1. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181025 by rgpratt on May 16, 2008 at 10:05 am

SteveN:

Jiten said "But I can't wait for Dawkins's own next book."


I agree. As much as I have been so thoroughly pleased with events since Richard released "The God Delusion", it's his popular science writing that I enjoy the most. Does he have such a book in progress, does anyone know?

According to this article http://www.observer.com/2008/richard-dawkins-follow-god-delusion-sold-free-press-3-5-million Richard is to be paid $3.5 million for a book on the evidence for evolution. It has a great title: Only a theory? (read it aloud as a question). The question mark is the key, and of course William Dembski completely misses the point in his sneering blog here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dawkins-cashes-in-on-darwins-upcoming-bicentennial/

2. Science Debate 2008

Comment #122450 by rgpratt on February 5, 2008 at 9:28 am

In case any one else is confused:

This is a petition to urge US presidential candidates to participate in a debate on science and technology.

Perhaps a little "Amero-centric" to assume everyone would just know this. But of course a laudable initiative!

3. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96038 by rgpratt on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 pm

A few months ago the (Toronto) Globe and Mail published my letter to the editor, in response to a particularly galling defense of male circumcision:

Ken Finkelstein (Letters, May 23rd) reports his wife's justification for male circumcision is "to give the boys a permanent happy face". As frivolous as this is, it is infinitely more rationale than the traditional faith-based claim (the unanswerable "because God says so"). Neither argument does much to convince me that it was a good idea when my own foreskin was sliced off 50 years ago.

All I can say is that the less frivolous but equally galling defense given by Kirsten Patrick is atrocious. How on earth can any physician defend a purposeless, painful surgical procedure by stating that it carries little risk, and that there is no research on the long term psychological effects?

I don't suppose Dr. Patrick has a clue as to how an uncircumcised penis might feel when competing in a long distance cycling event, eh? Lets not get into the question of sexual satisfaction.

OK, bring on the jokes about going off "half-cocked" ...

4. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78665 by rgpratt on October 14, 2007 at 7:03 am

Much as I agree with many of the sentiments here, I'm afraid that these criticisms are somewhat off the mark:

edwaltthespisactor
Furthermore, what is this supposed to connote, suicide atheist bombers???:

"militant, atheist writers such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, "

I have yet to see Hitchens or the Prof with a gun in their hands.

octopus
One more point - about journalist. Calling Richard militant is really outrageous. One could write something like that only if:
a) he never read anything from Richard (incompetence)
b) he intentionally does it for propaganda reasons (malicious)

Perhaps a quick view of RD's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113 target="_blank">
here might convince you? (See 5:00 - 5:30 in the talk).

RD is of course speaking with his tongue firmly in cheek, but the point is that we shouldn't really object to the "militant" label; at least one meaning is "aggressive in the service of a cause". (It does nevertheless open the door to those faith-heads who want to conflate this with the other meaning of "engaged in warfare or combat".)

5. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

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"

6. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46695 by rgpratt on June 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

The New York Times published 8 letters responding to Sam Brownback's Op-Ed piece today. Unfortunately, they range from only mildly critical to full endorsement. None are longer than a paragraph or two. Here are some excerpts:

"There is much to agree with in Senator Sam Brownback's article ... they [religion and science] deal with different domains" (The opening, and closing, lines of a letter from the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and executive publisher of Science)

"He [Brownback] makes an excellent point that an appreciation of biological evolution does not necessitate a completely materialistic and deterministic worldview ..." (an associate editor of the journal Evolution).

"...I agree with much of what Senator Sam Brownback has to say about the false choice between faith in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory."

"He [Brownback] brings the most robustly rational argument to this unfortunately emotional debate ..."

Admittedly, I am quoting out of context. But it is interesting that none contain the blistering rebuttal most of us would hope to see, and most of the critical letter-writers feel obliged to mute their criticism, and to seek refuge in the false safety of the "different domains" argument. Hasn't Brownback just demonstrated that he is quite comfortable attempting to use faith to undermine scientific theory? Non-overlapping magesteria my foot.

See this link