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!
And yet, that is Intelligent Design in one sentence.
I don't know, but based on his reputation, I suspect that his work in biology is quite good. I'm not aware that any of it is bunk, and in all probability, dear BB, neither are you. (But you're certainly a fire-eater when you're mad.) His work can be checked, like all science work, so unless someone is accusing him of faking his data, let's put his science work off to one side.
As for his opinions on everything else, I generally disregard such stuff. I don't think anyone's opinions are any better than mine. Some are just as good. (Some are worse, because they're contradictory, incoherent, etc.) But no one's in any position to prove his theological opinions, thus we can either accept them, reject them, or ignore them.
So it is with Dawkins. I don't see any problem. (If we can separate Einstein's work from his goofy socialism, we can handle just about anything.) And as long as we're all free to speak our minds, I don't see any solution to your objections. So relax.
I rejoice that somewhere, way back along that great family tree we all share, you and I are cousins.
Darwin's credentials were in theology, not science, so is it any wonder we have a religion born out of his efforts? And for those with ears to hear, it is the god of forces who rules that little domain
Since when does Dawkins write school text books?
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.
I wonder if the the atheist code word for "miracle" is "anthropic principle" or "we'll have a materialist answer in [pick a number] years".
That's exactly what all the creationist and ID proponents do. However, they compound their felony by failing to do any observation or experimentation.