Next time though do what I’m going to do:

if you find a book in the science section that doesn’t belong there, take it up to the counter and while being both friendly AND helpful, inform the staff that you discovered a book that was in the wrong location.

Instead of having everyone reshuffle books on a certain day, have groups of people go up ONE AT A TIME in whatever bookstore they’re in, informing the staff the books are in the wrong location. One person going up and saying it won’t do much, but when 5 people come up and say there are non-science books in science section? 10 people?

So: one person takes up Darwin’s Black Box, talks to staff. Few minutes later, a different person arrives with a different copy (or different book) and helpfully let the staff know it was in the wrong spot. Repeat for as many books they have.

It would get annoying, but would probably break the tedium of the poor retail-employee’s days anyway

But then, I highly doubt most of the atheists here have actually read Alister McGrath either

I have read both McGrath’s recent books attacking Dawkins (The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins God) and I am as atheist as they come. He offers no evidence to support his attack on evolution, no convincing arguments to support his belief in god and offers the bizarre argument that in order to be an atheist one must have an encyclopedic knowledge of christian theology (he fails to mention muslim or buddhist theology, but Dawkins is just as much an atheist about those religions, as I suspect McGrath is).

I am not sure where he expected to go with that argument, it can hardly be taken as a proof of the existance of god, or of the correctness of christianity. Its like saying that you cannot dislike baseball unless you know all the rules and the batting averages of every player.

These days, I’m more comfortable with Dawkins’s conclusions, though I’m still not certain I agree with the whole gene-centric shebang. When I see him in interviews (I haven’t read the God Delusion yet; I’m working on Demon-Haunted World first), I don’t find him particularly pompous, and I certainly don’t find him “angry” as most of his opponents would say. On the contrary, he seems very approachable and amiable.

But then, I highly doubt most of the atheists here have actually read Alister McGrath either.

Never even heard of him.

But I have read some of Jim Wallis’s books, and I wouldn’t discredit some of the stuff he’s written that I liked – even though he’s getting a lot of criticism from atheists (and others) lately.

Most personalities are a mix of good and bad. Unless something is truly hateful, I can typically find some worthwhile ideas in it, if I’m sufficiently interested to pursue it.

His science books don’t come across as pompous to me, at all. And I’ve got a pretty sensitive pomposity meter.

Indeed, I confess I’ve never read his science books (or even all of The God Delusion – mainly just articles, excerpts and online video clips). I was just commenting on the bit of him that I’ve seen, not his entire corpus.

But then, I highly doubt most of the atheists here have actually read Alister McGrath either.

You said “…but the religious crazies don’t look there (the science section), so they will never see it.” Ah, won’t they? Remember that one of those religious crazies is a certain Michael J. Behe, and he has a book where? IN THE SCIENCE SECTION! So, maybe his book isn’t in such a bad place after all, folks. Who knows – maybe as they’re looking for Darwin’s Black Box, they will see The God Delusion and become curious. Next thing ya know, we’ve got ourselves a new Atheist!

I have no friends in the immediate vicinity of my place of domicile, so there’s no one to hold the camera as I turn a book upside down in my local bookstore. Taking in a tripod would probably get me kicked out! Any ideas?

, but everything I’ve seen and read from Dawkins has come across to me as the definition of “pompous”.

His science books don’t come across as pompous to me, at all. And I’ve got a pretty sensitive pomposity meter.

ROTFLMAO at the sheer irony of this statement in comparison to a book written by Richard Dawkins!

How many of his books have you read? “The Ancestor’s Tale” is a work of inventive genius. “The Selfish Gene” is considered by many scientists and science fans to be the best book of popular science of all time.

You’d be wrong to conclude that everything he’s written is “pompous crap” just because you find his latest book offensive (assuming you’ve read it).