Well there certainly are Christians who read books but I doubt they are the majority, though my experience of the Christian mentality is not extensive. I had a few friends who were Christians and were intent on saving my soul, and for sometime would not take no for an answer. One of their recomendations was that I lose my library philosophy and science being so much dribble anyway. In addition it is my experience that intellectual integrity is not high on the list of virtues with Christians. “Reason is the enemy of faith.” Martin Luther

Of course we read his books.
I go to the Circus to see clowns too.

How do you know that Dawkins knows that Christians bought his last book? It’s possible that he doesn’t know any Christians.
That said I wish Dawkins was more like the late Stephen Gould. Gould was a proponent for evolution but realized that conflating it with atheism was a bad idea.
If the Keller book is ever free on the web or in my local library I’d probably read it.

Dawkins may be thinking of “creationists” as a person like Kurt Wise who’ll take Scripture at its word over geological evidence to the contrary.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html
I’m just about through a six-week study of Genesis with material from Precepts Ministries written (and presented in video) by Kurt Wise. It’s difficult material – alot of science – and I’m trying to sort it all out, and sort out what I believe about it.
Since Dawkins is (long-time) active in this arena … and I’m beginning to get familiar with it … I’d say Dawkins has something specific in mind, something for which Wise is the type.
I don’t think I’ve ever had an easy time with the Precepts Ministries material, no matter the topic. I usually flirt with despair that I’m a moron for even trying to understand the text from their literal perspective.

Moonshadow, thanks for the interesting link to Dawkins on Kurt Wise as I hadn’t heard of him before. I’ve only read a little young Earth creationist stuff. Kent Hovid and Ken Ham being examples. Both are amazingly uniformed and easy to debunk. So I would be careful taking the Kurt Wise material at face value.
You would agree with the notion that God does not lie. So if there are multiple lines of physical evidence for an old universe than it likely is an old universe.
The easy and most compelling evidence for the age of the universe is the finite speed of light and vast distances between objects in space. If the universe were young there would not be time for the light to reach us. In fact the photons would have been created in flight and would describe a past that never existed. Basically those photons would be a lie.
The evidence for the size of the universe is straight forward. The stellar parallax can be used to measure the distances to the closest stars. Using their brightness and distance as a yardstick you can figure out how far stars are that have no parallax. Intergalactic distances work the same way, but you use supernovas as the standard candle since they have a predictable brightness and can be seen from very far away.
The distances are so vast that even if we’re off in the brightness of stars it only changes the age of the universe by a few billion years one way or another. The error in the measurement is still much greater than the age allowed by young Earth creationists.

Also, if you’re interested in reading about Science and Faith I’ll put in a quick plug for the “Science and the Sacred” blog by the BioLogos Foundation. Francis Collins believes in the compatibility of science and faith and is much more qualified than I to discuss these issues.

We have no problem reading the other sides’ point of view. But do they?
You seem to be of the opinion that one nasty comment deserves another? What happened to turning the other cheek?

The other thing I’ll say about Dawkins’s comment is that he could mean, even though “creationists” may read other books, those books have no influence. In quoting Wise, Dawkins observes that no evidence to the contrary will change a “creationist’s” (Wise’s) mind, by their own admission. So, why bother. And Dawkins has written them off.
And for some “creationists,” believing God created everything ex nihilo isn’t good enough. So, “creationists” may be a subset of “Christians” – michele naively uses the terms interchangeably – if the latter are even dignified with the designation.
MH – I worked for ten years at AT&T in Holmdel, NJ where two Bell Labs scientists heard the Big Bang noise. I caught a glimpse once of Arno Penzias – everyone loved him, mostly for his personal story of escaping Nazism. God preserved him, one might say. The legitimacy of the discovery is a given. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation I was very upset last Thursday when ladies in the Precepts study were questioning these scientists’ integrity on account of what they’d unintentionally discovered. I wanted to say to them, Yes, but if you knew these men … ah, they are deliberately conditioned against that sort of a personal appeal.
Wise has been employed by Ken Ham, but their dispositions are not identical. I think Wise would recognize he’s in a pathetic position (as Dawkins calls it) but he thinks that’s according to God’s will. So be it, aka amen.

