Print
Why Darwin matters
by Richard Dawkins
Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species changed the world. Here Richard Dawkins introduces a 34-page celebration of the book and its author, available FREE with tomorrow's edition of the Guardian
Why Darwin matters
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species changed the world. Here Richard Dawkins introduces a 34-page celebration of the book and its author, available FREE with tomorrow's edition of the Guardian
Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. And like all the best ideas it is beguilingly simple. In fact, it is so staggeringly elementary, so blindingly obvious that although others before him tinkered nearby, nobody thought to look for it in the right place.
Darwin had plenty of other good ideas - for example his ingenious and largely correct theory of how coral reefs form - but it is his big idea of natural selection, published in On the Origin of Species, that gave biology its guiding principle, a governing law that helps the rest make sense. Understanding its cold, beautiful logic is a must.
Natural selection's explanatory power is not just about life on this planet: it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet. If life exists elsewhere in the universe - and my tentative bet is that it does - some version of evolution by natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence. Darwin's theory works equally well no matter how strange and alien and weird that extraterrestrial life may be - and my tentative bet is that it will be weird beyond imagining.
Explanation ratio
But what makes natural selection so special? A powerful idea assumes little to explain much. It does lots of explanatory "heavy lifting", while expending little in the way of assumptions or postulations. It gives you plenty of bangs for your explanatory buck. Its Explanation Ratio - what it explains, divided by what it needs to assume in order to do the explaining - is large.
If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin's, let's hear it. Darwin's big idea explains all of life and its consequences, and that means everything that possesses more than minimal complexity. That's the numerator of the explanation ratio, and it is huge.
Yet the denominator in the explanatory equation is spectacularly small and simple: natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin's own).
You can pare Darwin's big idea down to a single sentence (again, this is a modern way of putting it, not quite Darwin's): "Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design." I have put "which occasionally miscopy" in brackets because mistakes are inevitable in any copying process. We don't need to add mutation to our assumptions. Mutational "bucks" are provided free. "Given sufficient time" is not a problem either - except for human minds struggling to take on board the terrifying magnitude of geological time.
A certain kind of mind
It is mainly its power to simulate the illusion of design that makes Darwin's big idea seem threatening to a certain kind of mind. The same power constitutes the most formidable barrier to understanding it. People are naturally incredulous that anything so simple could explain so much. To a naive observer of the wondrous complexity of life, it just must have been intelligently designed.
But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin's: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin's pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!
Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton's brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton's achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin's eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile.
Claims to priority were made on behalf of others, and by Patrick Matthew in the appendix to his work On Naval Timber, as was punctiliously acknowledged by Darwin in later editions of the Origin. However, although Matthew understood the principle of natural selection, it is not clear that he understood its power. Unlike Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who hit on natural selection independently, prompting Darwin to publish his theory, Matthew seems to have seen selection as a purely negative, weeding-out force, not the driving force of all life. Indeed, he thought natural selection so obvious as to need no positive discovery at all.
Garbled versions
Although Darwin's theory can be applied to much beyond the evolution of organic life, I want to counsel against a different sense of Universal Darwinism. This is the uncritical dragging of some garbled version of natural selection into every available field of human discourse, whether it is appropriate or not.
Maybe the "fittest" firms survive in the marketplace of commerce, or the fittest theories survive in the scientific marketplace, but we should at very least be cautious before we get carried away. And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.
Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. "Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species" sounds superficially like natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them.
I'll end on a subtler legacy of Darwin's big idea. Darwin raises our consciousness to the sinewy power of science to explain the large and complex in terms of the small and simple. In biology we were fooled for centuries into thinking that extravagant complexity in nature needs an extravagantly complex explanation. Darwin triumphantly dispelled that delusion.
There remain deep questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their Darwin. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of "design" is tempting. But we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We've been through all that before. Darwin emboldens us - difficult as it is - to seek genuine explanations: explanations that explain more than they postulate.
