For me, a slow reader, this was quite a feat, but made easier by the quality of the writing and fascination of the subject matter. At 437 pages of fairly technical but slowly developed material, it contrasted starkly with the 500-page silliness of a Dan Brown thriller (my prior diversion), but I know which one I’ll remember within 3 months!

I’ve always been happy with the assertion that all living and long-dead inhabitants of planet earth are/were the product of evolution. The alternative – that the world was made by a designer/creator, possibly over a six-day period back 10,000 years ago – simply made no common sense to me. I’ve been aware of quite a number of clear evidential facts that show evolution to be the only sensible explanation for what I see and experience around me. I’ve even come up with a few observations of my own that have convinced me.

But what I’ve never really seen before is the sheer volume of factual evidence and rational argument for evolution as a fact presented in this book. Together they show that all alternatives to evolution must be simply seen as nonsense to anyone other than the person who simply must believe in creationism in order for their belief system – and their whole world and reason for being – to remain intact; the people for whom if the bible was not literally true in all respects, there would be no point on living.

First up, I just love the book’s title, and the way the writing supports it. There can be no doubt that Dawkins is a passionate man – it shines through the prose. And his passion is not that of a religious nut, but of a person who is forever in awe of the world around him, and of the sheer common sense and beautiful integrity and continuity of life in all its forms. Viewed as a participant, the process of life on earth does indeed offer the greatest show on earth.

Next, one can only be impressed by Dawkins’ depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding of science, and natural science in particular. He’s more than just ‘done his homework’; he has gained command of a wide range of specialised fields within natural science. And either he is also learned in other fields such as radioactivity and plate tectonics or he has taken the trouble to consult and learn from experts in those fields.

Dawkins apparently has a reputation for being arrogant, and occasionally he admits to losing patience with what he aptly calls history deniers, but the overriding sense I got was of a person who is truly in awe of the beauty and mystery of life, who always wants to find out more rather than to justify the point of a held opinion. He often admits to things that as yet do not quite add up, or where the evidence is as yet insufficient to prove a point which otherwise looks promising.

The book could have been half its length and still been convincing. Dawkins often repeats the main arguments after adding yet another item that builds the argument, just to ensure that we’re keeping our eyes on the overall theme and not just the biological facts and figures. I found that towards the end I had already seen way more evidence than I needed in order to be convinced that evolution is the only sensible explanation, and yet more similar evidence was becoming unnecessary. (That’s probably me, the slow reader, tiring.)

I have scientific training (mainly in the physical sciences) so I found the scientific facts and explanations very strong and cogent. Some readers may be less inclined to try to follow some of the detailed technical bits, but they should nevertheless be able to understand the overall philosophy.

I come away even more assured that evolution is a fact, not just a 50/50 theory to rank in believability beside creationism. Now I have (if only I can remember them all) a truckload of scientific evidence to support it, and an even larger truckload of everyday observations that show creationism as a belief system is absurdly improbable.

If you want to explore the creationism versus evolution debate, this book is a must in order to see all the evidence, not just the bits that fit the belief systems of each side. And it’s important, especially when you consider that – as Dawkins fears – a huge and powerful number of Americans become more fundamentalist and even radical in their views and seek to impose them in US schools.

If I wanted to write a satirical piece about the religion free market I couldn’t possibly do a funnier job. If it wasn’t for the fact that these guys (yes, they’re men) are actually serious then I would file it in the Chuckle-for-the-Day bin.

If these tradition-bound church leaders ever want to be relevant in today’s world, they need to have a good look at some of these stupid rules and the associated game playing.

Assuming that The Times is reporting accurately, here are a couple of the decisions and rules that have been made.

Married Anglican clergy will be allowed to train for the priesthood in seminaries set up within the new Anglican “Ordinariates” (whatever that is) as long as their marital status is not “irregular”.

There is no change to the Vatican’s line on priestly celibacy.  But former Catholic priest who left the church to marry and subsequently became Anglican clergy will not be permitted to return to Catholicism under these new rules.

Sounds like some sort of industrial relations rule that forbids a worker who takes a voluntary redundancy payment from ever returning to work at the same place or working for the competition. (We’ll teach the selfish bugger!) Where is the love, the compassion, the understanding in this? It’s just a measure to protect the Vatican’s belief in its own importance and power.

A spokesman for one of the dissident Anglican groups was quoted in The Times as saying that he thought the offer from Rome was “extremely generous”. Interpretation: “Sounds like a good deal to me – I’ll come out ahead on this. Better take it before the price goes up.”

What next? A free set of steak knives if you swap codes before Christmas? Convert one of your children for free if both you and your wife change providers.

This whole travesty looks to me like one of those deals you see offered by a telecommunications company trying to lure dissatisfied customers from a competitor, providing ways for them to retain their privileges and achieve compatibility between technologies.

Now, having written this, I’ve stopped laughing and feel a bit sad. This nonsense shows what formalised, institutional religion can do to you.