Moonshadow, you’ve seen some videos by Kurt Wise and he recognizes his bad position. Does he make any attempt to refute or deny the scientific evidence? For example Ken Hovind tried on his videos now on You Tube, but they’re so bad that even the Ken Ham criticized Hovind about them.
I’m glad you brought up the CMBR because it is such a good example of how much of this evidence was uncovered. People stumbled across it and only afterwards figured out what it meant. It wasn’t like the Evil Atheist Conspiracy paid off a bunch of scientists to do bogus research to refute young Earth creationism.

http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
[snip]
Some questions for Richard Dawkins:
1. In your book, “The Devil’s Chaplain”, you write to your then
10-year-old daughter: “And next time somebody tells you that something is
true, why not say to them, ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’
What is the best evidence you can cite for vertical
evolution(information-enhancing evolution)? How do you know it’s true?
2. Regarding University of Massachussetts professor Lynn Margulis, Michael
Behe writes in “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution” (1996): “At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular
biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the
formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge
goes unmet.” (Behe, p. 26).
In the years since Margulis first asked the question, can biologists now
name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by
the accumulation of mutations? Can you give one example of an evolutionary
process or mechanism which can be seen to create new functional
information at the genetic level? Can you give one reference for any study
that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions during
an experiment or series of experiments?
3. Are you able to describe the specific evolutionary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life form
that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the four
criteria for biological life). If ‘yes’, what was the process? If ‘no’,
why can’t the process be specifically described?
4. On page one of your book, “The Blind Watchmaker” you write: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose”.
a) If living things look designed–if the empirical evidence suggests
purpose–then how do you know they weren’t designed?
b) What is your criteria for “apparent” design?
[snip]
http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/
Natural Selection – A Creationist’s Idea
by Paul G. Humber, M.S.
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild
Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild
If you thought Darwin’s Origin was original, think again!
by Russell Grigg, Australia
On Sept. 29, Richard Dawkins was one of the guests on The
Hour(www.cbc.ca/thehour)
The host, George Stroumboulopoulos, asked Dawkins:
“What is one single thing that you can say that definitely proves that
evolution is a fact?”
Dawkins’ response:
“Comparing the genes molecularly across all animals and plants. It falls
on a precise hierarchical pattern which is obviously best interpreted on a
family tree, and this becomes possible–becomes quantitatively
possible–because all living creatures have the same genetic code, which
means you have literally reams and reams of textual information, just like
a book, in every cell of every body, of every creature and every plant in
the world.”
So…..a pattern of highly organized textual information comparable to
books is evidence that there wasn’t any intelligent design involved?
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Hour/ID=1280204955
For a counterpoint to Dawkins, someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of
Australia should be interviewed:
http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati
author of Refuting Evolution, and co-author of Refuting Evolution II
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-331.pdf
Henry M. Morris writes:
[snip]
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution,
evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial
evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of
organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number
of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for
evolution,
since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that
similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common
evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator
could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for
all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and
creation, not evolution.
[snip]
http://www.icr.org/article/3187/
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry
Watch a trailer from the upcoming documentary, Darwin: The Voyage That
Shook the World
http://creation.com

Does he make any attempt to refute or deny the scientific evidence?
No, for the most part he lets it be. The only thing he question is the interpretation of the geological (and cosmological?) evidence, inferences drawn from it.

Mere_Christian
October 16, 2009 5:29 PM
“Of course we read his books.
I go to the Circus to see clowns too.”
Maybe you should read less clownish books then.

Say what you will about Richard Dawkins, but his book “The Selfish Gene” is a considered a classic. I really need to read “The Extended Phenotype” as it expands on those ideas.