Richard Dawkin FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His latest book is The God Delusion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species changed the world. Here Richard Dawkins introduces a 34-page celebration of the book and its author, available FREE with tomorrow's edition of the Guardian
Why Darwin matters
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species changed the world. Here Richard Dawkins introduces a 34-page celebration of the book and its author, available FREE with tomorrow's edition of the Guardian
Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. And like all the best ideas it is beguilingly simple. In fact, it is so staggeringly elementary, so blindingly obvious that although others before him tinkered nearby, nobody thought to look for it in the right place.
Darwin had plenty of other good ideas - for example his ingenious and largely correct theory of how coral reefs form - but it is his big idea of natural selection, published in On the Origin of Species, that gave biology its guiding principle, a governing law that helps the rest make sense. Understanding its cold, beautiful logic is a must.
Natural selection's explanatory power is not just about life on this planet: it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet. If life exists elsewhere in the universe - and my tentative bet is that it does - some version of evolution by natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence. Darwin's theory works equally well no matter how strange and alien and weird that extraterrestrial life may be - and my tentative bet is that it will be weird beyond imagining.
Explanation ratio
But what makes natural selection so special? A powerful idea assumes little to explain much. It does lots of explanatory "heavy lifting", while expending little in the way of assumptions or postulations. It gives you plenty of bangs for your explanatory buck. Its Explanation Ratio - what it explains, divided by what it needs to assume in order to do the explaining - is large.
If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin's, let's hear it. Darwin's big idea explains all of life and its consequences, and that means everything that possesses more than minimal complexity. That's the numerator of the explanation ratio, and it is huge.
Yet the denominator in the explanatory equation is spectacularly small and simple: natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin's own).
You can pare Darwin's big idea down to a single sentence (again, this is a modern way of putting it, not quite Darwin's): "Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design." I have put "which occasionally miscopy" in brackets because mistakes are inevitable in any copying process. We don't need to add mutation to our assumptions. Mutational "bucks" are provided free. "Given sufficient time" is not a problem either - except for human minds struggling to take on board the terrifying magnitude of geological time.
A certain kind of mind
It is mainly its power to simulate the illusion of design that makes Darwin's big idea seem threatening to a certain kind of mind. The same power constitutes the most formidable barrier to understanding it. People are naturally incredulous that anything so simple could explain so much. To a naive observer of the wondrous complexity of life, it just must have been intelligently designed.
But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin's: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin's pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!
Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton's brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton's achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin's eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile.
Claims to priority were made on behalf of others, and by Patrick Matthew in the appendix to his work On Naval Timber, as was punctiliously acknowledged by Darwin in later editions of the Origin. However, although Matthew understood the principle of natural selection, it is not clear that he understood its power. Unlike Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who hit on natural selection independently, prompting Darwin to publish his theory, Matthew seems to have seen selection as a purely negative, weeding-out force, not the driving force of all life. Indeed, he thought natural selection so obvious as to need no positive discovery at all.
Garbled versions
Although Darwin's theory can be applied to much beyond the evolution of organic life, I want to counsel against a different sense of Universal Darwinism. This is the uncritical dragging of some garbled version of natural selection into every available field of human discourse, whether it is appropriate or not.
Maybe the "fittest" firms survive in the marketplace of commerce, or the fittest theories survive in the scientific marketplace, but we should at very least be cautious before we get carried away. And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.
Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. "Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species" sounds superficially like natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them.
I'll end on a subtler legacy of Darwin's big idea. Darwin raises our consciousness to the sinewy power of science to explain the large and complex in terms of the small and simple. In biology we were fooled for centuries into thinking that extravagant complexity in nature needs an extravagantly complex explanation. Darwin triumphantly dispelled that delusion.
There remain deep questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their Darwin. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of "design" is tempting. But we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We've been through all that before. Darwin emboldens us - difficult as it is - to seek genuine explanations: explanations that explain more than they postulate.
Richard Dawkin FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His latest book is The God Delusion
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 756 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #124097 by AllanW on February 8, 2008 at 11:06 am
This article, like the 'Breaking the Science barrier' videos et al, is why Dawkins is so important in my opinion; he is in a position to, posseses the capabilities to, and has the vision to significantly engage the populace in scientific endeavours and understanding. Congratulations on another good article.
Other Comments by AllanW
3. Comment #124100 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 11:11 am
The last paragraph alone is one of the most powerful arguments against theism. Richard Dawkins has an amazing gift for expressing rich ideas simply. I back what AllanW has posted.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
4. Comment #124102 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think Darwin matters because the theory of evolution gives humans something in common that can unify us all. The fact that we all share a common ancestor and evolved into a social species that relies on evolved morality to perpetuate a peaceful society can be something that we can all know and understand equally. We cannot get that from religion. One believer's god is slightly different than the god of his neighbor and very much more different than the god of his neighboring country. Believers are never on common ground even when they sit in the same church pews.
We have the ability to say morality is not what is deemed by the god of one's choosing but and evolved sense of what benefits individuals by creating a healthy environment in which we and our offspring can survive. We just need to keep saying it...they'll listen eventually.
Other Comments by Aaron
5. Comment #124107 by Copernic on February 8, 2008 at 11:24 am
Great article.However, I don't understand the continual caution about using the term "fittest".
The fittest do largely survive and pass on their genes. This is largely Evolution by definition.
Rather than warn against ideas like social darwinism or free-market economies finding themselves in the discussion about evolution, why not better explain what "fittest" means?
Fittest isn't just stronger, faster, sexier, and more fecund. Those who are fittest are always so in the context of their environment which may require organisms to use strategies such as cooperation, symbiosis, reciprical altruism.
I wish he'd stop tapdancing around this topic and expand the definition of "fitness" altogether.
Other Comments by Copernic
6. Comment #124108 by Geoff on February 8, 2008 at 11:25 am
I don't normally read the Guardian, but I'll be buying tomorrow's edition. Other Comments by Geoff
7. Comment #124109 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
Copernic,
When most people think of fittest in the context of evolution they think of the fastest cheetah that is more apt to catching and eating animals.
We need to start stressing that in the context of evolution of social animals fit means the best adapted to the society which in part means being moral and good.
I agree with you. Instead of tapdancing around a valid term we need to stress the importance in this other context to give people a better understanding of what it means.
Other Comments by Aaron
8. Comment #124112 by bitbutter on February 8, 2008 at 11:47 am
Excellent introduction!I had a bit of trouble with one passage though:
"If life exists elsewhere in the universe - and my tentative bet is that it does - some version of evolution by natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence."
Creationists continually complain that the theory of evolution is invalidated by its failure to explain how life got started. People who understand the theory often reply by saying that the theory is not intended to explain how life got started, but to explain biodiversity--and that all the evidence we have points to the fact that it succeeds in doing so very well.
Here though, Dawkins seems to imply that the theory of evolution has something to say about how life got started. Is it not better to keep these two questions separate?
Other Comments by bitbutter
9. Comment #124113 by D'Arcy on February 8, 2008 at 11:49 am
A good article, and I will probably buy tomorrow's (Saturday) Guardian for the freebie. Like Lyell, Hutton and Rev. Buckland in the field of geology, Darwin was a Christian for a significant period of his life. The death of his daughter didn't help reinforce his belief and together with what he and Wallace had discovered (independently), undoubtedly turned him away from his religion. Like Darwin, the early geologists were reluctant to come to conclusions that varied with what was written in the Bible. The empirical observations forced a change of mind upon these people.
IMO Darwin's great discovery was that things have changed, change, and will change in the future, and not in a random manner. "Given enough time" I hope the creationists will come to understand the enormity of Darwin's ideas.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
10. Comment #124130 by plastictowel on February 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Bitbutter I'd have to politely disagree. I think Dawkins is again saying what all honest Darwinian biologist are saying. ONCE life get's started, it follows Natural Selection. And Dawkins is simply stating that once life get's started on *insert random planet* by whatever natural path leads to such a thing, it will follow a natural selection process on its on unique environment. Keep in mind he says he "believes" life exist elsewhere. So he isn't saying how or why it came to be elsewhere.
