BB, what would you like me to say to Dawkins?
Dear Professor:And he will write back:
I understand you're a good biologist, but I have a dear friend who finds your religious opinions obnoxious.
Yours truly,
PH
My Dear PH:So what have we accomplished?
Bugger off!
Your obediant servant,
Professor Richard Dawkins
LOLOL PH, but this misses the point. He's entitled to whatever religious opinions he likes, be they "obnoxious" or otherwise. But if he stuffs them into his science, then we have to recognize that he's not doing science; he's doing theology under cover of science. Then if he goes around "evangelising" same, I would have to regard him as a missionary, not a scientist. And recognizing that, I would find it difficult to take his so-called "science" seriously.
Which is probably too bad, for I'm sure that not everything he has written or said is total bunk. But if you can't trust a man to tell the truth on one point, then you can't trust him to tell the truth about anything else. Integrity is everything -- in a scientist, and in a public figure.
If others don't find this "mixing of metaphors" (i.e., science and religious perspectives) objectionable, well, that's their lookout. The world is full of credulous people, a/k/a "prey."
Many people today couldn't stand it, indeed would resent it as the worst scandal, indeed as a personal affront, an insult to their "intelligence," to hear someone allege that God has on past occasions performed miracles.
But let a neo-Darwinist cite a "naturalistic" miracle (e.g., turning a reptile into a bird), and that's just fine and dandy with them.
The shifting sands of "public opinion" is not a good place to stand if you want to survive a tsunami. FWIW
Maybe your letter to Dawkins would be more persuasive if you were to quote my first couple paragraphs. But then again, who am I kidding? :^)
Thanks for writing, dear Patrick!