two things: that you ask the right questions and that you get the right answers. Although science education focuses almost exclusively on the second task, a good case can be made that the first is both the harder and the more important. Getting Mendel's laws from Mendel's data may not be easy, but surely the hardest part is daring to ask Mendel's question: Despite all appearances to the contrary, might heredity obey simple laws?". Orr considers "scientism, the view that all truths are ultimately scientific" to be naive, hubristic and just plain wrong and is generally critical of what he sees as unwarranted attempts to generalise or draw philosophical conclusions from scientific facts. He laments the popular trend whereby "some pet theory gets elevated to its rightful place as 'the' way to think about evolution. But this longing to dress up biology in unusual new perspectives has, so far, yielded more book deals than results". He is highly critical of William Dembski's 2002 book No Free Lunch suggesting that although the counterintuitive No Free Lunch theorems of computer science do indeed rule out the generation of specified complexity in a specific technical sense, this has nothing to do with Darwinism which is not trying to reach a pre-specified target, and of Michael Behe's 1996 book Darwin's Black Box which he characterises as "cleverly argued, biologically informed — and wrong". He concedes that there are biological systems which are irreducibly complex in Behe's sense but suggests that "An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become — because of later changes — essential". He also suggests that, while he has "utter confidence in Behe's biochemistry" Behe "is not at home in the technical evolution literature." However he is also critical of Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins, expressing serious reservations about their arguments and defending these in extended follow-up correspondence. Orr is not satisfied by Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA suggestion. Whilst highly critical of claims that physics has "found God" he points out that "many of the [20th] century’s leading scientists – including some of the brightest stars of evolutionary biology...were deeply religious... Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines; and J.B.S. Haldane was an unabashed mystic".