Other Comments by plastictowel
11. Comment #124134 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Here though, Dawkins seems to imply that the theory of evolution has something to say about how life got started. Is it not better to keep these two questions separate?
Your own quote in your post surely indicates that the Prof is not talking about abiogenesis here? Does this quote not answer your own question?
In any case, how wonderful it is to be reminded that the Professor is right at the top of his game.
It's also great to see that he shows that language itself, and not only evolutionary theory, has the power to demonstrate the complex whilst based in the simple. Dawkins' use of language should be compulsory study in language classes around the globe to show the power it can hold.
Great stuff.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
12. Comment #124137 by Jonatan on February 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Bitbutter, the role of natural selection in the process of how life got started is not as irrelevant as you may think. Its effect would start as soon as a self replicating molecule such as nucleic acid would appear.Now, to imagine how nucleic acid could form under certain physical/chemical conditions is not particularly difficult. Hence, depending on your definition of life, natural selection could well have something to do in the appearance of e.g. the first proto-cellular machinery helping some nucleic acid molecules to replicate faster than their neighbors.
Other Comments by Jonatan
13. Comment #124139 by jeepyjay on February 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Yes, Nice. But I do wish he hadn't said:
And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.
This is just playing into the hands of propagandists who like to link these two subjects. I've never seen anything by Hitler that mentions Darwin. "Might is Right" is just fascism, not socialism of Darwinian or any other form.
Other Comments by jeepyjay
14. Comment #124142 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This is just playing into the hands of propagandists who like to link these two subjects. I've never seen anything by Hitler that mentions Darwin. "Might is Right" is just fascism, not socialism of Darwinian or any other form.
Bollocks. Dawkins is doing precisely the opposite to 'playing into the hands of propagandists who like to link these two subjects.' He is attacking their argument at its very roots and saying it is a completely wrong-headed interpretation.
You are wrong to say that Social Darwinism is not a well-known and popularised piece of dogma - refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism if you're not convinced.
It's out there, and the Prof's reference to it is essential in an attempt to refute its claims.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
15. Comment #124143 by pedlar on February 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’m afraid this short paragraph:Maybe the "fittest" firms survive in the marketplace of commerce, or the fittest theories survive in the scientific marketplace, but we should at very least be cautious before we get carried away. And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.
just screams “quotemine”. Expect to see bastardised versions of it on the ID blogs any day now. Like a couple of earlier commenters - and like Charles Darwin himself - I am not happy with the Spencerian connotations of the word ‘fittest’. I wish the great man had listened to his instincts and avoided it.
At its simplest natural selection is merely an unarguable tautology: those organisms best at producing the most offspring, produce the most offspring. (Or, in post-Darwinian terms - those best at passing on their genes, pass on their genes.) Phrasing it in that unthreatening way can get you quite deep into enemy territory before they even realise they’re under attack.
Other Comments by pedlar
16. Comment #124144 by SilentMike on February 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Great piece. One remark though.Although Most of the "interesting stuff" happens within species it would be inaccurate to assert -if I remember "The Blind Watchmaker" correctly- that species selection is not something that happens and has an effect at all. This could be understood from reading this piece, and is not strictly true. I think one should be careful not to overstate one's point so as not to have one common misconception replaced by another. Clearly species selection can and does happen (some species end up in blind alleys and die off, others manage to find a path that leads to survival), although complexity itself evolves within a species.
Other Comments by SilentMike
17. Comment #124145 by jimbob on February 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm
There remain deep questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their Darwin. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of "design" is tempting. But we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We've been through all that before. Darwin emboldens us - difficult as it is - to seek genuine explanations: explanations that explain more than they postulate.
Darwin himself took some time to think about how his discoveries changed his personal views of religion. It was not until 1958 that the process of his change became known, because, until then, the relevant parts of his autobiography had been censored by his family.
