Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4

message: Need a few more eyes on Viruses of the Mind.  Please check it out and contribute/comment.  Thanks. *Spark* 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're reading.  I must have missed the part that said the child was his, or that the essay was inspired by her.  *Spark* 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viruses of the Mind 

message: I suggest we delete this paragraph in the article:
Reason? Dawkins himself has repudiated the use of the analogy. In the preface to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene Dawkins writes:
Agreed? Mikker (...) 23:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If he himself no longer supports the metaphor, no need for it here.  In the book article it could be mentioned that he once supported it but now does not. --*Spark* 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necker cube... 

message: Under the religion section, and in respect to NOMA, this is what's written: "He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NonOverlapping MAgisteria (NOMA) and with similar ideas proposed by Martin Rees regarding the coexistence of science and religion without conflict, calling the former "positively supine."  "   First of all, this doesn't make sense.  Supine is not an insult.  It is an adjective meaning "lying on one's back" and Dawkins was using this when discussing how Gould was bending over backwards to appease detractors.  So this Wiki sentence provides no relevant information, and is in fact misleading.  The fragment "calling the former 'positively supine'" should be removed.
Also in this NOMA section, the point that Dawkins is trying to make is badly represented.  Dawkins does say in The God Delusion (this is from the Wiki article) " Dawkins replies "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"  ".  But this is a jibe, not his main argument.  His main point is that the question of whether or not God exists is NOT out of the reach of scientific inquiry (as Gould and his NOMA would have you believe).  Dawkins states that the question of God can be evaluated scientifically based on available evidence and given a probability, in the same way that the existence of an invisible, mute, and intangible unicorn could be scientifically evaluated and given a probability.  This is true even if the existence of God can never be 100% disproven.  His argument against NOMA needs to be included instead of, or at least in addition to his jibe.  My source for everything I have discussed is Dawkins's book The God Delusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.148.59.199 (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree about the quote. It is helpful to have Dawkins' "positively supine" comment to get the tone of what he said. If you want to add something more substantial about how he argued, using The God Delusion, go ahead. Metamagician3000 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation of Information Presented Under Religion, Subsection NOMA

message: I've added a couple of not-very-good sentences with a citation tag. I think we should say something to emphasise his adaptationist views, as opposed to the more pluralistic views about evolutionary mechanisms that we see from Gould and others, so it is clear what the controversy is about. Also, I think we should be clearer that he is explicitly skeptical about group selection (for example) while conceding it is theoretically possible. Please improve what I have done rather than just reverting it out; I realise it is not great at the moment, but I'll improve it myself when I have time.
The one other thing that we should perhaps refer to in the stuff about altruism is his potted account, in The God Delusion, of his current thinking on the matter. However, I have not tried to find any words for now. 
With these changes, and proper wording and attribution, I think this section could be declared "finished". Metamagician3000 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone found a good citation for my couple of sentences before I could get around to it. Thanks for that. They weren't especially controversial, but we did need to nail down a source for them. I might still include some other sources, if I find them, because the "unit of selection" issue is so important in his thought. Metamagician3000 06:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary biology

message: %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  Sign!!!!  Why do you not?
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 19:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] [[Sign]]!!!!  Why do you not? 

message: I do want this revived:
On October 18, 2006, Dr. Dawkins was featured on the Comedy Central television talk-show, "The Colbert Report." There to promote his book The God Delusion, he spent the majority of his time arguing religious and political issues with the eccentric host, Stephen Colbert %28character%29.
However, where I generally, w/ some exemptions, like Daily Show, Steve Colbert's show,... I don't have the words.  Part of it would include "worst of Television Guide Channel", & "worst of cartoon channel[s]".
The Francis Collins page does link here.
I do advocate that paragraph, as above.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert Report etc.

message: I don't know if this has come to the attention of anyone, but, in the God Delusion, Chapter 8, Section 4 ("Faith and the Sanctity of Human Life"), Dawkins cites the Wikipedia article Karla Faye Tucker. See citation 126 in the Notes. -Severa  (!!!) 02:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins cites Wiki in ''God Delusion''

message: See http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php for the real letter (well I think thats it) and if you read that it doesn't say he supports eugenics but that the subject should be discussed. The creationist link versions are a most imaginative extrapolation but more wishful thinking than reality. Ttiotsw 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins and eugenics links 

message: I've restructured this section in a way that seems to me to be more logical. Doing so threw up the fact that we need a citation for the John Laurent article and other claims made in the relevant para (the previous structure tended to hide this gap, at least from my eyes). Does anyone have a citation for this? Metamagician3000 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memetics section and need for a citation

message: Sorry for the absence, nice to see the quality of the article hasn't suffered during all the book publicity.
Regarding:
:"Oxford theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of Christian theology and mischaracterising religious people in general. McGrath asserted that Dawkins has become better known for his rhetoric than for his reasoning, and that there is no clear basis for Dawkins' hostility towards religion. In response, Dawkins stated his position that Christian theology is vacuous, and that the only area of theology which might command his attention would be the arguments to demonstrate God's existence. Dawkins criticised McGrath for providing no argument to support his beliefs, other than the fact that they cannot be falsified."
I'd like to add something along the lines of "... and the charge of ignorance of theology has been dubbed 'the courtier's reply'.", referencing: http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers
However, the phrase is very new not especially widespread, so I'm not sure whether I should.  Any objections?  Joe D (t) 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be disinclined to rely on blogs as sources. I know it's more a line call with those hosted on Science Blogs, which have a big audience and pretty reputable people such as Myers, so I'm open to argument. But I'd rather wait for an unequivocally notable source to discuss the so-called Courier's Reply. E.g. wait for Myers to write his book or an article published in a notable journal or magazine. Metamagician3000 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, we do have articles on both Myers and his blog. It's a very notable blog, so there may be some way of saying this concisely with specific attribution to Myers. Metamagician3000 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "theology is vacuous" 

message: I am familiar with Dawkins books, but I thought he was a research scientist with an extensive publication record. I could only find about twenty publications of his. There are several other R. Dawkins (Rosie etc.). Dawkins is really a science writer philosopher. Isaac Asimov was similar. Not that I am criticizing his contribution, but I was surprised (given the magnitude of his career and success).GetAgrippa 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you take account of his more technical publications here:http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/biblio.shtml
--Dannyno 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many are peer reviewed, on your count, and how many not? --Dannyno 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are his works

message: This film should be removed, because Dawkins has nothing to do with it.  Cloud someone please tell me why it is here.
Max18well 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the film's article, Dawkins appears on a commentary track of the DVD. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the film and he does appear in the commentary.  Sophia 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The God who wasn't there

message: Can anyone tell me why we are citing a relatively obscure article by S. Jonathan Whitby for the discussion of memetics? I'm open to explanation, but at the moment it looks to me as if this is not especially salient - not more than probably many other articles about memetics. Thoughts? Metamagician3000 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No responses? I'm strongly inclined to delete this reference, so I'm serving notice. If someone wants to defend its significance, please do so. Metamagician3000 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've removed the material. Here it is, with the citation, for future reference ... if anyone can defend its re-inclusion. and Jonathan Whitty to apply it.Whitty, S. Jonathan (2005).  A Memetic Paradigm of Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 23 (8) 575-583. Metamagician3000 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitby article

