Dogma and clear thinking. (Letters).(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: Anthony Seiver's response (Letters, May 2003) to Jenny Teichman's article (March 2003) on Darwinism seriously misunderstands the author's intentions. He may be right to complain that her article was "misplaced"--under the heading of Science--for Teichman's piece was of a lighter vein, a form with which Seiver seems unfamiliar. That is not to say that Teichman's piece was not a thoughtful critique. But I think it was never meant to be a "refutation of the Theory of Evolution" on scientific or pseudo-scientific lines as Seiver seems to think it was.

Mr Seiver ought to be told that Ms Teichman is not a religious crank, nor is she even a believer. She is on the other hand a respected philosopher with an independent mind who writes with wit and clarity. Maybe that is what confused and (apparently) enraged Mr Seiver.

I think it is amusing that several times Seiver accuses Ms Teichman of being "dogmatic". Amusing, because her essay was itself a gentle poke at dogma, something she is practised at doing, and very good at. The question at the beginning of her article is the clue. It is in response to a correspondent to the Oldie magazine who is upset that someone has questioned a hypothesis on which "the whole of modern biology rests". Teichman ponders thus: "Modern physicists do not claim to spend their lives studying Newtonianism and it is worth asking why there is this difference between biologists and physicists." She wonders why biologists claim that Darwin's theory is the sole basis of their calling (what about DNA?) while physicists don't have a similar attachment to one source--say to Sir Isaac Newton.

Seiver is clearly befuddled by indignation for he quite misunderstands (or ...