On p. 78 of the 1958 biography he recounts how his confidence in the idea of god:
"....has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."
With regard to the difficulty people have in shrugging off their religious indoctrination (my words, not his) he went on to observe:
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake." (pp. 77-78).
Now that's a quote worth sharing on his birthday!
Other Comments by jimbob
18. Comment #124146 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm
just screams â€?quot;quotemineâ€. Expect to see bastardised versions of it on the ID blogs any day now. Like a couple of earlier commenters - and like Charles Darwin himself - I am not happy with the Spencerian connotations of the word ‘fittest’. I wish the great man had listened to his instincts and avoided it.
At its simplest natural selection is merely an unarguable tautology: those organisms best at producing the most offspring, produce the most offspring. (Or, in post-Darwinian terms - those best at passing on their genes, pass on their genes.) Phrasing it in that unthreatening way can get you quite deep into enemy territory before they even realise they’re under attack.
I could not disagree more with your 'back off, don't say it as it is for fear of offending or being quotemined' approach.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your criticism of Dawkins' words by supplying us all with a list of words we can use/avoid?
No. Your approach will never eliminate those disingenuous individuals on blogs you seem to fear simply by using different terminology.
Full marks to Dawkins for his unflinching and nigh-on heroic insistence on using words just as they are meant to be used.
Your fearful and cowardly response to Dawkins' precise and felicitous use of certain words does not do you, Dawkins and his ideas, or this site, any justice whatsoever.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
19. Comment #124149 by Big City on February 8, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I hate to agree with Styrer[notable edit], but in this case I do agree that it is best to address the issue. This is why we look to humanism for morality and not to an observation about nature. Other Comments by Big City
20. Comment #124153 by D'Arcy on February 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake." (pp. 77-78).
jimbob, what a great quote! Not only do we have the cultural indoctrination of children into belief, but also the "instinctive fear of the snake". Eve should really have been better primed to resist!
Other Comments by D'Arcy
21. Comment #124166 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm
19. Comment #124149 by Big City on February 8, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I hate to agree with Styrer (cos more often than not he's a pretentious douchebag), but in this case I do agree that it is best to address the issue. This is why we look to humanism for morality and not to an observation about nature.
Big City
Pretentious? Moi-meme, monsieur?
Pray elucidate the thesis of your proposition with alacrity, sir.
Seriously, why pretentious, and why a douchebag? If you disagree with me, speak up! Tell me why I'm being such a wanker, when you think it. I don't want to be the High Twat of the site, so I'll welcome your comments, even if I don't finally agree.
Fair?
Surely your agreement with the idea that Dawkins is using words precisely as they should be used is more central here, in any case.
It is when the Prof uses his well-earned public prominence to communicate with the masses as he does here that I think there may be a chance for superstitious supernaturalism to be delivered a blow which the likes of you, Big City, and I are unable to do.
Certainly the Prof does not give me 'faith'; but he does bring me hope. Long may he continue to do so through his words, without so-called adherents of rationality ceding, all too often, possible ground to the pro-supernaturalists by cowardly backing off from the words, properly used by the Professor, we need to refute their pernicious and irrational propositions.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
22. Comment #124172 by krisking on February 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake." (pp. 77-78).
Is this a quote from Dawkin's writings? If so, I find it astounding that he can make such a statement, given that he himself was brought up in christian church-going family, and claims to have had a personal religious conversion/experience as a teenager. How difficult was it for him to shake off his inculcated beliefs?
Other Comments by krisking
23. Comment #124177 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm
How difficult was it for him to shake off his inculcated beliefs?
There is evidence for snakes in the world. There is no evidence for gods.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
24. Comment #124181 by Frankus1122 on February 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Richard Dawkins has an amazing gift for expressing rich ideas simply.
The empirical observations forced a change of mind upon these people.
"Given enough time" I hope the creationists will come to understand the enormity of Darwin's ideas.