message: User:60.242.13.87 recently made some seriously POV edits that were (righly) reverted. I did, however, notice he wanted external links to articles critical of Dawkins and I've always thought this was a good idea. We used to have such links — mainly to creationsist websites — and I think we should reintroduce them. As most regulars here will know, I am quite a fan of Dawkins' but I still think it is important to let readers make up their own minds. See Larry's big reply for some further considerations in this direction. Mikker (...) 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but how about links that actually add something. The "I'm a Christian, and athiesm is bunk" type of review adds nothing. We know Christians disagree with Dawkins. It is as pointless as using Dawkins to critisize a Christian theologist. --Michael Johnson 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Wikipedia should link to representative commentaries, no matter how useless we may think they are. That's what it means to let the reader decide. --JWSchmidt 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Book reviews aren't published for being representative, they're published for being well written and reasoned. A representative commentary on Dawkins would be a blog or forum posting from someone not particularly knowledgeable on evolution or religion. These are not included, precisely because they are useless to the reader. Uselessness is an excellent reason for not including something. -- Schaefer (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of external links unless they are references ... or are indispensable, such as an individual's own website. We already have books about Dawkins, including books that are critical or objective (such as Sterelny's excellent little book about Dawkins and Gould). However, if we are going to list otherwise-uncited material about Dawkins from the internet, as opposed to material in book form, I don't see why it should just be material that is critical of him. Moreover, any material that is critical of him should be something of note. E.g. if Richard Lewontin had an important essay critiqueing Dawkins on his website - or if Sterelny had an analysis, supplementing his book, somewhere on the internet - I'd consider that more encyclopedic than some stray negative book review. Metamagician3000 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends on what it is. If there is a significant critique available on the internet - whether by someone like Gould or Lewontin or by someone from a religious perspective - yeah, let's link to it. But not a whole lot of book reviews, or whatever. It should be material of some substance, and most such material should already be mentioned in the article, no? Metamagician3000 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That was an edit by an ip which was soon reverted. Mikker (...) 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody seems to have put it back in again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.157.1.180 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical external links 

message: The "Articles about Dawkins and his ideas" are all articles which criticise or attack his writings. This isn't a balanced view, at least not under its current heading. Either that section should contain a representative sample of articles both for and against, or it should be retitled "Articles critical of Dawkins and his ideas", shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.146.116 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an edit by an ip which was soon reverted. Mikker (...) 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody seems to have put it back in again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.157.1.180 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: all critical

