# How to Read "The Blind Watchmaker"

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [April 10, 2020, 2:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130 "2020-04-10T14:18:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 5:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/22 "2020-04-10T17:51:54Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> With that in mind, please be respectful of everyone including @davidson.
> 
> It seems that this might be a reaction to precise words he used, but I think there is a charitable way to read him too. It seem that reading Dawkins was an important part of his process and it is worth understanding why.

Okay, I can do this. I’ll address Gregg:

Your piece mischaracterizes TBW, and your defense of this criticism was inappropriate and inaccurate. I don’t think you intended to mislead anyone, but I do think you haven’t recently read the book and you certainly don’t know (or remember) what it’s about. I think you made **big** mistakes that you should own. I will respect that if you decide to do it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 5:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/23 "2020-04-10T17:55:49Z")

</div>

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> Your piece mischaracterizes TBW, and your defense of this criticism was inappropriate and inaccurate. I don’t think you intended to mislead anyone, but I do think you haven’t recently read the book and you certainly don’t know (or remember) what it’s about. I think you made **big** mistakes that you should own. I will respect that if you decide to do it.

Steve, that’s a much friendlier, respectful, charitable yet still clear way to express your point, rather than immediately casting aspersions on someone and connecting it with their being a Christian apologist. Thank you for writing this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 6:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/24 "2020-04-10T18:06:33Z")

</div>

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> Or, maybe @davidson or you can explain where and how Dawkins did this in TBW:
> 
> > I also took no issue with his insistence that there is no evidence _that can be subjected to scientific testing_ for the effectiveness of prayer, the verification of miracles, or life after death.
> 
> I don’t think any of those topics appears in any form in TBW.

The verification of miracles “does not appear in any form” in TBW?

> So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn’t behave like that. I have just uttered the words ‘May I be struck by lightning this minute’. If lightning did strike me in the same minute, it would be treated as a miracle. But actually neither of these two occurrences would be classified by science as utterly impossible. They would simply be judged very improbable, the waving statue much more improbable than the lightning. Lightning does strike people. Any one of us might be struck by lightning, but the probability is pretty low in any one minute (although the Guinness Book of Records has a charming picture of a Virginian man, nicknamed the human lightning conductor, recovering in hospital from his seventh lightning strike, with an expression of apprehensive bewilderment on his face). The only thing miraculous about my hypothetical story is the coincidence between my being struck by lightning and my verbal invocation of the disaster.
> 
> Richard Dawkins, _[The Blind Watchmaker](https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=So,+what+do+we+mean+by+a+miracle#v=onepage&q=So%2C%20what%20do%20we%20mean%20by%20a%20miracle&f=false)_, p. 159

I think a reasonable person can read the above passage as talking about miracles and their verification.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 6:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/25 "2020-04-10T18:10:06Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I think a reasonable person can read the above passage as talking about miracles and their verification.

I don’t. Read it again. Read it in context. It’s not about miracles. It’s really clear that it’s **not** about miracles. (Spoiler: it’s about improbability.) I thought we had made progress in this discussion by reaching an agreement that Gregg is confused about what the book is about. Was I wrong about that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 6:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/26 "2020-04-10T18:13:53Z")

</div>

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> I don’t. Read it again. Read it in context. It’s not about miracles. It’s really clear that it’s **not** about miracles. (Spoiler: it’s about improbability.)

As Dawkins says in the beginning of this chapter:

> Chance, luck, coincidence, miracle. One of the main topics of this chapter is miracles and what we mean by them. My thesis will be that events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events. A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stroke of luck. Events don’t fall neatly into natural events versus miracles.

Dawkins literally titles the chapter “Origins and Miracles”. He is talking about miracles - namely trying to argue that miracles are really just improbable events. I’m not defending Dawkins’ thesis or criticizing it, or even necessarily agreeing with Gregg’s reading or comments. I’m just saying, **it’s not right to say that miracles is not talked about in TBW.**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/27 "2020-04-10T18:20:02Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I’m just saying, **it’s not right to say that miracles is not talked about in TBW.**

And that’s not what I wrote. Since you have chosen pedantic defense of gross mischaracterization, I conclude that your words about charity and respect above were mere cynicism. Peace out. I’m sure it will be just a week or so before the next time someone trots out Dawkins.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 6:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/28 "2020-04-10T18:30:51Z")

</div>

> [@Gregg Davidson: The Resurrection, With a Little Help from Richard Dawkins](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gregg-davidson-the-resurrection-with-a-little-help-from-richard-dawkins/10125/31):
>
> And that’s not what I wrote. Since you have chosen pedantic defense of gross mischaracterization, I conclude that your words about charity and respect above were mere cynicism. Peace out.

