Kevin, Nashville,

Understanding and accepting evolution does not automatically mean there is no god. It just means that there is no longer any need for a supernatural explanation for the diversity of life on earth. God as explanation is therefore wholly redundant.

Will the Times now print RD's letter in response?

AndyC, Rowlands Castle,

Libby none of us know that there isn't a flying spagetti monster out there either. If your god isn't personal it is irrelivant. If it is personal then you are talking about a very different god in fact you are talking about the 6000 years young earth god. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Gregory, Columbus, Ohio, US

Has anyone else ever noticed how evangelical most atheists are?
Many simply refuse to accept that someone may disagree with their metaphysical assumptions and resort to childish insults when confronted by a differing opinion.
In this area absolutism is synonymous with intellectual laziness.

Rae, Cardiff,

Libby wrote "most believers are not creationists. Some are scientists. " The fact is, hundreds of scientists are both. Furthermore, the founders of the main scientific disciplines were Bible-believers - e.g Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Fabre, Kepler and Linnaeus. They saw no conflict.

Geoff Chapman, Yeovil, United Kingdom

I think Dawkins was preaching evolution of as a fact, when its only a theory. Dawkins tried convince school kids. He tried to avoid tackling critic scientists who doubt evolution. These would've been too tough for the doc. He stuck to children who had no chance. I think this was a poor program.

John Stapleton, Manchester, UK

Libby, you were fortunate to be taught by an enligtenened teacher on the subject of evolution. Sadly many children will not be so lucky and will be indoctrinated in the growing number of faith schools. Children should be given the information and encouraged to think for themselves.

iain rae, tunbridge wells, u.k.

The argument for atheism is really very simple - if God created the universe, who or what created God?

Simon, London,

The human race is sad in many ways. It's like a coach party driving through beautiful countryside and, instead of looking at the wonderful view they are arguing about: where they should be going, what is the point of the trip and how they can get rid of the driver. Life is a miracle of creation.

John Russ, WARE, England

Precisely who is the "bunny hugger"? Libby thou doth protest too loud! AND isn't "free will" a theological concept rather than a neurological concept? Yes, a few scientists retain an archaic theistic outlook but it just ain't compatible with rigorous logical analysis using our current framework!

Derek, Lewes, UK

Evolution requires that mankind has developed and was not created in our present form. Surely this is the main contention in the argument.

What both creationists and Dawkins seem to forget is that Dawin created a theory of evolution, there is no mention of the creation that happens before.

Chris Kirk, Loughborough, UK

"Mary, Nottingham. What evidence of the resurrection? An account written a couple of hundred years later hardly counts as contemporaneous!"

Actually certain of the epistles (which do discuss the resurrection) were contemporaneous, and the gospels are likely earlier than you suppose.

David Richards, Witham, United Kingdom

A great piece. He seems to be under the dillusion that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. As someone who builds large, complex computer systems I can understand their compatibility. With the system as a universe and my code running and growing by itself. Does that make me God?

Steve Godrich, Swansea, UK

Ms Purves is once again claiming that Prof Dawkins said what she "feels" he said...." announcing that natural selection means there is, categorically, no God"

I too watched the programme and nowhere did he state that. The fact that she derived that position from the facts is heartening however.

John Dale, Sunderland,

I must admit I don't really understand evolution - I always have this notion of short necked giraffes sitting round a tree hungrily longing for the day when their necks have evolved and they'll be able to eat the top freshest leaves. Being silly. But then I don't take Dawkins seriously either.

Mike Fowle, Felixstowe, UK

"Talking about evolution, he is terrific. But every few minutes he spoils it by announcing that natural selection means there is, categorically, no God."

Does he really? Categorically? Hm, interesting. I missed that bit, I have to say.

Steve Payne, Leicester, UK

Bravo Libby,

It was whilst studying genetics I arrived in a belief in God, as did other friends of mine, Doctors and scientists alike.

Evolution's drivers (i.e. the environment) are causally open n non-deterministic which Biblically speaking is under God's control - thus so is evolution.

nathan, Cambirdge, UK

Mary, Nottingham. What evidence of the resurrection? An account written a couple of hundred years later hardly counts as contemporaneous!

