“Well, no kidding, but that's because Dawkins is not writing as a scientist who's writing articles for professional journals to be read by his colleagues, but he's writing for the public, the layperson.”
EXACTLY! And on that point, you contradict bohm. I’ve been communicating all along that while Dawkins uses science to illustrate his point, he is not putting forth sanctioned scientific explanations in Natural Selection. That other scientists contradict him at least brings his postulates into question. He is a “populist” writer, in my opinion. He has interesting premises. I just don’t swallow all of them hook, line and sinker. This is why I search for what other heavies are saying.
Now, tell me if I’m wrong in assuming that the characterization of Dawkins by some here has not been one of a purveyor of scientific facts. Tell me if at any time, I have said that Dawkins doesn’t know jack shit. I realize it’s not so simple to distill a complicated subject for the general public. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who do and do it well enough to not venture beyond what can be said about a subject. That’s not Dawkins’ aim and that’s why other “experts” dispute him. I for one am not afraid of the “'ugly details' of biochemistry, biology, etc.”
If you’re referring to Bart D. Ehrman (I’ve read “Jesus Interrupted” and “Misquoting Jesus”), I also consider him a very good writer. But, he is not without his critics (many of them erudite scholars) who also criticize his conclusions. For me, the only criticism I have of Ehrman is that in spite of his exposing the inherent problems and contradictions of canonical writings, he holds to the idea that they are valuable for the more benign “message” of love and understanding. I don’t agree. I think those values can be had without any religious writings.
