Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, August 5, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Audio Electrons to Enlightenment 4: Debating Darwin

WPR, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins


quicktime Audio requires QuickTime Player 7. Download the free player here.
12.13 MB : 53:00
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Thanks to Heather Jessel for the link and Klarky for the mp3.

Reposted from:
http://www.wpr.org/book/061210a.html
and
http://www.wpr.org/book/god (Click here for the other episodes)

The theory of evolution is the flashpoint in the war between science and religion. Polls show that nearly half of all Americans believe the Biblical story of creation. Only a quarter accept evolution. And that's infuriated a lot of people. The philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks we need to "break the spell" of religion. But creationist Paul Nelson says evolution simply can't explain certain mysteries.

SEGMENT 1:

Philosopher Daniel Dennett is the author of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." He tells Steve Paulson why he finds ignorance of evolutionary biology so appalling. Also, Randy Olson is a Harvard-trained evolutionary biologist and creator of the documentary film "Flock of Dodos." We hear a clip, and Olson tells Jim Fleming why he has no use for the intelligent design movement. Also, Steve Paulson reports from Cambridge University in England on Charles Darwin's own views regarding whether his theory of evolution was compatible with religious faith. We hear from Paul White of the Darwin Correspondence Project.

SEGMENT 2:

Ordinary people weigh in on the evolution/creationism debate. Also, biologist Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion") is the man the Intelligent Design Movement loves to hate. He explains why he thinks Darwinism leads to atheism. And creationist Paul Nelson, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, makes the case for his point of view. Also, paleontologist Simon Conway Morris talks with Steve Paulson about convergence and the evolution of intelligence. Morris is the author of "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe."

SEGMENT 3:

Biologist Elisabet Sahtouris is the author of "Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution." Sahtouris has no truck with Biblical creationists but thinks the standard story of evolution has major problems. She talks with Anne Strainchamps.

CD copies are available at 1-800-747-7444. Ask for program number 06-12-10-A.

Comments 1 - 16 of 16 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #61527 by radiohead on August 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm

looking forward to hearing this. Havent heard much from Dennett in a while...

Other Comments by radiohead

2. Comment #61530 by maton100 on August 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm

 avatarThe pleasure came from hearing Behe's Mount Rushmore analogy and the sappy new-age music backing up the Discovery Institute goon.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #61532 by Friend Giskard on August 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm

 avatarThis program is mostly idiots talking rubbish. It's no fun listening to idiots. I want my 53 minutes back.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

4. Comment #61536 by robotaholic on August 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm

 avatarI don't see the relevance of segment 2 to any real learning. Scientists can be arrogant if they want. Who cares? If the subject of the movie is the detriment of the personality or behavior of the scientist to the public understanding of science-fine. I don't look at scientific arrogance as a significant scientific study.
Oh and I think Dennett has been absent lately due to his open heart surgery 1/2 a year or so ago...

Other Comments by robotaholic

5. Comment #61538 by Salvatore on August 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm

 avatarI'm afraid I have to agree with Giskard... not very much here worth listening to... except to advance your study of muddlology...

Other Comments by Salvatore

6. Comment #61541 by AJ Rae on August 5, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Don't bother, it's a bunch of faithheads talking nonsense, trying to fit square pegs into round wholes so they can conform to their fairytales.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

7. Comment #61552 by OsakaGuy on August 5, 2007 at 5:46 pm

 avatarI appreciate you guys listening to this stuff first and giving your reviews so I don't have to waste my time. Thanks!

Other Comments by OsakaGuy

8. Comment #61553 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 5:47 pm

 avatarHighly unimpressive. What a sad case that alleged scientist Saturis was, she spends a year away from work rethinking herself and the first thing out of her mouth on return is a load of bollocks, sad, very sad.

Other Comments by Yorker

9. Comment #61563 by RickM on August 5, 2007 at 6:37 pm

 avatarI want 53 minutes back plus another 15 minutes punitive damages. We must make these people pay for propagating BS.

Other Comments by RickM

10. Comment #61592 by 82abhilash on August 5, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Paul Nelson keeps claiming that the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is a scientific one not a religious one. Fine, maybe we where designed by aliens. Is the Discovery Institute funding studies that examine that? So if it is not religious prejudice, but curiosity that drives you, would you accept people with no religious affiliation into the discovery institute? They can be curious too you know.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

11. Comment #61665 by howtoplayalone on August 6, 2007 at 7:46 am

 avatarI thought it was a 53 minutes well spent. I wasn't very familiar with the 'convergence' theory, and I wasn't immediately able to write it off, as can be done so easily with intelligent design, if you've heard the arguments against it. The last woman seemed loopy, but loopy in a new way.

