Science and theology

From Mr D J Taylor Sir, Dr W Makin's spirited defence of Mary Kenny was spoiled both by flawed argument and by it becoming a personal attack on Peter Hodgson.
There is of course a difference between calling Mary "outrageous" and saying that her remarks sometimes are.
I myself have several times felt outraged by her remarks — not so much by the opinions as by the too often unfounded air of "author ity" with which she presents them.
As for Dr Makin's definition of science, it reminded me of Humpty Dumpty's declaration in Through the Looking Glass: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less". So Galileo couldn't be a scientist until he had peers to judge him. Rubbish!
How could science ever have got started if that were the case?
The difference between a scientist and a theologian is that the one judges his hypotheses against the evidence provided by nature, the other judges them against revelation.
The non-scientist relies on his senses, common sense and the often untested opinions of others.
It is when he comes to communicate his science that the scientist needs the authoritative support of his peers — which, in the case of new discoveries is still not always forthcoming. One can make a positive argument from that, however, along the lines of "tempering the metal".
Yours faithfully, D.J TAYLOR Malvern Link, Worcs.