1. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189598 by aqua on June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

This is ridiculous -- it's obviously not an evolutionary explanation. As a passionate supporter of Darwinian evolution and as an atheist, it pains me considerably to read such rubbish. Why do evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists continue to fish for ridiculous evolutionary explanations to complex cultural phenomena? There are so many ways in which the data presented in this article can be interpreted.

2. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75717 by aqua on October 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

As someone who has studied in some depth the history and philosophy of science, I am particularly sad to see that David Heywood appealed to my discipline in his rather poor response to Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is perhaps a logical positivist, a position that many philosophers of science disagree with, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Heywood seems to imply that there are only two possible positions: logical positivist and believer in god. That is a very poor argument indeed.