1. Comment #71905 by BAEOZ on September 19, 2007 at 11:44 pm

What a bunch of lies and incomprehensible inanity! Let the skewering begin.....
Dawkin's isn't proposing an ideology. Just what does this women think Evolution by Natural Selection is?

Dawkins dramatises natural selection by the use of the word selfish. He says that natural selection means nature red in tooth and claw, but that's not true. Natural selection means using something that others are not, like photosynthesis or a new food source, and we must not forget that co-operation is often terribly important for survival.

Translation please? Does the word red mean read? What does "using something others are not" mean? Some plants aren't using natural selection if they are using photosynthesis? After all if natural selection means using something others are not, then any plant using what another plant uses isn't using natural selection....
Help, my brain just exploded and it's time to go home after another day of work.
Cheers all. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #71911 by eoinc on September 19, 2007 at 11:52 pm

What a stupid article. "Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only source of evolution." Well, yes, the alternatives include sexual selection (peacock's tails) and artificial selection (domestication of dogs). There is no need for the supernatural anywhere, and to imply that Darwin claimed otherwise is dishonest.

When reading utter tripe like the following, it is clear that Midgley has never read The Selfish Gene beyond its title:

"He says that natural selection means nature red in tooth and claw, but that's not true. Natural selection means using something that others are not, like photosynthesis or a new food source, and we must not forget that co-operation is often terribly important for survival."

It's clear too from her absurd attempt to link this "worship of competition" with a jaw-droppingly naive strawman of TGD (that RD thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, that he gets very angry at the suggestion that mysteries exist), that she has never read that book either. Shame on The Independent for printing facile rubbish like this.

Other Comments by eoinc

3. Comment #71912 by JemyM on September 19, 2007 at 11:57 pm

There are questions that science cannot answer.
Religion answer no questions at all, instead it teaches the value of not asking questions.

Other Comments by JemyM

4. Comment #71914 by Richard Dawkins on September 19, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Oh dear, dear old Mary Midgley again. We go back a long way, Mary Midgley and I. See her Wikipedia entry, which also has a link to my published reply to an earlier outburst of lies -- or crass misunderstanding -- from her:
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5

In the above interview with Mrs Midgley, every single thing she says about me is an outright falsehood:-

1. I have never said that there are no positions available except for my own and creatonism.

2. I have frequently said that natural selection is NOT the only source of evolution. I have written enthusiastically about Kimura's neutral theory of evolution.

3. I have frequently emphasized that natural selection favours cooperation and 'using something that others are not'.

4. I have repeatedly repudiated the worship of Thatcherite competition.

5. I have never said that religion MAKES people do appalling things, only that it frequently IS used to justify doing appalling things, just as ideologies such as Marxism are.

6. Far from being angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, I frequently and passionately invoke mystery as an inspiration for science, and I frequently state that science cannot answer some questions.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

5. Comment #71915 by irate_atheist on September 20, 2007 at 12:00 am

"People are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious".

"..pernicious moral doctrines"

A stupid woman who clearly spends her time with a lot of stupid people. Facts are facts are facts. They don't have morals. Just because your ignorant worldview doesn't 'like' something doesn't stop it being true.

What ignorance, what craven stupidity. Oh, and a liar too of course as regards religion not making people do apalling things. Inquisition, Crusades, Witch Trials - and that's just three examples from one of these pernicious superstitions this halfwit supports. Once again, I say, stupid woman. And yes - shame on The Independent for printing this garbage.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

6. Comment #71916 by Ilovelucy on September 20, 2007 at 12:08 am

Thirty years on after her original baseless rant, Midgley either still hasn't properly read the Selfish Gene or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

7. Comment #71917 by Rational_G on September 20, 2007 at 12:09 am

"There are questions science cannot answer"

Not yet. But we're working on it.... you ignorant fool.

Other Comments by Rational_G

8. Comment #71918 by Goat Boy on September 20, 2007 at 12:09 am

That's it!

I'm writing a book.

If she can get published then so can I.

