Wow, what a waste. It would have been nice if it was actually a review of the various books listed at the beginning. Instead the books are mostly referenced for their views on fine-tuning and on the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Unfortunately the author of the piece has an axe to grind against the atheists.
The Times is known for being a conservative newspaper, although I would have expected better from the literary supplement. The reviewer sounds as though he is a believer in ID. He makes a lot out of the fine tuning argument whilst ignoring most of the stronger atheist points.
The reviewer is "an English writer, journalist, and author, used to be a priest in the Church of England, live in South London, and am an honorary research fellow at Birkbeck College, London."
6 comments:
See.
Wow, what a waste. It would have been nice if it was actually a review of the various books listed at the beginning. Instead the books are mostly referenced for their views on fine-tuning and on the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Unfortunately the author of the piece has an axe to grind against the atheists.
No real objectivity here. Oh well.
The Times is known for being a conservative newspaper, although I would have expected better from the literary supplement. The reviewer sounds as though he is a believer in ID. He makes a lot out of the fine tuning argument whilst ignoring most of the stronger atheist points.
The reviewer is "an English writer, journalist, and author, used to be a priest in the Church of England, live in South London, and am an honorary research fellow at Birkbeck College, London."
enough said!
Oh how stupid. When naturalists review apologetics there is no bias. But when a former Anglican minister does so, it's bias. Get a life!
Post a Comment