If anyone wants to comment on why the convergence idea is so ridiculous I'd appreciate it, or post links.

And it's always a pleasure to hear Dawkins and Dennett when they're being asked more challenging questions than they're usually asked.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

12. Comment #61681 by ross on August 6, 2007 at 10:15 am

Paul Nelson's bit was saccharin and self-pitying with the "Deep Thoughts" piano background. Glad I didn't eat first.
And the drunken, pseudo-hip Fanfare for the Common Man was just perfect for the distorted man-on-the-street crap.
Didn't get the point about the Darwin segment.

Dawkins was brilliant and straight to the point, as usual. Introduced as a lightning rod, and an ....(pause for drama)...atheist.

But, I thought that Olson's segment on how to present this to the public offers a valuable point.
After all, if you want to get the theistic public to think a bit you need a stategy that works. Right now they barely even listen. In fact many are down right smug, dismissive and hostile to anything that they didn't learn in church.
Obviously religious certainty is the height of arrogance - not scientific views.
However, if their perception is that they are being talked down to, then there is no way that they are going to listen. You can't just try to teach people, or force views on them.
Personally, I like and prefer the approach of RD. It's direct and disarmingly honest. Harris and Hitchens too. And Carrier and Dennett and...
However, it's not going to reach everyone, and there is no harm in approaching from more than one flank with alternate strategies.

Other Comments by ross

13. Comment #61690 by Duff on August 6, 2007 at 11:05 am

Olsen got his philosophy of non-confrontation with the idiots from a Hollywood acting class?!!! That would just about say it all.
Anyone who learns anything from actors has to be an idiot, and this comes from an actor of over thirty years. Give me a break!

Other Comments by Duff

14. Comment #61773 by rftluong on August 6, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Olson raises a point but I think he doesn't do it very effectively. It is true that science needs to appeal to those who don't believe. However, where is the solution? It's very easy to criticize and say that scientists are snotty but do you have anything else to say to that?

Paulson brought up some interesting facts about Darwin that I didn't know. I was glad to hear them.

Dawkins was excellent as usual.

Sahtouris seemed very unclear. If she may have a point she really didn't sell it very well. The mixing of Eastern religions and Western science seemed a bit silly. She didn't state of purpose of merging the two together. She just said that it needed to be done. Maybe I need to hear more but it just seems like pantheism.

Lastly, that sob story about creationism was pathetic. The music, the terrible 'outcast' feeling ... goodness. How pathetic. If you have the data and proof then put it on the table. If you don't then you have nothing. Those are the rules. Such a poor attempt at playing the victim.

Anyways, this is a very skippable segment.

Other Comments by rftluong

15. Comment #62765 by edwaltthespisactor on August 11, 2007 at 9:49 am

 avatarVery curious intro into the Elisabet Sahtouris section, and then with the vocal laughter I got to the bit about design.

How foolish to expect a new idea.

As for the consciousness comes first... who's is that exactly? The universe is conscious is a fun idea, but to suggest that what we recognise as human consciousness in a psychological sense is shared with the universe makes it sound like the universe is like us. Maybe a supernova is mirrored by a pang of guilt at destroying a solar system.

I think the eastern philosophies that expound 'consciousness' as preceding reality are explored in ideas such as 'the matrix' as in: how can we know that what we perceive as reality isn't actually generated by our own consciousness - the waves of consciousness idea seems to be a grouped up version.

All very interesting but suggests everything was very dull until the first consciousness started waving enough to create reality. And now we cycle back to origins...

AAaaarghh! How dare she declare what science will and will never answer?! I love the greek islands, but after a 12 week walking holiday I felt rapturous delight in celebrating the ancient architects, playwrights and politicians - but survived feeling that the universe was in debt to my consciousness!

Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor

16. Comment #62878 by JohnC on August 12, 2007 at 7:07 am

 avatarComment #61665 by howtoplayalone asks:

If anyone wants to comment on why the convergence idea is so ridiculous I'd appreciate it, or post links.


"Convergence" is not a loopy idea, but a well-established phenomenon in evolutionary science and refers to the independent development of similar structures in organisms that are not directly related. The classic example being the octopus and vertabrate eye, both of which have cornea, lens, iris and retina - but with these structures having developed separately in lineages whose split is very ancient indeed.

Conway Morris, however, has used this to argue for the inevitablility of certain outcomes given the molecular raw material of the universe, and even more controversially (in his book Life's Solutions) for a directionality in evolution towards intelligence and complexity.

A link to a basic introduction to convergence is:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/convergevol.html
And to Conway Morris's extension of the concept:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2005/1517968.htm

I find his ideas speculative and unconvincing.

Other Comments by JohnC
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: