Atheism

"Atheism" only exists in the minds of the god-botherers.

Gould has had the experience of first hand evidence. Dawkins , even when he was teaching, benefited from second hand data that, Im sure, he never vetted .

Dawkins is kinda smarmy also. In public venues that I attended, he was more interested in cleverness than facts. He always turned questions back onto his "genocentric crap".
Course Gould and Eldredge were never too convincing with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis of the 1980's. Even though Gould was shown some examples of where his own field data fell through, he never flinched. (BUT at least he wasn't full of himself like Dawkins)

You mean the arrogance of pretending that there is a god and showing zilch evidence of such?

So, christians and other religion affiliates are not animals?

Have you some evidence an atheist can not organize a piss-up?

The point was that there would be no breweries. A brewery needs to be organised before a piss-up in one can be.

Every alcoholic bevvy you ever drank began life in a monastic setting.

Even if there is an intelligent design, it doesn't necessarily need a god.

1. Certain biological features are too complex to be the result of natural stochastic processes, and therefore these features could be viewed as evidence of intelligent design (ID).

2. The ID is a creationist theory (notwithstanding whether with or without evolutionistic elements).

3. The 'specified complexity' (Charles Thaxton, 1986) is immanent part of the ID (and comes from the information theory) by claiming that 'messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.'

4. The 'irreducible complexity' (Michale Behe, 1996) is also immanent part of the ID and claims that 'it is a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning'.

5. The natural selection cannot create irreducibly complex systems.

6. The ID must have a subject (of intelligence) - another ILF, theistic Creator God, the string theory (the so called by the physicists 'Mind of God') - in any case it is something with intelligence.

Hence this claim that 'ID doesn't necessarily need a god' (subject), is inconsistent.

History shows that it isn't so.

I can provide links but you are too knowledgeable to ignore that.

Say people of faith and little imagination. Why I should view it as too complex it's just your wishful thinking.

We do have that embarrassing incident at Dover when a court was told the flagella organism could be compared to a foot pump. Expert testimony it was alleged. And I presume their best shot.