Yesterday I was somewhat disapointed at the number of Creationist, or creationist-supporter, blogs which were out there attacking Richard Dawkins.

Today I look at technorati and see the balance is returning. It is not yet complete though, as these were the top three:

Sub Ratione Dei. A theology student who feels that, as a theology student he is more placed to talk about God than Dawkins. This is interesting as the God delusion is not about the Christian deity per se, but about the implications belief in a divine being have on humanity and the biological evidence which contradicts those beliefs. Maybe the author of Sub Ratione Dei feels that as a theology student they are more placed to discuss evolution and creationism than Dawkins. This is a quote from the Sub Ratione Dei web page: (all typos etc are as in the original)

By the grace of God as I was browsing the Politics section pondering whether to by the Griffin book there were what appeared to be a kindly elderly couple hunching over the popular science section discussing which of the three Dawkins books was the one he has just written that was causing all the fuss. Mustering up every ounce of self-restraint I pointed out which was the text in question and it is here they I deem the mysterious hand of divine providence to be at work. “Have you read it, is it good?” asked the moment. Ah ha! thought I, an opportunity to save a soul from the ramblings of a grumpy old man who doesn’t really know the subject he is talking about. Needless to say I with utmost respect for the man’s scientific qualifications considered his writing as perceptive on religion as an MI5 report on the existence of WMD in Iraq. After explaining that as a theology student I know a little bit about religion (and hence a little bit more than Dawkins) I suggested that they may want to try a Polkinghorne book I saw in the same section (not read the book but I took an educated guess it would be good). By the infinite mercies of God they agreed to take this book as well the Dawkins one. Not quite the outcome I was hoping for but at least if they are reading both they may have something reading Dawkins alone would be lacking, balance.

Godfight: now this is an odd blog and there isn’t much I can say about it, other than to link to it: http://freaktochic.typepad.com/ godfight/ 2006/ 12/ welcome_to_the_.html. You really do have to see it to understand what I mean.

The last of the top three – “X: Something to Ponder” – is different all together. It is not really a blog “about” Dawkins but mentions him in passing regarding a strange question the author is pondering. This quote is from http://www.sarwark.org /writings/ 2006/ 12/ something-to-ponder.html:

Question: If a Muslim father makes one a Muslim (a claim falsely made by Debbie Schlussel to smear Barack Obama) and a Jewish mother makes one a Jew, if a Muslim man marries a Jewish woman and they have a kid, is the child both Muslim and Jewish?
If so, can we fix the whole Middle Eastern situation through intermarriage?
Richard Dawkins would argue against the frame of the question. In his latest book, The God Delusion, he posits that children can’t truly hold religious beliefs, so a child is a “child of Jewish parents” rather than a “Jewish child.”
UPDATE: As I thought, being a Muslim requires one to submit to Allah. So much for that idea.

Still, these few days have possibly convinced me looking over technorati does indeed have some value.