message: If we accept that antitheism is a valid term (and there has been an article on it since Sept 05 ) it's clear that Dawkins isn't merely an atheist (like say Martin Rees) but an antitheist.  Certainly in the over 4,000 google hits on (Dawkins Antitheist) both pro- and anti-Dawkins people claim this. When I put it in the lead-in it seemed non-controversial and was apparently accidentally reverted after 2 days.  What do people think? NBeale 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should hinge on whether Dawkins self-identifies as an antitheist. -- Schaefer (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Unless he defines himself in that way (and I don't believe he does) it is not the sort of thing that should be put in lead. If there is a reliable source for a notable claim that his views go beyond atheism into something called "antitheism" it can be cited in the appropriate place in the article. Metamagician3000 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's clearly POV without a source and, even when sourced, should not go in the lead, but in the main body. Mikker (...) 07:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And another problem is that the term antitheism seems to be a definitional nightmare, judging by our article on the subject. Putting a claim like that in the lead, where we can't go defining extraneous terms, would just cause confusion. If we said in the body of the article, with proper citations, "Important thinkers Foo Snark and Jack Bloggs have claimed that Dawkins is actually an antitheist, in so far as he considers the belief in a god or gods to be socially harmful", then that would probably be fine. Metamagician3000 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No he doesn't say that - searching for "Dawkins" in the page I see that Stenger's only reference to Dawkins is with "See The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins for details on the evolution of the eye,". That's simply a cite for Dawkins not a label. Ttiotsw 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But none of the other labels assigned to RD is a controversial term with an uncertain meaning. When "antitheist" was added, note that it was done in the form of a parenthetical "indeed, antitheist" - and the word "indeed" signals that the person who added it knows very well that the comment moves beyond statement of fact into personal interpretation. It means "and some might even consider him an antitheist, shock, horror!" It is therefore original research and a loaded term - indeed, a weasel word. See what I mean? Snalwibma 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's far more controversy/uncertainty about "atheist" because of the "weak atheist" trope that tries to re-label agnostitcs etc.. as atheists.  "indeed athitheist" was certainly not intended to be read in this way, it's an intensifier c/f "it sold well - indeed it was number one on Amazon".  And the idea that Dawkins is actively against belief in God and considers it socially harmful is not rocket science or OR. No-one ITRW would consider this claim controversial at all! NBeale 06:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One only has to consider the self-selected terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (and their politically-weaponised opposites) to realise that labelling anything with the prefix "anti-" is liable to cause trouble.  Unless Dawkins refers to himself with this term (and well he might for all I know) it shouldn't be considered here.  On the whole (and there are exceptions) most people and organisations prefer not to label themselves with a negative prefix.  Positive statements usually "sell better".  Perhaps we could instead label Dawkins pro-living-in-the-real-world or pro-fantasy-denial?  ; )  --Plumbago 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dawkins self-identifies as an atheist, he doesn't self-identify as an "anti-theist" (AFAIK). And of course labels like "atheist" are controversial -- but people have a whole book, The God Delusion, to read to find out exactly what Dawkins's position is on the issue. The same cannot be said, however, of the term "anti-theist". Besides, what you seem to want to convey with the term anti-theist, "Dawkins is actively against belief in God and considers it socially harmful", is already covered by the term humanist. Mikker (...) 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI regarding the applicability of terminology and the likelihood of causing debate: anti-theist, while obviously true, is probably even more likely to cause debate than "atheist" -- which I thought was a wholly uncontroversial identity for Dawkins, but see the arguments from others, just last month, that "atheist" was a problematic term to attach to Dawkins.  (Talk:Richard Dawkins#Religion=Atheism revert)  There were a lot of discussions specific to (a) categorization (can "atheism" be considered a "subset" of religion or are the "religion" categories, headings, and fields not "proper subsets") and (b) the infobox (should religion be in the box at all?  should atheism be listed in the religion field?); but there were also significant arguments from coelacan and Mikker that Dawkins' position was somehow "nuanced".  I've never seen much nuance in it, myself, but then I was on the losing side of the lack of consensus in that discussion.  )-8 --lquilter 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I was a little bit confused last month — I had been reading about / listening to a lot of sceptics at the time and my memories of people's various positions merged a bit. Dawkins clearly does identify as an atheist (see ch.4 of The God Delusion). The problem in the discussion linked to by lquilter was that describing atheism as a "religion" in the infobox was POV. (coelacan makes good arguments to this effect in the archived discussion). Mikker (...) 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Re the comment by lquilter, though, I agree that there can't be any doubt that Dawkins is an atheist and identifies as such. The only question is whether this should be recorded as his "religion" in an infobox. I still think that atheism is not a religion, though it is a belief about religion, in that it entails the claim that all the theistic religions are false. I think that we have handled it the right way by referring to Dawkins as an atheist in the lead and discussing his atheistic views in some detail in the body of the article. Metamagician3000 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  atheist - indeed antitheist 

