Letter: Dawkins lets down the case for science

Sir: One cannot but admire the clarity of Richard Dawkins's writings. His prose style is attractive and the quality of argumentation more often than not suasive.

However, beneath the apparent reasonableness of his approach lie deeper, unanswered questions concerning the relationship of scientific inquiry to other human activities and aspirations.

His article "Dolly and the cloth-heads" (8 March), while superficially amusing (I smiled), achieves its objectives only by either seriously misrepresenting the nature of religious convictions (the use of the term "rival" in the piece is instructive) or by choosing the softest of possible targets (over- stretched religious leaders lured, often against their better judgement, into stuffy studios by over-worked TV and radio producers).

Rather than bringing a highly personal agenda always to the fore, might it not be better if Professor Dawkins actually kept to his appointed brief - assisting the public in its understanding of science?

One way of achieving this might be for him to examine in depth why so many universities are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit students of sufficiently high calibre into their science departments. Another useful exercise might be to investigate why so many scientists are blissfully unaware of the profound philosophical significance of scientific procedures and enterprise.

Clearly we have the right to laugh at cloth-head clerics or other "cerebrally challenged" politicians or community leaders. One wonders, nevertheless, how many principal scientific officers of research institutes could gracefully step into a TV or radio studio at short notice and give an articulate account of, say, the ontological implications of Popper's "objective knowledge" or take part in lively pre-millennial debate on the ongoing significance of C P Snow's "two cultures" view of society.

The Rev IAN M KENWAY

Director of Studies

Centre for the Study of Theology

University of Essex