Two Items from Science magazine

This week's Science is out today and I found a couple of interesting non-research items.

Continue Reading

First is the editorial by editor-in-chief Donnald Kennedy titled, "Twilight for the Enlightenment?" I think it is a little on the alarmist side, but he points at several trends that worry him. First is the meddling with public education to the detriment of the sciences. He does not give any citations, but he says that even "geology materials are being rewritten because their dates for Earth's age are inconsistent with scripture (too old)." Second he criticises President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief policies. Although it is supposedly "evidence-based," Kennedy apparently sees it as "faith-based" without grounding in reality. However he is a little vague on this point. Lastly he laments that certain scientific inquiries are proscribed (ie embryonic stem cell research) based, not on universal ethical problems, but on religious beliefs held by some and not others.

 

I'm not going to express any opinion on it--just take it for what it is.

 

The other item of interest is a book review by Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine. The book is Dawkins' God, by Alister McGrath. I haven't read it, but it apparently takes on Richard Dawkins' criticisms of religion. Overall the review is more positive than I expected it to be. However, Shermer is disappointed because McGrath does not engage a central issue.

 

I was eager to read Dawkins' God because of the gladiatorial weight of the contestants and what they represent. And although McGrath presents many side issues in a pleasantly readable fashion (e.g., Darwin's religiosity, the historiography of science and religion, and how and where religion embraces science), he dodges the biggest question of all, the question at the heart of Dawkins's writings: Is there a God? Whether Dawkins is simplistic or sarcastic or sardonic is a secondary issue. By elevating it to the primary focus of the book, McGrath missed an opportunity to make his case, pace Dawkins, and give us the very best arguments in his arsenal. With McGrath, I still do not know why he believes in God. With Dawkins, there is no doubt about where he stands.