Ok, to get away from the bickering match and onto an actual discussion let's try something.

See, I want to say I agree with 2v but he made his argument all wrong. He did sound like a 4 year old arguing about why their parent is a "stupid poopy monster" for not letting them play in the mud.

Well, I'd like to take this down a different route but with the same viewpoint.
After seeing this book mentioned on a lot of message boards I decided to pick it up and tear through it. I get to the end and I have a pile of tissues used to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes. Good for Dawkins, standing up for his opinion and saying that God doesn't exist and he is "improbable" in a sense. But I don't think the argument he tried to make really said much at all, except to the creationism believers (and everyone knows how lost a person is if they believed dinosaurs were on the Arc ).

Well what about those that believe in a god, but do not believe in creationism, or as I like to call them, the "not-so-crazies". Dawkins argument falls apart at that point.

You can't flip a theist's argumentative strategy against them to support a argument if they don't believe in the strategy to begin with (using a creationism believers strategy to prove god exists against a plain old believer in god.)

He says that if believers think that since the world is so complex then it needed a creator, and since existence is complex then god himself must be intelligent. Because of the intelligence then we must also assume (key word) that God is complex. If God is complex then he/she/it/whatever must also need a creator of some sort of intelligence, etc etc.

Now, this works very well against those who believe in the creationism, hardcore, "by the book" beliefs. But there are many theists out there that do not hold the same beliefs as this, and see creationism as improbable and just some cooked bologna with a nice fried egg named "faith" on top of it.

I believe this is a good argument if you are facing one type of believer. But this is not a good argument to take on all believers. The battlefield is too vast....

And lastly... For Dawkins to pick on the men/women/children who believe in the insanity that is creationism is a weak move. I don't know what he is trying to prove.
I'm expecting his next book to be "The Mole Men Delusion".

So, if you guys could really continue this debate with some sort of structure I'm just gonna mosey on out.

__________________

do your research.