thing about science is that it works at all ... the simple observation that the laws of thought turn out to be the laws of things." Midgley wrote her 2014 book, Are you an illusion? as a response to Francis Crick's argument in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis that a person's sense of personal identity and free will is no more than the behaviour of nerve cells. She attacks the understanding inherent in this argument that everything, including a sense of self, can be understood through its physical properties. Instead, she argues that there are different levels of explanation, which need to be studied using different methods. This means that thoughts and memories are an integral part of reality for both humans and animals and need to be studied as such. Midgley–Dawkins debate In volume 53 (1978) of Philosophy, the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, J. L. Mackie published an article entitled The Law of the Jungle: Moral Alternatives and Principles of Evolution, praising Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, and discussing how its ideas might be applied to moral philosophy. Midgley responded in volume 54 (1979) with "Gene-Juggling", arguing that The Selfish Gene was about psychological egoism, rather than evolution. In a 1981 rebuttal, Dawkins retorted that the comment was "hard to match, in reputable journals, for its patronising condescension toward a fellow academic". The bad feeling between Dawkins and Midgley did not diminish. In a note to page 55 in the 2nd edition of The Selfish Gene (1989), Dawkins refers to her "highly intemperate and vicious paper". Midgley continued to criticise Dawkins' ideas. In her books Evolution as a Religion (2002) and The Myths We Live By (2003), she wrote about what she saw as his confused use of language — using terms such as "selfish" in different ways without alerting the reader to the change in meaning—and some of what she regarded as his rhetoric ("genes exert ultimate power over behaviour"), which she argued is more akin to religion than science. She wrote in a letter to The Guardian in 2005: [There is] widespread discontent with the neo-Darwinist—or Dawkinsist—orthodoxy that claims something which Darwin himself denied, namely that natural selection is the sole and exclusive cause of evolution, making the world therefore, in some important sense, entirely random. This is itself a strange faith which ought not to be taken for granted as part of science. In