He'd be a very bad professor of science if he wasn't educating people. If the evidence and logic are on his side, and there are people who deny the evidence and the logic, then he should be educating them. Since when is it a bad thing to try and change someone's mind if we think they are wrong? Why is it frowned upon to simply present alternative viewpoints to people who might not have considered them? How insulted would you feel if someone thought you were too frail and stupid to simply look at the evidence? The admirable thing about Dawkins is that he doesn't slowly and delicately meander around a point until it eventually clicks. This is the approach his more left-leaning critics want him to take, and I find it patronising and frequently messy. Instead he is clear and direct. The truth is the truth, and facts don't care if we find them distasteful or not, they just are. It's clear from his language that he approaches sensitive moral issues with the same directness and honesty. I personally wouldn't have tweeted that it is immoral to have a down syndrome baby if the choice was there (he's partly right but the point needs more nuance than what a few tweets can offer), but knowing he is clearly capable of nuance and reasoned argument outside of that single tweet I would at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Many of you are not willing to do that, which I find quite sad. Even when he has clarified his point in an appropriately longer post, he is still deemed wicked for writing the tweet in the first place. I think this is cynical, and it's really just an opportunity to drag someone down from their perceived ivory tower.