Other Comments by Goat Boy

9. Comment #71919 by irate_atheist on September 20, 2007 at 12:11 am

RD et al -

Have you ever noticed that whenever you read an article in a paper or watch a TV News item about one's own area of expertise, they invariably get it wrong in some critical respect?

What makes us think they report accurately about the subjects we are not personally expert in? After all, almost everyone I know from many walks of life notices the same phenomena. How much newsprint is just opinion - and ill-informed opinion at that?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

10. Comment #71920 by blasphemer on September 20, 2007 at 12:12 am

My first thought reading this drivel was that this person has no knowledge of evolution or of Richard Dawkins. Incredible inanity.

Other Comments by blasphemer

11. Comment #71922 by Mercury on September 20, 2007 at 12:21 am

"It is wrong to link science with this one-sided contemptuous stuff, as if making out that people who disagree with him are idiots. There are many believing scientists. "

Yes Mary, you are correct here. People who don't accept evolution ARE idiots or just simply arrogant. Harsh but true! As Bush once said "If you are not with us, you are against us".

Also, there is no such thing as a "believing scientist" as to believe in God betrays the whole nature of scientific method and investigation. However, there is such thing as an uneducated, misinformed and misguided pseudo-scientist who should not be taken seriously.

Other Comments by Mercury

12. Comment #71923 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

Ullica Segerstrale, author of Defenders of the Truth, an excellently thorough history of the sociobiology controversy, interviewed Mary Midgley about her article in the journal Philosophy (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14. This was the article that I replied to and which you can see at http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5).
Mrs Midgley confessed to Ullica that she had not in fact read The Selfish Gene when she wrote that article. She has since backtracked from that confession, and I was inclined to believe her. However, looking at the above interview with Nick Jackson, it looks very much as though she still hasn't read anything more than the title of The Selfish Gene.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

13. Comment #71924 by Veronique on September 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

You know BAEOZ what concerns me is that these people have a media voice. In the scheme of things, it appears that there are more of them than there are the likes of us.

We seem to have a few public voices and, of course, we have some very good big guns at the moment, but not nearly as many journos and columnists as the other crowd. And your average Joe Blow reads papers but not necessarily books.

I wish I knew how to write and worked as a columnist for a paper. I guess we all wish that at the moment. It would help.

My religi-board quote was partially wiped off again on the weekend. Quite innocuous, I thought. It was a quote from RD on EOR:

Science frees us from superstition and dogma and enables us to base our knowledge on evidence

Now, I ask you, what's wrong with that? knowledge with evidence was wiped off.

Ah well, we have to keep on trying. Write more letters, post more comments to the papers. I keep trying to formulate plans. I think the critical thinking and analysis one will come off with the local high school sometime next year. I want it run under the auspices of the Neighbourhood Centre with off-campus accreditation.

Wish me luck. Have a drink:-)
V

Other Comments by Veronique

14. Comment #71926 by Corylus on September 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

Sentence 1

people are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious.

Ok. From there she could have gone on to talk about the psychological basis of resistence to science. E.G. She have talked about the naive sloppy thinking that makes people think that 'facts' can be 'morally pernicious'.

There could have been suggestions for improvement for the education of science, maybe a call for the teaching of critical thinking and logic in school (she is a philosopher after all). Let children learn things without being afraid. Hurray, I would have said.

But no. Wasted opportunity. Pity.

Other Comments by Corylus

15. Comment #71927 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:35 am

This is shameful.

I remember the original rants about The Selfish Gene from Midgley.

It is, I suppose, tolerable to get things so badly wrong about what an author is saying once. But if it has been pointed at why you are mistaken, and have made factual errors about content, a critic with integrity will either admit their mistake or have the decency to shut up.

To repeat the same mistakes nearly 30 years later is shameful.

It seems to me to raise problems about how to respond. How many times can one say 'please read and at least try and understand the book before commenting'?

Other Comments by steve99

16. Comment #71928 by pewkatchoo on September 20, 2007 at 12:37 am

I read the first two paragraphs and gave up. Yet another vacuous piece on those wicked atheists stirring it up unnecessarilly. Quetz save us from these useful fools! There was a distinct credibility dissonance as soon as she mentioned that scientific hack Winston.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

17. Comment #71929 by Theocrapcy on September 20, 2007 at 12:39 am

People who are driven to idiocy by rationalism deserve to be there.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

18. Comment #71930 by pewkatchoo on September 20, 2007 at 12:41 am

I also wish that people would stop saying 'Darwin himself' or 'Newton himself' as an argument. Darwin is no longer an absolute authority on evolution. Even 6th form schoolchildren today understand more about evolution and natural selection than Darwin did. He is the Father of the science, but the children always outdo the father. Basics of progress you stupid woman.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

19. Comment #71932 by mmurray on September 20, 2007 at 12:51 am

Also, there is no such thing as a "believing scientist" as to believe in God betrays the whole nature of scientific method and investigation. However, there is such thing as an uneducated, misinformed and misguided pseudo-scientist who should not be taken seriously.

That's a bit harsh. There are certainly scientists who are Deists of some kind or who compartmentalize their science and their religion. I think they are misguided but uneducated, misinformed and pseudo-scientists they are not. Take Frances Collins for example.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

20. Comment #71934 by infidel_michael on September 20, 2007 at 12:54 am

Questions science cannot answer, get only answers without evidence. That's why there are so many religions. Millions of different incompatible answers, zero evidence.

Questions science cannot answer, anybody can. That's the problem. You cannot rule out any nonsense, because faith can justify anything.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

21. Comment #71937 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 am

I unfortunately cannot send in a reply to The Independent, as I already have a letter in the In-Tray of letters@independent.co.uk, replying to http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2976641.ece

Do you ever feel you are being picked on? Ah well, I suppose it shows progress of a kind. People don't bother to write lies about you unless you have them rattled. And the scale of the falsehoods going about now suggests that they are getting really rattled.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

22. Comment #71941 by RascoHeldall on September 20, 2007 at 1:08 am

I'm very concerned with the number of dumbass or dishonest anti-atheist 'thought' pieces that have started to pepper the Independent of late. It has been my paper of choice for a number of years, but the quality of these pieces has been so low I may need to reconsider. One senses that this orchestrated (if pathetic) attack must be a conscious editorial decision, perhaps influenced by the sound of personal convictions being rattled? Thank goodness they still have Johann Hari on the payroll, anyway!

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

23. Comment #71943 by Philip1978 on September 20, 2007 at 1:20 am

Professor Dawkins,

I have just read that article/drivel from Reverend Hall and I had to pick out this one bit that astonished me

"He is entitled to his views about religion, but his refusal to engage with his intellectual equals looks narrow-minded and cowardly"

I was about to say you are right to feel somewhat picked on but then I thought long and hard about this. How on Earth can you have an intellectual equivalent in Theology? More to the point, I think it shows that if all people, like dear Mary above, have to print about you are lies well, that's one battle over!

Rattled you say, hmm, I think the rattle was thrown out the pram a long time ago and the other toys are beginning to get a bit sparse!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

24. Comment #71947 by gcdavis on September 20, 2007 at 1:23 am

We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world.

If there are questions that need answering beyond the material world lets ask them and if no answer can be found lets be honest and say we don't know. To say that beliefs that were conceived in the iron age can offer a satisfactory explanation is absurd.

And as for the Thatcher comparison that too is ridiculous, what Dawkins says is that if the source of your religion is the bible then it is dishonest to pick and choose which bits you believe in. The earth is a few thousand years old and was created by a supernatural being in 6 days, end of story.

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #71948 by Flagellant on September 20, 2007 at 1:24 am

Having read John Cornwell's disgraceful Darwin's Angel, I have immense sympathy for Richard Dawkins at the way his reasoning and arguments (see (4)) above have been traduced. Articles like Midgely's and Bunting's, and books like Cornwell's, are read by people who feel that their faith is under threat; they use such specious arguments to comfort themselves in their belief, without reading TGD. RD's ideas thus become polluted by misrepresentation. The really annoying thing about Cornwell, though, is that he clearly has read TGD.

