Letter: Science giants do a good job: we're hooked and keen to learn
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.According to Colin Tudge, "only Dawkins gets it right". But Richard Dawkins's writings contain significant distortions of the science. For example, at the heart of his "selfish gene" concept is the outmoded, but still popular, assumption that there is invariably a direct correspondence between specific behaviours and specific genes, so that natural selection can be considered purely at the level of the individual gene. Sometimes (as with colour blindness), this is a good approximation; other situations are less straightforward.
In books such as The Blind Watchmaker, a crucial part of the argument concerns whether there exists a continuous path, leading from the origins of life to man, each step of which is both favoured by natural selection, and small enough to have happened by chance. It appears to be presented as a matter of logical necessity that such a path exists, but actually there is no such logical necessity; rather, commonly made assumptions in evolution theory require the existence of such a path. Once one admits this, one must admit also that large parts of the argument are, as often is the case in science, hypothetical in character, but it seems it would be too dangerous to bring this fact to readers' attention.
Professor Brian Josephson
Department of Physics
University of Cambridge
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments