Critics of Dawkins miss the nuance in his arguments

Against the propaganda fostered by the right-wing media, Dawkins is almost a solitary vocal defender of science and the theory of evolution.

By condoning attacks on him, we risk being seen to be on the wrong side.

But Phil Clegg is right that others have made important contributions since Charles Darwin died.

That is why the study is no longer "Darwinism." No modern evolutionist, Dawkins included, ignores the advances made since Darwin, and the additional mechanisms of change discovered besides natural selection.

The differences between conflicting views are argued out scientifically, using evidence, not emotionally or pejoratively. Science is a social endeavour which bows to no authority, only to confirmed evidence, though great practitioners of it are regarded highly.

Dawkins is deservedly so regarded.

The biggest abuse of Darwin's ideas is that human society makes no difference to the way they apply - social Darwinism.

Capitalism claims that evolution applies within human society, that competition is its core, that our neighbour is an object to be subjugated and exploited.

It is false. It is absolutely refuted by our social nature, without which we would not be human at all. It follows that to lose it, we shall cease to be human.

Sociality is at our core, and that means co-operation. Capitalism contradicts our human nature. Pushed to capitalism's logical conclusion, we must revert to solitary animals, permanently fighting each other.

Societies break down when they cease to be sufficiently fair and just. We call it revolution. Should we argue against that?

Mike Magee
Frome