This is what you wrote and what I was responding to:

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> Or, maybe @davidson or you can explain where and how Dawkins did this in TBW:
> 
> > I also took no issue with his insistence that there is no evidence _that can be subjected to scientific testing_ for the effectiveness of prayer, the verification of miracles, or life after death.
> 
> **I don’t think any of those topics appears in any form in TBW.** [emphasis mine - DGA]

I think it’s odd that once I actually started quoting passages of the book that are relevant to the matter of whether Dawkins can be read as talking about the verification of miracles in TBW, you respond by saying that a passage in the chapter titled “Origins and Miracles” is actually not about miracles but improbability, and when I contest that you say that it’s “pedantic”.

Once again, I’m not defending Gregg’s particular take on Richard Dawkins. I’m defending his right to read Dawkins without having his character assassinated based on a disagreement of his reading. If you think his reading is wrong, go ahead and argue that, with clear evidence.

As a comparison, lots of people misread the GAE book and/or model. Yet I wouldn’t support calling them liars. I would try to correct their misconceptions and misreadings instead.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 7:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/29 "2020-04-10T19:25:01Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Which means he is seeing an equivalence between:
> 
> - " **we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe**.”
> - “dedicated to **replacing antiquated religious belief with faith in science** ”.
> 
> There is a close connection between those two ideas.

I do not see any equivalence. And I don’t even see a close connection.

I would fully agree with the first of those assertions. I would never assert the second of them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 7:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/30 "2020-04-10T19:32:56Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> We also agree that Dawkins did explicitly decide to replace antiquated religious belief with faith in science in the God Delusion.

How is using the scientific method and objective facts a form of “faith”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 7:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/31 "2020-04-10T19:34:48Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> Yes he is. That does not mean there is a close connection. It certainly doesn’t give him any warrant to tell people that this is what Dawkins meant.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> There is a close connection between those two ideas.

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> No there is not.

Am I imagining Dawkins connecting those two ideas in various presentations?

That is not a facetious question. I’ve listened to Dawkins make similar statements in interviews and lectures. Or are my recollections mistaken?

I realize that the debate at hand is about what Dawkins specifically said in the aforementioned book—but surely @davidson’s understanding of Dawkins’ position is not unwarranted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 7:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/32 "2020-04-10T19:38:22Z")

</div>

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#):
>
> Am I imagining Dawkins connecting those two ideas in various presentations?

I have not heard him say/write “replace antiquated religious belief with faith in science.” Humanists like Steven Pinker (and me) do want to replace religious belief, especially the kind that scrambles good minds (cf this very conversation) but I associate “replace with science” talk with Sam Harris. BUT it’s certainly possible that Dawkins has said this. It sounds silly and simplistic to me.

EDIT: Oops should have completed this: “Humanists like Steven Pinker (and me) do want to replace religious belief, with humanism, …”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 10:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/33 "2020-04-10T22:47:35Z")

</div>

> [@davidson](#):
>
> The origin of my statement that the book is dedicated to replacing religious belief with science comes from both the title - rather explicitly aimed against a designer

Specifically against Paley’s famous watchmaker argument. But explaining how something can evolve instead of being designed has nothing to do with replacing religion with science. Among other reasons because not all design is thought to be done by some sort of entity being worshiped in some religion.

> [@davidson](#):
>
> - and this quote from page 147 "The basic idea of _The Blind Watchmaker_ is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe.” The premise for the book, according to Dawkins, supports my description.

No, it does not. There’s nothing there about religion, and there’s nothing there about replacing religion with science.

To put that into context, here’s what Dawkins writes:

> I am a biologist not a chemist, and I must rely on chemists to get their sums right. Different chemists prefer different pet theories, and there is no shortage of theories. I could attempt to lay all these theories before you impartially. That would be the proper thing to do in a student textbook. This isn’t a student textbook. The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe. We are here concerned with the kind of solution that must be found, because of the kind of problem we are faced with. I think that this is best explained not by looking at lots of particular theories, but by looking at one as an example of how the basic problem - how cumulative selection got its Start - might be solved.

Here’s What Dawkins writes in the introduction:

> This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!  
> The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes (one byte is used to hold each character of text). The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

Again, nothing about religion, and nothing about replacing religion with science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 12:29am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/35 "2020-04-11T00:29:01Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> It seems that this might be a reaction to precise words he used, but I think there is a charitable way to read him too.

I’ve read him charitably, and he has confirmed that I am reading him accurately. He should be reading Dawkins charitably too.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> It seem that reading Dawkins was an important part of his process and it is worth understanding why.

It’s easy to understand why. His reflexive hostile reaction to Dawkins, his attribution to Dawkins of arguments Dawkins never made, and his demonization of Dawkins, are not an inscrutable mystery.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 12:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/36 "2020-04-11T00:30:42Z")

</div>

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#):
>
> Am I imagining Dawkins connecting those two ideas in various presentations?

