Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Then, the entire rest of the piece is a denial of this premise. Instead of upholding the view that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, we are fed all these anything but indifferent evaluations, such as,
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing,....
But why in the world should they be disturbing if "at bottom," there is, "no purpose, no evil and no good?" What difference does it make to Mr. Michael Shermer what anyone believes, since there is no purpose anyway?
He certainly sounds like he thinks there is a purpose when he says, "To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation." The obvious question is, why? What difference does it make. Why doesn't he act like he really believes in "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference?"
We could overlook the internal contradictions, if nothing really mattered, but in case he is not being totally accurate (or lucid) about that, we'll mention them.
He refers to evolution as a theory, which it cannot be. It is an unproven hypothesis, in the scientific sense, and can never be proven in the scientific sense, since no experiment can be performed to test it.
He is actually unconsciousnly aware of this, and unwittingly contradicts the assertion that evolution is a theory by the this, "The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved." So, evolution, he unwittingly admits is not a branch of science, but a hypothetical branch of history, and the "proof" he offers is for history, not the confimation of a scientific hypothesis.
Because of the crucial difference between the physical universe and human society. When Dawkins says that there is "no purpose, no evil and no good", he obviously is referring to the physical universe. "Purpose", "good" and "evil" are human terms that describe human actions, and it is a characteristically human mistake to anthropomorphize the natural processes of the universe by applying such words to them.
Widespread belief in any flavor of mysticism is disturbing precisely because "purpose", "good" and "evil" do demonstrably exist within the sphere of human interaction.
Complete lack of knowledge of scientific method. Evolution theory fits the definition of theory. It does not have to conclusively proven, only to have presented a model that has withstood so many challenges without being disproven. If you're looking for proof, you'll only find it in mathematical models. This theory has been tested in controlled circumstances, never to let us down. It has also made predictions, only to have them shown true. What more do you want?