Education is key. The message needs to be told again and again. There is an astonishing amount of ignorance in the world regarding basic science. The "Break the Science Barrier" video amply demonstrates this and is a good antidote to the ignorance. As is this article.
Even God thinks Darwin matters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZDcS-rMf4
Note the book he is reading in the opening shot.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
25. Comment #124182 by Teratornis on February 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm
In reply to comment #124102 by Aaron:
I think Darwin matters because the theory of evolution gives humans something in common that can unify us all. The fact that we all share a common ancestor and evolved into a social species that relies on evolved morality to perpetuate a peaceful society can be something that we can all know and understand equally. We cannot get that from religion. One believer's god is slightly different than the god of his neighbor and very much more different than the god of his neighboring country. Believers are never on common ground even when they sit in the same church pews.
In the good old days, religious people could find plenty of common ground by gathering to burn witches and heretics. The age-old formula for uniting people is to give them a common enemy.
Lions and zebras share a common ancestor, and they share common ground, but they hardly share common goals. Their common ancestry "unifies" them, to be sure, but not in a way that might comfort the zebra being torn limb from limb by hungry lions.
Thus I would not be too quick to assume Darwinism must inevitably and thoroughly support any particular social commentary or agenda, no matter how laudable or trendy.
Evolution by mutation and natural selection is one of the most monstrously cruel design methods anyone could cook up. The main source of inefficiency is the need to kill an entire organism just to weed out a single gene.
Consider just one example: the number of female hominids who had to die agonizing deaths in childbirth, to select for genetic mutations that allowed the female pelvis to widen in lockstep with the enlarging hominid brain. In most other mammal species, deaths during childbirth are quite rare; but among humans they are routine in the absence of modern medicine. If we leave it up to evolution, billions more women will have to die to get hips to catch up with skulls. That's assuming skulls stop enlarging.
I think evolution teaches us that if any sort of God is responsible for setting the whole process in motion, then we understand this God to be cruel beyond our comprehension.
At best we can say evolution created us to view the process of evolution itself as monstrously cruel and in need of improvement. (Perhaps we could just as easily have turned out to find cruelty appealing; a few sociopaths certainly do.) We might, for example, learn to take over our own evolution by applying selection directly at the level of the gene, instead of by killing entire individuals.
Other Comments by Teratornis
26. Comment #124183 by Cartomancer on February 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I see that "Darwin" and "Dawkins" have now become one and the same person according to krisking here. Maybe in a couple of thousand years' time we'll all be talking about the biological works of the prodigiously long-lived Charles-Richard Darkins, and radical revisionist historians will be shouted down for trying to suggest that he was actually two different people. Other Comments by Cartomancer
27. Comment #124184 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I see that "Darwin" and "Dawkins" have now become one and the same person according to krisking here. Maybe in a couple of thousand years' time we'll all be talking about the biological works of the prodigiously long-lived Charles-Richard Darkins, and radical revisionist historians will be shouted down for trying to suggest that he was actually two different people.
Well spotted, Cartomancer.
I've just aborted my own comment in this regard. Yours is far funnier, in any case. :)
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
28. Comment #124186 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Teratornis,
Although zebras and lions share a common ancestor they haven't evolved to rely on each other's cooperation in society. We have. There's the difference.
Other Comments by Aaron
29. Comment #124187 by DamnDirtyApe on February 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hee hee. That's an amusing point Cartomancer. I'm totally picturing a bizarre future situation where people in the future believe Stephen Dawkins went to the Galapagos in his hover-wheelchair and discovered evolution despite his crippling disease.Hopefully the future won't be that stupid...
Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
30. Comment #124190 by SPS on February 8, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Darwin matters because he helped save us from ourselves...and because he can really pull off that hat.Other Comments by SPS
31. Comment #124193 by maton100 on February 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Darwin matters because we don't want to be governed by the whimsy of Geoffrey Simmons. Other Comments by maton100
32. Comment #124197 by Rational_G on February 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Growing up studying physics and engineering my giants were Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman. It is only as an adult, and having read the wonderful books of Dawkins and E.O. Wilson, have I come to appreciate how truly a giant Darwin was and is. How all encompassing his theories are to biology. Wow. Other Comments by Rational_G
33. Comment #124202 by c4chaos on February 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm
thanks for the heads up! allow me to share my own homage to Darwin ;)http://coolmel.typepad.com/iblog/2008/02/homage-to-charl.html
~C
Other Comments by c4chaos
34. Comment #124205 by Uhtred on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Darwin matters because his theory changed everything and helped jettison mountains of bullshit that had been accumulating in the minds of men for millenniums.Other Comments by Uhtred
35. Comment #124206 by m-man on February 8, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Where can i get a copy of The Gaurdian if i live in California USA, i havn't seen that paper before?Other Comments by m-man
36. Comment #124211 by Luis_Cayetano on February 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm
All too often, we see scientists and expositors of science pandering to the supernatural delusions of their audiences, almost anxious to show that "there is no contradiction" between science and flatulent wishful thinking. At my uni, there was a course called "Evolutionary and functional biology". The professor, a splendid expositor of science and a fine palaeontologist, nevertheless felt compelled during the first lecture to drone on about how evolution might be "God's method for producing us". I don't imagine that the good professor himself believes such a thing, but he certainly felt the need to be apologetic in order to avoid hurting anyone's delicate feelings. Not so with Dawkins, who has little time for such pandering, and who gets straight to the facts."Never apologise; always explain."
Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano
37. Comment #124215 by chuckgoecke on February 8, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Although Most of the "interesting stuff" happens within species it would be inaccurate to assert -if I remember "The Blind Watchmaker" correctly- that species selection is not something that happens and has an effect at all. This could be understood from reading this piece, and is not strictly true. I think one should be careful not to overstate one's point so as not to have one common misconception replaced by another. Clearly species selection can and does happen (some species end up in blind alleys and die off, others manage to find a path that leads to survival), although complexity itself evolves within a species.
The problem here is the term "species". It is more of a convenience term, then a precise definition(not unlike the biblical "kinds"). A species is a way to compartmentalize what in reality is a cloud of genetic traits, a cloud that is diffuse in some organisms and more sharp in others. The cloud drifts around, changes shape, and sometimes splits and rejoins with itself. If a split off of the cloud drifts away long enough, it becomes unable to rejoin with the original cloud. Sharply defined clouds would be organisms with little genetic diversity(like cheetahs), which may be more susceptible to changes in their physical or competitive environment. Larger clouds that are more diffuse have lots of variability and less susceptibility to extinction(like panthers). Really large clouds that are diffuse may have blobs breaking away and rejoining at all their edges, and some of them may become new species. Physical barriers may make this more likely. Behavioral barriers may also develop. Selection is the wind that pushes this drift around, blowing from multiple direction a different times. Occasionally the selection wind blows one organism's cloud over and pushes another's out of existence. Additionally, each organisms clouds are interacting with all other organisms clouds to one degree or another, sometimes helpfully, lots of time, harmfully, and mostly benignly. This is my understanding of genetic drift and speciation.
Other Comments by chuckgoecke
38. Comment #124220 by LorienRyan on February 8, 2008 at 8:25 pm
So much packed into a short article. Quality. Other Comments by LorienRyan
39. Comment #124221 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Not so with Dawkins, who has little time for such pandering, and who gets straight to the facts.
Precisely. Well said.
That other 'Horseman' Dennett, after his latest piece, could well do with taking a leaf out of the Professor's book when it comes to intellectual honesty.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
40. Comment #124224 by dragonfirematrix on February 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It is absolutely amazing how Darwin (a person of our past) so completely rocks! Darwin is a very special person.
On another note, I just listened to and viewed "Break The Science Barrier." It is great! I ordered the DVD.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
41. Comment #124227 by MaxD on February 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Copernic,
Dawkins made a rather strong case for avoiding the term fittest in The Extended Phenotype in that it can so readily be misunderstood in any number of, well five, technical ways.
