I see, you make some very good arguments. But your example pertains to a specific example which I agree with, but doesn't consider the other kinds of people in this world and the larger campaign for intellectual thought. The fact is that, at least from my personal experience, most people are neither severely resolute in their beliefs nor are they inquisitive learners of science. For the most part the majority of people are apathetic to the fundamentals concepts of existence, trying to get through their life and leaning towards religious perspectives because it is the simple default option and more pronounced globally. On the global scale is necessary to campaign the platform of intellectual thought aggressively, and even in an insulting manner because of it's efficacy to swiftly change people's minds. Perhaps Dawkins understands this better than anyone because it is an evolutionary disposition; people pay attention to something that offends them, day to day mentions of scientific concepts usually go over many peoples heads and bores them even, but call someone stupid and they're interested. Again this may not ultimately convince them one way or the other, but at least the idea is considered and spread which is the most important thing on the large scale campaign for intellectual thought. Simply because a clear effective message will get across more people faster whether positively or negatively received rather than passively providing information and hoping that they ingest it. Let alone digest it.

However I completely agree that on an individual basis guiding peoples critical thinking capabilities is the best approach and it's up to individuals who realize this to spread information in this manner as effectively as possible.