message: I am uneasy about the way a comment from Keith Ward has been tacked on to the end of the paragraph about The Root of All Evil? It says (in its current form) Keith Ward suggests that "the assertion that religion does more harm than good ignores the available evidence ... [and substitutes] rhetoric for analysis." I have no doubt he does say this, but is it a comment specifically about the television programme discussed in the paragraph? And if so, how exactly does it add to our understanding of that programme? Sounds to me like a general swipe at Dawkins, stuck on at the end of the paragraph in an attempt to ensure that the critics have the "final say". Unless its relevance to the programme is clear, and it can be built in more neatly as an integral part of the paragraph, I would like to delete again. I am not suppressing anything, just trying to ensure that the article is well structured and makes sense. Succumbing to the urge to chuck in every comment about Dawkins you can find (whether pro or anti) just degrades the readability. Snalwibma 08:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited this into shape because it originally said "other critics", but the citation showed it was actually just one person: Keith Ward. I don't see why this particular example was important to include, but perhaps Nbeale will enlighten us. Metamagician3000 08:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I totally agree with the commemt that it is inappropriate to chuck in random comments of disagreement or support. That way lies the path of the article degenerating into a mess and the editing process degenerating into a dog-fight as I've seen happen with so many other controversial articles. Metamagician3000 08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I rather doubt if the whole book was written "in response to this TV series"! It sounds more like Ward spotting an opportunity to get in a cheap jibe. I still think (as said above, and also by Metamagician) that it is a bad idea to keep adding this sort of "me too" cruft, however distinguished the commentator, and regardless of whether he's a member of the Freshwater Biological Association! Comments should be included only if they throw light on the topic of the article, not by virtue of the perceived importance of whoever makes them. How exactly does adding this enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject? Snalwibma 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the review of Ward's book cited on the article about it, it's commented that Ward "has turned himself into a one-man Richard Dawkins Rebuttal Agency" (not dissimilarly to Alister McGrath it would appear).  Although that's only one reviewer's opinion, Ward doesn't sound like the sort of source we'd ideally use - anything better?  By the way, I think the FBA might refer to the British Academy, rather than aquatic pursuits.  --Plumbago 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK - I knew what FBA was. The point I was trying to get across is that Fellowship of the British Academy is no more relevant than membership of the Farnborough Breadmaking Association, if what he has to say adds nothing of substance to the article. Snalwibma 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Plumbago & Snalwibma. Holloway (not an FBA but a disgruntled ex-bishop) is just being mischievous, Ward's publication record is much wider than that!  Ward's point is that there is a lot of evidence about the net effects of religion and this is ignored by Dawkins & co who "substiture rhetoric for analysis". As you'll see I have adjusted the quote to remove what might seem a jibe and make it clear what the substance of his criticisms are.  I'm working on expanding the article on Is Religion Dangerous? to give the details, which are clearly beyond the scope of this article.  But I think readers need the opportunity to judge for themselves whether Ward's criticisms are valid. NBeale 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the response. NBeale. You say that "the details [of Ward's argument] are clearly beyond the scope of this article." My point is that even the oh-so-predictable knee-jerk reaction of someone like Ward is beyond the scope of an article which is supposed to be about Dawkins. I have looked again at what you have added, I have considered its contribution to the article, and my conclusion is that it's just fluff, so I have deleted. Once again - just because you have come across someone else who says "Me too - I don't agree with Dawkins either" you don't have to add a reference to him to this article. Take it to Keith Ward. Or (once again) show how it actually aids the understanding of what this article (on Dawkins, remember?) is about. Snalwibma 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't actually see the harm in mentioning that "One theistic philosopher, Keith Ward, former Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, has written a book arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous." If that is the fact of it, why not say exactly that (and no more)? What I'd object to is opening up the gates for more and more opinions of Dawkins' work, of which there are literally thousands. Metamagician3000 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ...or handle it as Nbeale has in his latest edit - I don't think that is objectionable. Metamagician3000 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keith Ward in Religion section

message: As it stands, this was a page of atheistic hero-worship.  Yet biographies of people with the opposite ideology to Dawkins are considered POV if at least half of the article is not criticism.58.162.2.122 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is critisism of Dawkins in the article. These links are nothing more than spam for a small group of fringe religions. --Michael Johnson 07:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of scientist critics against Dawkins notably Gould who characterized Dawkins ideas as oversimplification, hyperDarwinism, and an untestable hypothesis. Perhaps the strongest arguments against Dawkins comes from population genetics and genome sequencing. Originally the selfish DNA hypothesis was proposed to address junk DNA (note I call it DNA as Dawkins does not discuss genes as sequence, etc but as a theoretical construct).  Selfish DNA was posited as a random replicator serving no function in producing the phenoype. Genome sequencing and molecular genetics is demonstrating junk DNA does have a function and can contribute to the phenotype-transposons and silencing gene mechanims both alter the phenoype. While Dawkins ideas do have appeal especially to sociobiologist, he has modified his ideas to accomodate new information. It makes for good theoretical arguments, but if it can't be modeled or tested it will fall out of vogue.GetAgrippa 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The lack of a Criticism section here is indeed puzzling, given that every creationist side article that I have seen has one (something I have always been for). If a seperate section for criticism is not needed here, does this mean criticism sections should be removed in all articles? As far as this one goes, I have no opinion, really, but if that's the procedure, there's a ton of other articles that will need serious work... --Bonesiii 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Should anyone want to buy this book it is currently available on Amazon at half price.  Whether that is a bargain or still overpriced depends on your POV of course <G>. Springnuts 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some good reviews here  rossnixon 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I particularly like how the blog's writer is able to say: "look for McGrath's forthcoming book The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine where he rips Dawkins' The God Delusion to shreds!".  I'm sure they must just have an advance copy of this unpublished book.  They wouldn't otherwise be ranting just like a crazy person …  --Plumbago 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have both on order so will be able to do some "original research" - which of course I will not tell you about!  But you only get a measly 5% off McGrath's book - perhaps this is the Market speaking?  Springnuts 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after a visit to Waterstones, it transpires that McGrath's book is already out; contrary to my comment above.  I'm afraid, however, that to call it a book is somewhat misleading.  It's a wafer-thin pamphlet-come-book, co-written (by the looks of things) with his wife or a female relative.  Still, it's slender length (< 100 pages) might dissuade people that McGrath's gotten all obsessional about Dawkins.  --Plumbago 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buying "The God Delusion" 

