Okay, let's see...regarding Richard Dawkins...
He was later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, though he began to feel that the customs of the Church of England were "absurd", and had more to do with dictating morals than with God.
So the Bible chafing his hide had to do with his disclaimer of God...
He has also been called "the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell" and compared to Ernst Haeckel.
You mean the guy who faked "embryonic evolution" drawings, postulating wildly the whole time, and who's work helped justify Nazism not long after? Sounds like a good comparison...
On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins generally refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.
Or would expose the flaws of his theory...
Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence."
Sounds like a wrongful conviction to me...and he makes my point for me. No one has ever seen a dog become a cat, or a watermelon turn into an ear of corn.