I think we are failing to communicate here! *grin*
According to its summary, The Blind Watchmaker is an argument for evolution and against intelligent design. I do not need to be convinced that evolution is science or that 'intelligent design/creation science' is non-scientific (and also false). My father is a historian of science and technology and used to teach college courses on the history of evolution vs. non-science in America. I have known that stuff since I was a little kid.
I do not object to Dawkins's science. I object to his denunciation of religion in general on the basis of certain highly specific views of certain members of highly specific religious traditions, and on the basis of an apparent reduction of the vastness and variety of religious experience to the two issues of belief-in-god and disbelief-in-evolution. Therefore, I am going to read The God Delusion, since it is the book I am upset about, to see if he is, in fact, more nuanced and sane in his views than I am given to understand on the basis of what people have told me about him and the short excerpts of his writing that I have read.
no subject
According to its summary, The Blind Watchmaker is an argument for evolution and against intelligent design. I do not need to be convinced that evolution is science or that 'intelligent design/creation science' is non-scientific (and also false). My father is a historian of science and technology and used to teach college courses on the history of evolution vs. non-science in America. I have known that stuff since I was a little kid.
I do not object to Dawkins's science. I object to his denunciation of religion in general on the basis of certain highly specific views of certain members of highly specific religious traditions, and on the basis of an apparent reduction of the vastness and variety of religious experience to the two issues of belief-in-god and disbelief-in-evolution. Therefore, I am going to read The God Delusion, since it is the book I am upset about, to see if he is, in fact, more nuanced and sane in his views than I am given to understand on the basis of what people have told me about him and the short excerpts of his writing that I have read.