I had heard, for example, that Dawkins says he’s not going to bash creationists, but that he then does so anyway. It sounds like from your review that this may be the case, which is disappointing: if Dawkins wants more people to consider evolution, instead of just wanting to rally the troops so to speak, then he should try to reach out more. I agree that “history-deniers” is an odd term for someone who’s allegedly trying to reach out to those who have their doubts about evolution.

I look forward to reading your other chapter reviews.

I don’t think the comparison with holocaust deniers is always as far off as you make it out. I suspect that most creationists are simply misinformed. A rather large lot of them, though, are indeed homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, anti-Scientific, anti-non-theist (/non-Christian) and otherwise ideological bigots. That especially goes for the most ardent and obstreperous varieties. Think of Ken Ham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps. These are the kinds of people who use their evolution denialism to fan the flames of their hatred. It’s a fair comparison. It’s also worth noting that a lot of holocaust deniers are also evolution deniers, at least in the middle east.

I think this is a great way to review a book and engage blog readers at the same time. We’ll see how it works. I’m just a couple chapters ahead of you so this should work for me.

Regarding history deniers, I guess I have no problem with his inclusion of the holocaust deniers. Regardless of their motivations, they are not accepting the reality of the historical facts…in this case of the holocaust.
As for history versus prehistory, history usually means the written record of mankind, but if we look at the record of geology or DNA couldn’t we be speaking of the history of the Earth or the history of life? Aren’t the history deniers refusing to accept the facts or record of geology and microbiology? I think is still works.

I think Dawkins does like to invent new words, like “meme.” I guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether theorum takes hold. It could be a very long wait. Of course if he’s just using the word for the purpose of the book to differentiate between the two meanings of “theory” that he spoke of, I think it could apply in the short-term.

Fortunately, he only mentioned “theorum” once or twice in the rest of the book.