One of Holsten's major critiques of Dawkin's theory relates to his abundant use of metaphors and rhetorical devices (Holsten 1999, p. 84).

1. Do you agree with his point that metaphors reflect metaphysical biases and add an unnecessary level of abstraction?

2. Is there are place for metaphors, especially ones that are anthropomorphic, in the sciences?

3. What do you think of Dawkin's contention in the Preface to the 1989 edition of his book that by pushing the novelties of "metaphor and language far enough you can end up with a new way of seeing", which he views as a contribution to science in and of itself.

4. Are metaphors useful to the extent that they help to make the science more accessible to a general audience, one of the goals Dawkins lists in the preface to the first (1976) edition of his book?