Professor Richard Dawkins is in Australia again.

He’s promoting his new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth”, which, he says, sums up the evidence for the fact of evolution.

His previous book, “The God Delusion”, sold well and the new one will doubtless be a clone of it.

Professor Dawkins will be addressing whoever turns up at Sydney Opera House next Sunday, 2pm.

* * *

Most Australians aren’t enthusiastic about evolution. They doubt whether intelligent human beings emerged from the mud of prehistoric swamps without some kind of a “guiding hand”.

Most Australians aren’t very enthusiastic about organised religion, either.

In this latter fact Dr Dawkins sees his chance of marketing yet another “pro-evolution, anti-God” book.

* * *

But both Dr Dawkins and the Aussie punter are making the same fundamental error of logic which renders any conversation between them worthless, logic-wise.

 *  the average evolution-skeptic probably doesn’t know that his/her thoughts are illogical

 *  Dr Dawkins probably does know – but he doesn’t care. He’s on a mission to stigmatise God and everybody who believes in God. He intends to succeed, no matter what tactics he must stoop to.

So what is this logical boo-boo that both sides of the debate (non-debate) have fallen into?

* * *

Both parties assume that if the evidence shows that we developed from the same ancestors as other animals (apes etc.) then there cannot be a God.

Once you put this down in simple words like that, it’s clearly nonsense.

* * *

A few days after the destruction of the New York World Trade Centre, this Professor Dawkins blamed the disaster on “religion” — calling religion “a ready-made system of mind control which teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end”.

He was referring to how young persons can be persuaded to blow themselves up if convinced it is a certain way to enter heaven.

Another dishonest argument:

What he says may or may not be true about the “religion” of Islam.

It is NOT true about the religion of Jesus Christ.

An American lady aged 90-plus recently had a stroke which left her unable to swallow.

She had previously signed an “advance directive” specifying that no artificial hydration or nutrition be given her if she wasn’t going to recover.

But her nephew, her designated proxy, insisted that Catholic teaching be practised in her case, and that a feeding tube be installed anyway.

* * *

Father Thomas Weinandy, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed that Catholic health facilities have “an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically-assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally . . . you can’t just starve them to death. It’s hard to know whether someone will regain consciousness or not.”

A feeding tube was not, he said, required if it wouldn’t prolong life, or would be “excessively burdensome for the patient” or would “cause significant physical discomfort.”

In this case, doctors believed the patient had, at most, a few months to live, but would die sooner unless a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ( PEG ) tube was surgically inserted.

* * *

A rumpus ensued when the nephew made his decision – but as it happened, in the midst of it all, the patient died.

So did that solve the problem? Not entirely. This particular lady has gone to her judgement. But there are going to be thousands (millions?) more, just like her, about whom similar decisions will have to be reached.

We seem to have reached a turning-point in human history. Some questions can no longer be avoided.

What is a human being? Who decides what is “burdensome” and what isn’t? Burdensome to whom?

* * *

The key point, for Catholics, is that you cannot do evil so that “good” may come of it.

Some people, including some doctors, don’t really distinguish between good and evil – when using those words they really mean more convenient or less convenient. For somebody.