Hi Scott. Thanks for following me.
I agree with your main point about the use of the word “lie”. “False” would probably have been better, but my intention in writing is to be a little provocative, in order to attract attention and stir up debate. This approach seems to have worked in your case, I’m happy to say and appreciate your response.
I’m not expecting to convert any New Atheists, although that would be an achievement, rather hoping to find others with similar views, “preaching to the choir” as you put it - although I want these to be intelligent people with their critical faculties intact - and possibly to appeal to people somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, taking your advice, I’ve changed “lie” to “false”.
On the question of Darwin lying, this is very complicated. At the point in the article when I say “lie”, I’m talking about Dawkins, not Darwin. We have to separate Darwin, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and the philosophical claims said to be deductions from the latter. My real target is the last of these four, so another possible objection to my use of language would be when I say that “a new revolution is necessary in order to overthrow Darwinism”, when what I am attacking is really the philosophy of materialism. It is just a bit irritating to have to write an explanatory essay every time the word Darwinism is used. Darwin himself is the least harmful of the four.