Richard Dawkins the accommodationist

There is now a big dispute going on over whether Richard Dawkins is really an "accommodationist." Dawkins said in a Newsweek magazine interview that he mainly targets creationists and not theistic evolutionists -- he said, "I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about." That statement is accommodationist towards theistic evolutionists. He also called Darwinist cafeteria Christian Francis Collins an "intelligent evolutionary scientist." That is also accommodationist towards theistic evolutionists. So how is Dawkins not an accommodationist?
.
Josh Rosenau says, "It will be interesting to see whether the usual suspects go after Dawkins with quite the same vehemence that has met others advancing similar lines of argument." One of those "suspects," of course, is Sleazy PZ Myers, who said that he "metaphorically puke[s] on the shoes" of those who make the "goofy" argument that "if you don't be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home." So far, PZ has not made one peep of criticism of Dawkins' accommodationist statements.

Please don't get me wrong -- I have no sympathy for the accommodationists or their useful-idiot mascots, the theistic evolutionists. As I have said many times, the Darwinist cafeteria Christians have it reversed -- the bible's creation story actually makes more sense than the gospel. Both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Also, the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.
.