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Libby's not saying belief in God is an alternative to belief in evolution, she's saying you don't have to give up your religious faith in the face of science, and how you accommodate both is up to you. More gentleness and less aggression in this debate can only be a good thing.

Lyn, Birmingham, UK

Given the unlikelihood that anything remotely resembling life as we know it exists 'out there' (either in a spacial or temporal sense), it's an unpardonable crime against life, or common sense to waste precious time in purposeless polemics.

Rick, Leics., Uk

Ian Kemmish wrote:
He developed the concept of group selection, for pity's sake.

Don't let RD see that you wrote that, he'd explode. AFAIK RD wrote the Selfish Gene in an attempt to counter silly notions of group selection that abounded in the earlier part of the 20th century. Well done RD

Jeff, LanarK, Scotland

There is a difference between accepting the possibility that an omnipotent being created the universe, and the relious belief in a God. The former would explain the existence of everything. The latter, believers say, monitors us, judges us and provides, to those worthy enough, an afterlife.

Tony Pegg, Leicester, England

what an incredibly lazy god to start the big bang and have nothing else to do with it- what would be the point? basically saying, because we do not know the initial 'spark' of the big bang yet, well not exactly anyway, that it was god- which is no sort of answer at all. what created this lazy god?

Jamie T, aberdeen, scotland

Any of the gods might exist in the same way that Russell's celestial teapot, Harry Potter and astrology might exist.

The human philosophies (be excellent to one another) are what make religions persist not the myths and mysticisms.

Richard Boyce, Haywards Heath, UK

Bill, Yeovil- Possibly the worst argument I've ever seen. So because life is able to exist on this planet thats proof there is a god?! Do you even have the slighest idea how many billions of planets there are? What do you think the odds are of one of those having capacity for water? Not so big.....

Jamie T, aberdeen, scotland

Thge problem I, and others, have with religon is what is then done in its name. Morally people know that killing others is bad, but religeuos extremists can get around that - because they are right, and you are wrong. We have to live in the world with these religous nutters. No religon, less nutters

Nik, Kent, UK

Richard Dawkins did NOT ask the schoolchildren to abandon their religion: he asked them not to let their religion stand in the way of examining the evidence for evolution. There is a world of difference between the two stances, and only someone who was determined not to see it could fail to do so.

Paula Kirby, Inverness, UK

Christianity isn't just the belief that there's a god out there.It's the conviction that he has not 1 but 2 recognisably human personalities: one characterised by anger, jealousy and favouritism and one - only revealed 2000 years ago - characterised by tenderness, compassion and mercy. Absurd !

Paul Giles, Brussels, Belgium

Dawkins is right. Either we are evolved apes, or we are made in the image of God. We are "the third chimpanzee"; do you think chimps and bonobos go to heaven? Do they have consciences; can they sin or repent? We are beginning to understand how religions evolve to meet pyschological and social needs.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

How many of those who don't believe in God 'on the basis of no empirical evidence' have actually seriously considered the evidence for the deity of Jesus and his resurrection?

Molecules-to-man evolution requires information-increasing mutations, and no such mutation has ever been observed, ever.

Mark, Nottingham, UK

It has been pointed out, Libby, that we are all atheists. You, I, and the Pope all disbelieve in a myriad gods from Odin to Zeus. But you and the Pope, inconsistently, choose to believe that one of those myriad gods exists, and created the universe so we could experience moral growth. Why?

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

You can nit-pick all you like but belief without evidence is irrational, and indoctrinating children in that belief criminal. And the result : one set of "believers" tearing the throat out of another set of "believers" - talk about bald-headed men fighting over a comb!

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

The Bible is most specific about God's raison d'etre, the creation of all life, and it is upon the Bible that belief in God is based. If it can be shown he did not create all life, then the Bible is fiction, so then is God.

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

Dawkins asked the children to question why different religion's contradict each other with respect to creation stories.

It was an attempt to combat the ridiculous notion that we are all in possession of our own truth, which is something that religion has made a virtue of, unfortunately.