message: Since I'm sure it will end up being referenced here if not deleted I invite other editors to comment on the AfD page .  Sophia 08:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Antagonistic atheism]]

message: I've never understood how one sentence relates to the sentence immediately before it. It may be obvious to a biologist, but if it's not obvious to me (someone reasonably literate in the field) I suspect that it won't be to lots of others: In The Selfish Gene, however, Dawkins explains that he is using George C. Williams' definition of gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency". Could someone reword this and maybe expand it into a couple of sentences so it is clearer how it answers what is said in the sentence before? Metamagician3000 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I believe this was brought up in the peer review of ages ago but it still hasn't been fixed. I also have never been able to figure out how the quote fits in with the fist part of the sentence. That said, it was written by... erm... can't remember who but it was someone I respected, I can remember that. Mikker (...) 15:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence needing explanation

message: To say "a major contriubtion to evolutionary theory" expresses a POV (which a cutting-edge bio-scientist I asked recently completely disagrees with) that it is a major contribution. Only 374 of the 621,000 G-hits on "major contribution" only about 0.5% remain when you add "extended phenotype" and many of these are simply reproductions of our article or are not about the subject.  I see Plumbago's point that "his major contribution" might be read as saying it was "his greatest achievement" overall. The citation figures BTW are: Selfish Gene 3485, Watchmaker 1338, Extended Phenotype 909, Improbable 226, River 88, Rainbow 88, Devil's Chaplain 16.  To be really NPOV we should say "a contribution" - the fact that the book is widely cited speaks for itself. NBeale 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  It's better for sure.  I'm probably being paranoid, but "widely cited" sounds a little bit damning-with-faint-praise.  Both Web of Science and Scopus report cites for Extended Phenotype of > 500, which would be extraordinary for a normal scientific paper.  That said, compared to popular textbooks like Alberts' Molecular Biology of the Cell, it's a bit tiddling (> 4000; though Selfish Gene comes much closer).  Anyway, my edit earlier was more to do with it looking like "We" (= Wikipedia) were judging EP to be his most significant work.  Cheers, --Plumbago 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely Cited contribution 

message: "He gained a second class BA degree in zoology in 1962".  A 2:1 or a 2:2? Big difference. Lfh 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I suspect that the upper/lower second class distinction may not have existed at that point - it is a relatively recent phenomenon I believe. TJ 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should anyone care? Mikker (...) 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the degree class is mentioned at all is a bit odd.  It's been there for ages though.  Leaving it at "... a BA degree in zoology ..." would be fine.  After a PhD is attained, a scientist's ordinary degree class is really rather irrelevant (and it's not mentioned on the pages of other scientists I've looked at).  It's almost like listing someone's O grade scores or swimming certificates.  --Plumbago 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "second-class" now deleted. Utterly irrelevant. Now gone. Snalwibma 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection at all to deleting it. I'm just not used to hearing the phrase "second class degree" rather than upper or lower second - but clearly things were different in the 60s. Lfh 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree classification