What does it meant to say fittest? The fittest what?
Other Comments by MaxD
42. Comment #124229 by sarah95 on February 8, 2008 at 9:28 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how well Dawkins can sum things up so concisely! Someone above compared it to the very subject of the article: explaining the complex with the simple. So basically, if Dawkins were a theory, he'd be Darwinian selection, and he would rock. (Even though he rocks already.) Other Comments by sarah95
43. Comment #124243 by lievemebe on February 8, 2008 at 11:04 pm
RD says: "Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton's brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton's achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin's eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile."Has anyone investigated the idea that Newton's work may have forestalled natural selection theory? Following Newton, the notion that the Universe is mechanistic, unchanging, certainly not evolving, was popular. This may have reinforced biblical creation theory, in much the same way that religious doctrine today puts a break on many scientific activities such as stem cell research.
Other Comments by lievemebe
44. Comment #124265 by BicycleRepairMan on February 9, 2008 at 1:23 am
Here though, Dawkins seems to imply that the theory of evolution has something to say about how life got started.Actually, he does quite the opposite, what he's saying is however life DID get started, whether it started like it did here on earth, or it started elsewhere in the universe in a completely different manner, Darwinism would still be the mechanism that drives it to complexity. Ie: the little green men might not be carbon-based, their equalent of DNA may not look much like DNA, their form of life may be very strange etc, BUT, they would have to have evolved in a Darwinian fashion, gradual complexity by natural selection.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
45. Comment #124281 by krisking on February 9, 2008 at 2:36 am
I see that "Darwin" and "Dawkins" have now become one and the same person according to krisking here
How do you figure that?
Are you a lazy reader?
Other Comments by krisking
46. Comment #124282 by krisking on February 9, 2008 at 2:39 am
The age-old formula for uniting people is to give them a common enemy.
Good point....precisely what Dawkins and his atheist mates are doing......lump all religions together and call them evil!
Other Comments by krisking
47. Comment #124283 by Steve Zara on February 9, 2008 at 2:44 am
Good point....precisely what Dawkins and his atheist mates are doing......lump all religions together and call them evil!
I really can't see how you can claim that. Dawkins has said that if all religions where like moderate Christianity there would probably be no need for The God Delusion.
I have to ask ... do you actually read what Dawkins writes before you comment, or are you simply making things up?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
48. Comment #124287 by LorienRyan on February 9, 2008 at 3:11 am
"Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton's brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly 200 years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton's achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin's eventual solution to the riddle of life is so apparently facile."
Also, Darwin's 'facile' solution was and is liable to hurt the feelings of those with a 'certain kind of mind'. Newton's physics doesn't directly attack the notion that we are 'special'.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
49. Comment #124288 by Fenriswolf on February 9, 2008 at 3:17 am
(I apologise in advance in case my quoting hasn't worked properly. It has been a while since I did it on this site.)To krisking,
you wrote:
How do you figure that?
Are you a lazy reader?
referring to Cartomancer's observation that Darwin and Dawkins were mixed up (by krisking).
Posted by jimbob:
Darwin himself took some time to think about how his discoveries changed his personal views of religion... On p. 78 of the 1958 biography he recounts how his confidence in the idea of god:
"....has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."
With regard to the difficulty people have in shrugging off their religious indoctrination (my words, not his) he went on to observe:
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake." (pp. 77-78).
and finally, krisking's original reply:
Is this a quote from Dawkin's writings
I think, krisking, that you are the lazy reader.
Other Comments by Fenriswolf
50. Comment #124299 by bluebird on February 9, 2008 at 4:05 am
Since a copy of today's Guardian isn't to be found in our neck of the woods, this is the next best thing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/darwinbicentenary
It has a link to a printable version of "Why Darwin Matters".
Other Comments by bluebird
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #124094 by AnthSynthasome on February 8, 2008 at 11:01 am
Other Comments by AnthSynthasome