Damian, Cheshire, England

Clearly Ms Purves either chooses to misunderstand or simply doesn't understand what evolution by natural selection actually means.

She seems to regard it as another story worth telling just like the bible and given the same weight; a nice read.

Rob Willox, Bo'ness, Scotland

To Ichthyic, CC, US

No evidence? It's all around us! The fact that something exists rather than nothing is evidence in itself. And just look at cosmology - the finely 'tuned' four natural forces seem to be just right for life to exist. You can't say there's NO evidence - but you can ignore it.

Bill, Yeovil, UK

Libby, you misquote, I suggest you watch again and actually listen to what Prof. Dawkins says. He's extremely careful to not rule out the possibility of gods, merely to suggest that is an unneeded hypothesis. He comes across to me as a humble, gentle man. It's his argument that is brutally pointed.

Derek, Kent,

"Atheism is an opinion that needs to be argued"? Why? The assertion is that there are no gods, and the rationalisation is that there is no evidence for any gods. End of argument. Surely it's people who believe that there IS a god (or gods), against the evidence, who need to argue their case.

Martin_z, London, UK

This kind of what if drivel from the faith camp makes sane men want to weep.

Ironically it was a Franciscan friar - William of Ockham - who noted that the simplest explanation is generally correct.

Superbeings, gods aliens etc. are the province of fantasy and fiction writers not debate.

edward green, Upminster,

I was thoroughly disappointed by Dawkins' programme on Darwin. I had expected to see an explanation of Darwin's theories with some of the fascinating background to the Beagle's voyages. Instead, it was just another Dawkins religion rant. I switched off.

Liz, London,

Not naïve, just lazy. It's his job, at the taxpayers' expense, to investigate what adaptive benefit spirituality and religion confer on any given species. He developed the concept of group selection, for pity's sake.

Railing against things which expose flaws in your models is just bad science.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Before Darwin, religionists believed in Creation. As each religious dogma becomes less tenable so religionists retreat. "Blue touchpaper creation" is simply you trying to square what you know with want you want to believe. Wanting it to be true doesn't make it so and there is no evidence that it is.

Z Smith, London,

Libby:

"none of us can know that there is nothing out there"

The point is, if there is no evidence to support that anything "out there" is necessary to explain anything, why even bother to postulate there IS anything "out there", other than to satisfy some imaginary itch?

Ichthyic, CC, US

Prof Dawkins , using reason and scientific evidence demolishes yet another biblical myth but Ms Purves still avers that there might be a god out there , somewhere ,someplace.

So might the Spaghetti Monster.

It seems Ms Purves has much in common with the indoctrinated children in the program.

Rob Green, Braintree, England

In The God Delusion (and elsewhere) Dawkins argues his opinion at great length. The view that some god or other just set the universe going rather than actually creating it directly is just as inane as creationism.

Henry, Brussels, Belgium

Libby Purves is far more naive than Dawkins (and lots of other people). The idea of a god who simply lit the touch paper and retired is not much better than creationism. Likewise, the 'something out there' might as well be the flying spaghetti monster as anything else.

Henry, Aalst, Belgium

So many people miss the point. Many of us that don't believe in a deity, do so on the basis of no empirical evidence. Far from being closed minded, it comes with the "territory" that if evidence were presented and found credible, we would have to admit our new position.

Paul, Hoddesdon, Herts

Professor Dawkins has slightly oversimplified his case. Given evolution, and it is a given, there is no need for a god. A divine being of any kind becomes unknown and unknowable. And for a scientist that is a question that is not worth speculating upon. If there is a god, it must reveal itself.

Rosemary , Germany,

You are taking Dawkins too seriously. He's become a guy who lives on publicity and book royalties, so the more sensational his utterances, the more successful he is. Speaking as a life-long atheist, I am more embarrassed by Dawkins than by a room full of priests. I don't doubt their sincerity.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

As an atheist, I find it disheartening that so many others can't accept that the decision between science & religiosity isn't as black & white for all as it is for them. In the end, religion is unfalsifiable; atheism isn't just a fact to be accepted - it's an opinion that needs to be argued.

Jason, Green Bay,