True, Dawkins is a biologist, not an astrophysicist. He might have the exact details wrong, but he's still right in that there would be catastrophic consequences if the sun did move as described.
Actually I propose that you're committing the same basic reasoning fallacy. When you say "but he's still right in that there would be catastrophic consequences if the sun did move as described" you're proposing a theoretical model of astrophysics as if it were "self-evident fact" when it is not, but as all theoretic science it is "approximate and tentative": there are, in fact, other theories of astrophysics that would allow for no "catastrophic consequences" of a moving sun.
But this is not really the main error; the main error is coming to the conclusion through this error in reasoning, instead of acknowledging that the evidence would become a falsification of the astrophysical theory you are "married" to. In other words, this would be like, observing the sun moving closer to the earth, doubling in size with respect to the normal appearence, and remaining in place ; then concluding that the "sun has not moved and is not remaining" based upon acceptance of "a tentative theoretic model which does not allow such movement without consequences"
To be clearer: this is rejecting evidence that falsifies a theory on no grounds besides the theoretical model itself. As if you and I watched the sun do loops through the sky, and I turn to you and say "I guess the common tentative theory of astrophysics is in error" and you reply "Not to me, to me it is not falsified, and the sun did not just loop through the sky"; you are rejecting observation in favor of a tentative model. A basic error in reasoning that Dawkins, and yourself, have committed.
Even the article acknowledges that, and even came up with a defense for it. But hey, dismiss everyone who doesn't get it exactly right, who don't already match your preconceived notions.
The one who rejects observation in light of a tentative theoretic model is actually the one who is "dismissive of X because X doesn't match your preconceived notions": in this cause, theoretical astrophyics is the "preconceived notion"- respectfully, your reasoning is backwards, much like Dawkins' in this "rebuttal"
Note, this is not to say "We must accept the vision, and it really happened, and is a real miracle": this is to say, whatever the case with the event; Dawkins committs basic reasoning fallacy, as also do you.
Dawkins deals with sheer reality.
Reality is observation. I'm not sure what you are suggesting "sheer reality" but theoretic astrophysics is not "sheer reality" it is a tentative and approximate model, and actually, one of several different astrophysical models.
Um, no. To do as the author of the article suggests flies in the face of the actual definition of science. All we have here is the classic argument of who's right, faith vs. science. Are we to take the 70,000 witnesses word for it through our faith, or are we to use the scientific approach?
If there are indeed 70,000 witnesses, then we should take their witness of observation over one approximation by way of a tentative theoretical model of astrophysics. To reject the witnessed observation of 70,000 people because it falsifies one specific theoretical model is unscientific in the extreme.