I have never seen him make such an argument in any presentation. On the contrary, I am certain he would object vehemently to the idea that science and religion are simply equivalent belief systems in which one places “faith”, and that science can be swapped out for religion because it serves the same functions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 12:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/37 "2020-04-11T00:55:43Z")

</div>

> [@davidson](#):
>
> You have essentially repeated my assertion. Could not have said it much better myself.

So you agree with me that Dawkins’ actual statement in BW (not the statement you misattributed to him), is equivalent to saying that “We don’t need to postulate a rain god in order to understand rain, or the entire evaporation/condensation cycle”? Do you agree that we don’t need to postulate a rain god in order to understand rain, or the entire evaporation/condensation cycle?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 1:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/38 "2020-04-11T01:07:07Z")

</div>

@sfmatheson and @Jonathan_Burke, thank you for bringing this to our attention. @davidson, thank you for making the correction.

> [@Gregg Davidson: The Resurrection, With a Little Help from Richard Dawkins](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gregg-davidson-the-resurrection-with-a-little-help-from-richard-dawkins/10125/1):
>
> This section,
> 
> > Addressing the latter questions led me to the works of Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most well known and outspoken apologist for evolution and atheism at the time. I started with _[The Blind Watch Maker](https://books.google.com/books?id=u4d0CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+blind+watchmaker&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCxfOattvoAhVSLK0KHfujAScQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=the%20blind%20watchmaker&f=false)_ – a tome dedicated to replacing antiquated religious belief with faith in science. He did a reasonable job building a case for how natural processes could have brought about life, and even how evolutionary adaptations in sentient populations _could have_ given rise to a sense of moral and religious belief. I also took no issue with his insistence that there is no evidence _that can be subjected to scientific testing_ for the effectiveness of prayer, the verification of miracles, or life after death.
> > 
> > Based on his scientific observations, Dawkins felt confident in declaring there is no God, or at least not one with any involvement on planet Earth. Here, the wheels of his argument started to wobble.
> 
> Was replaced with,
> 
> > Addressing the latter questions led me to the works of Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most well known and outspoken apologist for evolution and atheism at the time. I read two of his books in full, _[The Blind Watch Maker](https://books.google.com/books?id=u4d0CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+blind+watchmaker&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCxfOattvoAhVSLK0KHfujAScQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=the%20blind%20watchmaker&f=false)_ and _[The God Delusion](https://amzn.to/2V0doYB)_ , along with articles and chapters from his other books. As I progressed through his work, starting with his scientific arguments, I felt he did a reasonable job building a case for how natural processes could have brought about life, how the notion of “selfish” replicating genes could have given rise to increasing diversity and complexity of life, and even how that same process _could have_ led to a sense of moral and religious belief. As he moved into more direct challenges against religious belief, I also took no issue with his insistence that there is no evidence _that can be subjected to scientific testing_ for the effectiveness of prayer, the verification of miracles, or life after death.
> > 
> > Based on his scientific observations, Dawkins felt confident in declaring there is no God, or at least not one with any discernible involvement on planet Earth. Here, the wheels of his argument started to wobble.
> 
> The following note was added to the article.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rneely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Rneely](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rneely)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 9:39am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/39 "2020-04-11T09:39:04Z")

</div>

For anyone interested, this very recent interview covers Richard Dawkins’ views on relevant topics but with an AI implications perspective.  
[Lex Fridman interview of Richard Dawkins](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkudRy8b8JY)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2020, 8:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/41 "2020-04-13T20:07:14Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I think the Blind Watchmaker was more about explaining how evolution could work without requiring a designer.

It seems that we could attach “without requiring a designer” to almost every theory in science. A chemistry textbook explains how atoms interact without requiring a designer. A physics textbook explains how planets move about a star without requiring a designer. Does anyone think a physics textbook is trying to replace religious faith with faith in science?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PatH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@PatH](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PatH)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2020, 8:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/42 "2020-04-14T08:14:17Z")

</div>

Just once, I’d like to see an apologist engage with arguments rather than doubling down, complaining about tone, and flouncing out.

Is that too much to ask for?

To our host; “faith in science”? Really? Conflating then different meanings of the word faith, to try to drag science down to the level of religious belief in terms of evidence is just the lamest argument there is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2020, 2:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130/43 "2020-04-14T14:11:48Z")

</div>

> [@PatH](#):
>
> I’d like to see an apologist engage with arguments rather than doubling down, complaining about tone, and flouncing out.

Yeah, I agree. This one got off to a bad start because of the author’s major mistakes. His defensiveness is to some extent understandable but the failure to own the mistakes is disappointing.

> [@PatH](#):
>
> To our host; “faith in science”? Really?

Meh, isn’t that just semantics? The purpose of the forum (and the site) is contact between faith and science.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-read-the-blind-watchmaker/10130.md?page=3)