I am sure that the Independent will print a reply from RD about Midgely's rubbish. But the damage cannot be undone. It is difficult to know what else to do, apart from continuing to plug away e.g. with post (12) stuff. But far fewer people will read that than Midgely's article.

May I suggest, though, that RD considers changing his daily newspaper? (LOL)



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

26. Comment #71950 by Nefrubyr on September 20, 2007 at 1:35 am

We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world. Then it's understanding we're after rather than information. These are not questions like "is there a box on the table?" but questions of inner life, that can't be settled in the lab.

So she's defending philosophy now? Fine, I don't recall anyone attacking it. But I think she was trying to distract readers from the fact that "was the universe created by an intelligent designer?" is very much in the same category of questions as "is there a box on the table?"

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

27. Comment #71952 by Aidan86 on September 20, 2007 at 1:39 am

This is the poorest excuse for journalism I've seen in some time. Dawkins has addressed all of those points very clearly and a simple Google search shows this. What is the point of publishing something like this, it adds nothing new to public discourse!

Other Comments by Aidan86

28. Comment #71955 by Jiten on September 20, 2007 at 2:09 am

Mary Midgley must be such an embarrassment to philosophy.And she is so very ignorant.And on top of that are her lies and falsehoods.

She's going to be skewered here!

Other Comments by Jiten

29. Comment #71957 by Prufrock on September 20, 2007 at 2:15 am

"And the scale of the falsehoods going about now suggests that they are getting really rattled."

The bully does not like to be found out. The myth is just a myth, but its creators, implementers and followers are not.

Expect to see pictures of Professor Dawkins complete with horns and tails (lol - just a joke)and all manner of ridiculous things being said about the modern day Faust. None of the thing said are true, but many will be believed.

What concerns me is what happens to people who want to come out, but are trapped in an environment of insane believers?

If someone with the credentials of Professor Dawkins is metaphorically smacked in the head by every indignant believer, what happens to everyday joe who doesn't have the resources, support or power to protect himself from those around him who would make life uncomfortable as a result of his scepticism?

Other Comments by Prufrock

30. Comment #71960 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:18 am

How on Earth can you have an intellectual equivalent in Theology?

I found out something rather interesting.... the undergraduate prospectus for the Theology course at Oxford University includes a discussion about "whether Evolution is a satisfactory explanation for the origins of life". I do wonder how these people feel themselves qualified to discuss such subjects... I eagerly await the Theology Department's courses on black hole theory.

If Theology was simply a discussion about the hypothetical idea of a God it would not be so bad. However, the taint of the true believer is clear in their assumption that their sub-standard philosophical ideas can be applied to other subjects...

Other Comments by steve99

31. Comment #71961 by Russell Blackford on September 20, 2007 at 2:27 am

Some damn butterfly!

Thanks for the succinct reply to her nonsense, Richard. Midgley's ignorance was probably obvious to many, but it doesn't hurt to spell it out clearly and bluntly.

What I find especially tiresome, and would find bloody infuriating in Richard's situation, is that her comments are a pastiche of every cliched distortion or outright misrepresentation of his views that we've seen over and over again, and which Richard has already dealt with in a clear way innumerable times. Yet, we get people who think it's acceptable to trot it all out yet one more time, and one more still, hey, and maybe just once more ... with no acknowledgment that it's already been addressed. As I read what she says, it sure looks as if it is someone being too lazy to come up with anything new, and sufficiently cynical (or malicious?) to repeat the same old stuff in the hope that there will be a lot of people out there in Newspaper Land who are too ignorant to know the difference.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

32. Comment #71963 by epeeist on September 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Comment #71941 by RascoHeldall

I'm very concerned with the number of dumbass or dishonest anti-atheist 'thought' pieces that have started to pepper the Independent of late.

Unfortunately the "Guardian" is no better, see today's edition for the piece by Seamus Milne.

And as for the Times... (with apologies to steve99)

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #71964 by epeeist on September 20, 2007 at 2:43 am

Comment #71960 by steve99

I found out something rather interesting.... the undergraduate prospectus for the Theology course at Oxford University includes a discussion about "whether Evolution is a satisfactory explanation for the origins of life".

