Re: [asa] Beauty rather than Design

From: PvM <>
Date: Tue Oct 02 2007 - 01:07:58 EDT

Now here is a new gambit,1698,n,n

Science against theology/philosophy?

Sir: Professor Richard Bowen thinks I should engage with serious
academic theologians rather than the fundamentalist "McDonald's"
version of Christianity. He and the Rev Richard Hall (Letters, 19
September) agree with Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins", 14
September) that I should read theology. Fortunately it looks as though
I shall have every opportunity to do so. Oxford University has just
officially noticed that its leading theological halls are not fit to
admit school-leavers, so these institutions will presumably be touting
for mature students.

I particularly appreciate the following


To argue for the position he advocates requires a working knowledge of
the philosophy of science and religion, epistemology and metaphysics.
While scientists of a previous generation, such as Michael Polanyi and
Thomas Kuhn, have shown the application required to master these
fields prior to publishing their philosophical work, Dawkins has so
far shown himself unable or unwilling to do so.

Is that a bad thing? Does it require mastering these 'techniques'
before one can critique them? I am not convinced.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 2 01:08:20 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 02 2007 - 01:08:20 EDT