Dawkins and his lack of scientific evidence

Richard Dawkins does it again in a brilliant example of him undermining his own position. In the chapter, What’s wrong with religion? Why be so hostile? from The God Delusion, Dawkins asserts that scientists only believe things because of the evidence while fundamentalists are right ‘because they have read the truth in a holy book.’

Let me quote Dawkins a little more: ‘The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.’

What evidence does Richard Dawkins give to clearly establish the truth and veracity of his claim that people who adhere to a holy book deny evidence? Two anecdotes: one of a scientist who changed his mind when seeing the evidence; the other of a Christian scientist who rejected the evidence for a scientific position because of the Bible.

This isn’t much evidence to my mind. How about some empirical studies? How about some philosophical discussion? How about the many cases where science has rejected the evidence because of prior presuppositions? In short, how about a little bit of evidence rather than two isolated anecdotes from someone who believes in the evidence?