Dead easy - evolution isn't a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life.

It does a bloody good job once life exists though.

Other Comments by epeeist

34. Comment #71965 by BillySands on September 20, 2007 at 2:51 am

Is there another RD out there that we haven't met, or is this person down on all fours, howling at the moon whilst the invisible sky fairy allows buddy holly into her head to play music in a room full of padded wall paper?
I find it bizarre that anyone who follows the blood thirsty baby eating christian god sould criticise any moral position. Still, they dont seem to want to understand what they are complaining against enough to actually pay attention to minor details like facts - if only they could see.

If Theology was simply a discussion about the hypothetical idea of a God it would not be so bad. However, the taint of the true believer is clear in their assumption that their sub-standard philosophical ideas can be applied to other subjects...

This is so true, I get it all the time, then you point out the flaws in the arguement, and it just bounces off them. What indeed does theology have to say on consciousness, free will, motivation, emotion, true origins etc? Bugger all! that's what.
I would love to hear the flea attempt justify evolution through theology - that wouldnt be too pretty for folk who don't like to see dimb animals being ripped apart. I presume thats why he runs away to mummy when the challenge pops up

Other Comments by BillySands

35. Comment #71971 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 3:23 am

Ah. A further demonstration that even the Village Atheist has to suffer the Village Idiot.

Other Comments by _J_

36. Comment #71984 by notsobad on September 20, 2007 at 4:33 am

Belief does not compete with science; it means different things.

This does not even need to be commented on...

How can they publish such a piece of inaccurate, uninformed and childish piece of writing? (rhetorical question; I know how)

Other Comments by notsobad

37. Comment #71987 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 4:38 am

"People are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious"

The most important understanding of this statement, which sets up the rest of the article and the author's viewpoint - is one of emotion/feeling.

Whenever people become predicated on emotions/feelings rather than facts/evidence, there is no reasoning with them in any sense.

By claiming "morally pernicious" this intends to draw an emotional response, which should outrage the reader (hijack his/her emotions) into reflecting how science seeks to victimize society by being cold, crass, and non-existent of feeling. Religion is nothing if not about "feeling" – good, bad, right, wrong, etc.

This is precisely what's wrong with religion - its very foundations are rooted within indoctrinating people at their most vulnerable, and consequently, their most emotional; childhood – with no choice (vulnerable to existence); adulthood – at an emotional event that emotions running at their highest need consolation that none can provide, except god (vulnerable - without answers).

Once this "emotional imprint" is made, you'll have a hard time rationalizing with anyone.

Emotional people are rarely, if ever, people of solid reason and logic.

Other Comments by scooternyc

38. Comment #71992 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 20, 2007 at 5:02 am

"Dawkins is very angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, but science cannot answer some questions."

What a load of utter rubbish (aside from not being able to answer everything - at the moment). We know there are things we don't know (uh, oh, I think I did a Bushism with the known unknowns). This silly sentence is the exact thinking that lies behind ever fundie who claims that scientists or atheists are arrogant. They still don't get it.


"We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world."

Bayond the material world would be where exactly? I think I might have dropped mine down the back of the sofa.


"Then it's understanding we're after rather than information."

No, it's not. It's that warm fuzzy feeling of reassurance you are after. It's the comfy blanket of warmth and the safety net of not having to engage your brain.


"These are not questions like "is there a box on the table?" but questions of inner life, that can't be settled in the lab."

Inner life? Is that in the same location as that beyond the material world place? Damn these wishful realities are hard to keep track of. Any time you think you've got one nailed down, poof, someone invents another one.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

39. Comment #71993 by A.Lex on September 20, 2007 at 5:03 am

"There are questions science cannot answer"

Religion answers ALL questions, even those that haven't been asked yet!

(somebody said that before - RD?)

Other Comments by A.Lex

40. Comment #71997 by Shifty Frog on September 20, 2007 at 5:11 am

My first thought was that someone snuck an article in from The Onion but alas, no...

