Intelligent Design

Is Dawkins Really an Enemy of Science?

Spread the love

I wonder – aiming a science book at children entitled The Magic of Reality might be seen as encouraging them to think of the practice in the same way they might read a fairy story, or watch Fantasia or the fictional Harry Potter for that matter. I have not read this new book yet, but online accounts suggest it is well illustrated and aimed at giving children an understanding of how scientists ‘know what’s really true.’ A shame it doesn’t teach children to think in terms of formal logic and philosophy and give them the skills to engage science critically by asking questions about prior foundational commitments; or more simply, giving children skills in scientific hermeneutics, or an understanding of the place of paradigms in science where scientists actually have the freedom to disagree. Of course in this brave-new-world thinking children are not part of the vision, instead appealing to the imagination is more beneficial with brightly colored books.

But that is an aside; I would question whether the desire to instill a sense of godless wonder in nature is really encouraging nature worship. Is this Dawkins’ true goal? I can’t imagine it is, but this is why I ask whether he really cares about science. For the Christian a sense of wonder arises out of the beauty and order that God has given to the creation; but for the godless naturalist there is no need to hold to a belief in order at all, in which case science loses its firm foundation. I wonder whether Dawkins is unwittingly taking us back to Zoonomia, The Temple of Nature or the Botanic Garden where the naturalistic narrative is more important than the science? 

Perhaps he ought to reassure us on this question.

5 Replies to “Is Dawkins Really an Enemy of Science?

  1. 1
    Petrushka says:

    I can remember reading “Microbe Hunters” as a child and being fascinated by the world of science.

    What interested me was the dedication to research.

  2. 2
    Collin says:

    Dawkins’ belief in science is subject to his belief in materialism. When he discussed the possibility of telepathy with Ruper Sheldrake (a man who has done research into telepathy) he said “I don’t want to discuss evidence.”
    http://www.sheldrake.org/D.....wkins.html

  3. 3
    Seqenenre says:

    Does Jesus have an Oedipus complex?

  4. 4
    Mytheos says:

    Dawkins is concerned about “what’s true”.
    Since he cant know if a designer is true he strikes it from his list.

    Since he cant know if life began by an unguided accidental process he strikes it o….
    Since he cant know if the entire system of earth is making gradual upgrades he stri….

    Hang on! This guy isn’t concerned about what’s true at all!
    He’s just teaching whatever he feels like and putting down others who want to do the same.

  5. 5
    Collin says:

    Troll.

Leave a Reply