Bt Jimmah, I failed to respond to this:

There are differences of opinion among scientists and philosophers regarding the meme concept, but most prominent biologists and philosophers who deal with science seem to be quite happy with the general idea. Your hyper-reductionist criticism even if correct, (which it isn’t),would only establish that Dawkins was incorrect, or had produced a flawed or incomplete thesis, it would do nothing to suggest either mendacity or intellectual idiocy of the sort Behe exemplifies.

1. I dispute that most prominent biologists and philosophers of science are “quite happy” with the general idea. Michael Ruse, for instance, is not “quite happy” with it. Nor is Eliot Sober. Which “prominent biologists” were you thinking of?

2. If you think my critique is incorrect, offer your correction please. I’m interested.

3. If someone indulges in deliberately misleading language far more often than they correct their misleading language, I infer an intent to convince, not an intent to educate. Dawkins, with his idiotic “selfish” gene rhetoric (to mention but the most famous, and ignoring his often uncorrected over the top anthropomorphisations about “intent”) intends not to educate, but convince. He says he’s educating. I say he’s lying about that. I further think that people cut him slack because he’s on the “right” side against the “wrong” side. Well, to heck with that: at some point with that attitude one becomes nothing but a cultural stooge.

4. Dawkins has his valuable gifts. Honesty, transparency, and an open mind are not amoung them. So: yes. Both idiocy and intellectual mendacity.