I'm fairly new at atheism, having wasted most of my 44 years of life being a member of at least 5 different religions. I know I'm not anywhere near Douglas Adam's level of talent or intellect, but I do credit Professor Dawkins with my "conversion". It was after reading The God Delusion last year that I was born thrice - i.e. rational thought smacked me upside the head with the 2X4 of logic. Aside from the birth of my daughter, it has been the most profound and satisfying experience of my life, thus far.

My question here would be how in the world does one deal with outright...well...crap like Mrs. Midgley writes? It's only been a short time, but I've already had to endure horrendously awful arguments from theists, and I wasn't being personally lied about or attacked as Professor Dawkins was, and is! I always believe in being courteous, but people's utterly stubborn refusals to see facts or even concede that they *might* be mistaken is fairly disheartening, to put it mildly.

Sorry to ramble on, but this article pushed a lot of buttons with me...I wish I had the talent to write my own 2X4 of logic!

Liz in CT aka Shifty Frog

Other Comments by Shifty Frog

41. Comment #71998 by Evil Genius on September 20, 2007 at 5:12 am

At the beginning, I thought it was great that this site were willing to print criticism as well as praise, but after a while, well, is it just me, or do you get the feeling that merely acknowledging this sort of tripe lends it a credence it does not deserve?

Other Comments by Evil Genius

42. Comment #72001 by Mudskipper on September 20, 2007 at 5:21 am

Oh my. That sounds if it was written by a 13 year old. I really can't believe this woman is a published philosopher.

I found this in the wikipedia:

She also believes that she is "lucky" to have missed out in having to undertake a PhD. She argues that one of the main flaws in doctoral training is that, while it "shows you how to deal with difficult arguments", it does not "help you to grasp the big questions that provide its context - the background issues out of which the small problems arose"[2]. Midgley was awarded an honorary D. Litt by Durham University in 1995.

It wouldn't have hurt though, would it?

Other Comments by Mudskipper

43. Comment #72004 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 5:33 am

Liz,

You make my point poignantly clear about the emotional hijacking and spewing of venom towards those that are not believers.

Welcome to the rest of your life rooted in logic and reason, we're glad you joined us and happy to have you part of the educated society.

Other Comments by scooternyc

44. Comment #72008 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 5:50 am

Shifty Frog

Can I join scooternyc in saying welcome? A nice little conversion story, there - fills my cold, baby-eating atheist heart with joy. Have you added it to Converts' Corner?

Mudskipper

Oh, surely not? Is it so easy to become a philosopher that any doctorate-less idiot can do it so long as they are both (a) not a doctor, and (b) demonstrably an idiot? [Wails and gnashes teeth, ironically]

Other Comments by _J_

45. Comment #72009 by rgpratt on September 20, 2007 at 6:00 am

The interview finishes with this announcement:

Mary Midgley's Impact Pamphlet 'Intelligent Design and Other Ideological Problems' will be launched with a debate on 3 October at King's College, London (Franklin Wilkins Building, 2pm). To book, email Sarah Moore: sarah.2.moore@kcl.ac.uk; or call 020-7848 3099.

If I lived in the UK I would be tempted to show up, and try to get a comment or two in at the microphone. However, as a warning to those who might want to try this, the "debate" appears to be stacked: I also found this information the Uncommon Descent (ID proponents) weblog:

Next month, Midgley will debate the place of ID in UK education with Steve Fuller, Nicholas Everitt, and Giles Fraser. The venue is Room G73 in the Franklin Wilkins Building (Waterloo Campus) of King's College London, October 3rd, 2007, at 2:00pm with a buffet lunch available from 1:00pm.

...

Mary Midgley will debate her pamphlet with Professor Steve Fuller (Warwick), Dr. Nicholas Everitt (UEA, author of The Non-existence of God), and Dr. Giles Fraser (Vicar of Putney and Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford).

The UD weblog is currently "undergoing maintenance", you can find the cached page with a Google search on "Mary Midgley debate Kings college"

Other Comments by rgpratt

46. Comment #72010 by epeeist on September 20, 2007 at 6:01 am

Comment #72008 by _J_

Mudskipper

Oh, surely not? Is it so easy to become a philosopher that any doctorate-less idiot can do it so long as they are both (a) not a doctor, and (b) demonstrably an idiot? [Wails and gnashes teeth, ironically]

Ok, I have posted this before, but it is worth repeating:

The most expensive academic to keep is the particle physicist, he requires facilities like the LHC.

