"for instance writing a post wondering if Dawkins really meant to sign the thing, since it seemed out of place with respect to a number of his other official statements?"

Actually, as has been pointed out, the petition is perfectly in tune with much of Dawkins' previous writings, in which he compares religion to illegal substances and calls a Catholic upbringing child abuse. Indeed, according to this review, he writes that "we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out."

What's truly ironic is that without Telic Thoughts, Brayton would probably never have heard of it, and Dawkins would never have been forced to retract his support. Yet if you ask Andrea, we owe someone an apology.

LOL, sure, you only meant to politely inform Dawkins he may have made a mistake in signing the petition, right? You could not have raised the issue in more rational tones, for instance writing a post wondering if Dawkins really meant to sign the thing, since it seemed out of place with respect to a number of his other official statements? OK, then, well… if you say so.

Oh wait, you actually didn't even bother looking at his other statements, ignored those who pointed them out to you, and accused them of being complicit in the "Agenda" (double-scary big A).

Talk about touching bottom.

Well, I predicted an attempted walk-back, and this certainly qualifies.

It would, if he had ever argued for the wholesale prohibition of all religious teaching before. But he didn't, and always qualified what he considered abusive about religious indoctrination. Only those who have never bothered actually reading what Dawkins wrote, but loved sounding their alarm bugle about it anyway, could have thought he genuinely supported the content of that petition.

Look, a simple "OK, sorry, we should have wondered about this to start with. Never mind." from you guys would actually be enough. Alas, I don't see it coming.

That seems indeed to be the case, pretty much as predicted. We'll have to see if this satisfies Mike.

Well, I predicted an attempted walk-back, and this certainly qualifies. And it's a much better one than some total pretense that it was just a troll using his name. It would also appear that he understands perfectly well that petitions to 10 Downing don't carry any legislative weight (about as useless as petitioning the Queen). So at least my mind is a bit eased that he's not coming down with Mad Cow or something that looks/acts just like it (Alzheimer's).

He probably didn't anticipate the reaction from his Amen choir here in the US, as we are a lot more attached to our liberties and our privacy than Brits are. A legacy from our Enlightened founders that we are thoroughly and coercively indoctrinated to value, from toddlerhood to enfranchisement as adults who can vote and die in dirty little (or big) wars.

We are never likely to tolerate National Nanny - whether it looks like Richard Dawkins or Bess Herself - telling us what activities we can and can't enjoy with our children on our own time. It won't hurt Dawkins a bit to learn to accept that.

Of course he "regrets it." It will be fun to reply.

Of course, Mike, you are right. This statement must also be part of the Agenda (double-scary big A).

Dawkins has commented to Ed's blog, saying it was a mistake made by not reading carefully enough.

That seems indeed to be the case, pretty much as predicted. We'll have to see if this satisfies Mike.

Just as we were all able to recognize the existence of the ID Movement, I'm just pointing out the existence of the Anti-Religion Movement. Dawkins has clearly taken on a Philip Johnson-type role in this new movement. Just listen to him talk and check out his web page "“ it's all about socio-political advocacy.

This is actually pretty much true. So much so, in fact, that I don't think even Dawkins would object.

Overall, however, I think Dawkins does a pretty good job distinguishing what is science and what is socio-political advocacy in his writings and words (whether one supports and/or informs the other is obviously a different question). Indeed, it is his opponents who try to conflate the two in an attempt to discredit evolutionary science and assign it metaphysical goals and socio-political Agendas (double-scary big A as well, I guess).

On the other hand, the Johnson-initiated modern ID movement is, with rare exceptions, all about purposefully equivocating between scientific goals (minimal, if any) and socio-political action (their main target). Indeed, that was explicit in Darwin on Trial and in later writings by major ID advocates, until the embarrassment about the leaked Wedge document and backlash against it caused a re-tooling of their rhetoric.