Theoretical physicists are not much cheaper, they require access to computers like Blue Gene.

Mathematicians are amongst the cheapest, since all they need are large amounts of pencils and paper and a wastepaper basket.

Philosophers are the cheapest - they don't need the wastepaper basket.

Other Comments by epeeist

47. Comment #72013 by VanYoungman on September 20, 2007 at 6:13 am

Yes, Shifty Frog, a hearty welcome. And for the rest of you check out her wonderful web site.

http://fiberaddiction.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by VanYoungman

48. Comment #72014 by Richard Morgan on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 am

mmurray

Take Frances Collins for example.

No thank you, you can keep him!


I've just checked out the original article. This somewhat reassured me:

Also in this section
* My First Job: Jenny Eclair, star of 'Grumpy Old Women', was a life model

Madge Midgeley and grumpy old women in the same section? Yeah, makes sense to me.Maybe it's Grumpy Old Women's Day soon or something like that.
Reading this piece reminded me of a description of a woman in one of Frédéric Dard's (Sanantonio) books:

On lisait sur son visage l'amertume d'une femme qui a trop joui sans baiser, et qui a trop baisé sans jouir.

(Google translates the verb "baiser" as "to kiss". Yeah, well, it also had that meaning not so long ago...)


EDIT: Oops - I've just noticed my mis-spelling of "Midgley". Must have been because I took it for an adverb instead of a surname. Sorry about that, Midge, er, oops, Madge!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

49. Comment #72015 by Roger Stanyard on September 20, 2007 at 6:23 am

Without reading Midgley's pamphlet it is dificult for me to comment on but she sems to have no grasp of what is happenig in the Intelligent Design world. People are not flocking to it. The whole shooting match looks to be in its death throws.

Dembski and Behe have cashed in the chips with their latest books and Dembski has also done a runner from the movement and is now teaching fundamentalist apopolgetics at an obscure Bible college (does that surprise anyone?).

The IDers were made a mockery of by the press at the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court, a publc relations disater for them on a massive scale.

Then they lost Dover which exposed them for what they were - creationists.

Having lost both the public relations (read public opinion), scientific and legal battles, there is nowhere for them to go. They've also lost the political battle because America has had enough of right wing religiosity.

One also wonders where Midgley appears to get the idea that anyone in the UK is turning to Intelligent Design, for any reason. I have identified 757 churches in the UK that are endorsing creationism in some form or other and only three are endorsing ID. The rest openly endorse young earth creationism.

Given that tere are over 45,000 churches ion the UK, this is a number so insignificant as to be utterly irrelevent.

Moreover, I can only identify three UK academics that I would describe as IDers - all the others that suggest they do are actually young earth creationists. Of the four, one appears to be wavering. Of the other two, one is a sociologist with a strong post-modernist tendency and with no science background - Steve Fuller. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his position on ID. One of the others (Andrew Walton) is a theologian.

In plain English, there basically is no Intelligent Design movement of any significance in the UK. What it consists of its four academics and the congregation of three obscure churches who probably total no more than 150 in number. Of those, probably only the pastors are serious about it.

The whole ID shooting match here in the UK appears to therefore consist of seven people. When it comes to converting people to ID, Professor Dawkins has the biggest failure of his career on his hands.

Somehow, I doubt whether he will be hanging his head in shame.

Intelligent Design, by any standard, looks to be a dead end and its main proponents in the USA know it. It's being abandoned by the religious and has got nowhere in science.

Nobody is turning or going to turn to ID becaue of Richard Dawkins, science or "new atheism". It's too late.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.


b

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

50. Comment #72016 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 6:30 am

epeeist

Yes, I remember reading you saying that somewhere, but it certainly bears repetition. Anyway, what I was really doing was exploring career options that match my skills and experience, and your summary confirms it: philosophy is the life for me.

Other Comments by _J_