1. Comment #200459 by YesSir on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Richard - please come to Australia, we need some of your consciousness raising ...

Other Comments by YesSir

2. Comment #200475 by dantemm on June 27, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I wish I got Channel 4...

~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/

Other Comments by dantemm

3. Comment #200498 by TeraBrat on June 27, 2008 at 6:22 pm

That was a great interview.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

4. Comment #200544 by Sciros on June 27, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Uh-oh! At the end of the interview Prof. Dawkins accidentally misspoke and said "If I can show them that religion is true, which I can, then..." instead of "that evolution is true, which I can..."

I'm willing to bet anywhere up to seven dollars that some creationist or another (or several) will use that clip in some rubbish film they cobble together in their ongoing war against reason.

Other Comments by Sciros

5. Comment #200659 by Sargeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

My comment seemed to have vanished, so apologies if this double posts.

Does anyone know when this programme is going to be on Channel 4?

Other Comments by Sargeist

6. Comment #200662 by Atheist Chaplain on June 28, 2008 at 3:54 am

I'm with YesSir on wishing Richard would come down to Australia, I would certainly go to any lectures or speaking engagements is the opportunity arose.

Other Comments by Atheist Chaplain

7. Comment #200664 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

Thanks Sciros
You have just increased the chances tenfold.

Nice work again Paula(and Richard). I am disappointed not to hear the scottish accent I had imagined prior to the first interview.
I still half expect you to say "So, you'll have had your tea Richard"

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #200665 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #200670 by Brian English on June 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

Richard - please come to Australia, we need some of your consciousness raising ...

I and other aussies have asked Richard to visit. Yet nothing. I'm working on the theory that we don't matter much in the scheme of things. I'm willing to have this theory falsified by Richard of course. Like any good scientific it can be falsified and it makes accurate predictions. Like for example, it predicts that Richard won't come to Australia in the foreseeable future. It's been supported by the evidence since I postulated it. :P

Perhaps Richard could come to Australia during World brainwashing day and go toe-to-toe with Darth Ratzinger?

Other Comments by Brian English

10. Comment #200671 by Brian English on June 28, 2008 at 4:21 am

I can see it now:

Darth R: Behold, I've transubstantiated the host. It now has the substance of Christ' body.

Richard: I'm sorry Mein Herr, but that's a piece of bread. It's substance, if it can be said to have any is that of bread.

Darth R: It is Christ's body. I'm infallible.

Richard: No it's not you silly git. Stop this cannibalistic fetish!

Darth R: Yes it is. I said it is, and I'm an expert on these things.

Richard: You're a loony.....

OK, I can't write like Python....

Other Comments by Brian English

11. Comment #200675 by Muetze on June 28, 2008 at 4:53 am

What is this programme that they are showing clips from, and when will it air?

Other Comments by Muetze

12. Comment #200678 by mikesherwod53 on June 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

re transublegation
The $5 note in my wallet is REALLY a $20 bill. Yes I know it LOOKS like a 5 buck and passes all the Bank tests for a $5-00 bill and even tastes like one but that's SO SO besides the point. Besides I'/ve got a bunch of guys who'll beat the cra\p out of you if you don't give me change for a 20 & by the way your kid sister is included in that deal

Other Comments by mikesherwod53

13. Comment #200679 by Paula Kirby on June 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

Muetze: What is this programme that they are showing clips from, and when will it air?

It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think. I was sent DVDs of it as part of my preparation for the interview, and it really is excellent: the best of his TV series so far, I would say. Strong message, astonishing film sequences, great soundtrack; and really gripping all the way through.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

14. Comment #200680 by Muetze on June 28, 2008 at 5:03 am

Thanks Paula, something to look foreward to. :-)

Other Comments by Muetze

15. Comment #200681 by mikesherwod53 on June 28, 2008 at 5:05 am

Uh-oh! At the end of the interview Prof. Dawkins accidentally misspoke...

I'm willing to bet anywhere up to seven dollars that some creationist or another (or several) will use that clip in some rubbish film they cobble together in their ongoing war against reason.

Tut tut don't you realise that logic fairness and even good manners are ciobwebs when one is dealing with our salvation in Christ.
Who was the Jesuit who said a valid arguement is one that convinces people of what is true.

Other Comments by mikesherwod53

16. Comment #200856 by toomanytribbles on June 28, 2008 at 10:42 am

i saw these videos earlier.. but is the link not working now?

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

17. Comment #200874 by Jefferson'sWall on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 am

the link doesn't work anymore!?!

Other Comments by Jefferson'sWall

18. Comment #200945 by Richard Dawkins on June 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Yes, it looks as though the Channel 4 web page is down. I suspect it now won't be fixed until after the weekend. I'll phone them on Monday.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

19. Comment #200952 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm

| have saved it to my computer, for an advanced copy of your next DVD Richard I am more than happy to forward it to the website.

Other Comments by the great teapot

20. Comment #200953 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm

or failing that, I will do it anyway.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #200954 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm

It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think.

Any chance we in the colonies (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) will get to see that? Or will we just have to wait for it to show up on Youtube? (And how about an un-bleeped version of that "hate e-mail" segment shown in one of the clips? I think that would be absolutely hilarious...)

Great performance, by the way (I got to see it before it went down).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

22. Comment #200960 by Brian English on June 28, 2008 at 3:56 pm

I see Richard hasn't falsified my theory yet......:)

Other Comments by Brian English

23. Comment #201041 by room101 on June 28, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I agree with Steve wholeheartedly...I really think it's best to let Richard be Richard, to allow him ample time to explain things, which is what you have to do when dealing with something as complex as biology. And there's no back and
forth "ping-ponging" between Richard and some theist, with each getting only 5 minutes.

Other Comments by room101

24. Comment #201093 by LeeC on June 29, 2008 at 2:28 am

Brian English wrote:

I see Richard hasn't falsified my theory yet......:)

It would be expensive to come to Oz for Richard, however surely we could all promise to buy a T-shirt and a book to make it worth his while?

Oh, and Melbourne would be the place to come of course if it was only to be one city :)

Lee
PS
Years ago though I did see Richard on a book tour at Leeds Uni - I was a poor student then and could not afford a hardback copy of any book, but now I will promise to buy two copies should Richard come to Melbourne to make up for it.

Can't be fairer than that?

Other Comments by LeeC

25. Comment #201098 by rod-the-farmer on June 29, 2008 at 2:51 am

Here is a question I would like to hear answered by others on this site. I am trying to come up with the single most convincing evidence for an old Earth, in the sense that this one piece would have the most effect on YEC types. Something that would show that evolution by natural selection, while quite slow in some areas, has an enormous amount of time in which to operate. What I have come up with is the combination of plate tectonics and the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, particularly if you examine the continental shelf. We can already detect their on-going slow separation, and by extrapolation, they have been moving apart for much longer than 6,000 years or so.

My thinking is that it is probably not hard to convince YEC's that the theory of plate tectonics is real/legitimate. It should be even easier to get them to agree the coastlines certainly appear as if they were once connected. That is just a visual thing anyone can see. The factual data regarding the separation should be demonstrable in a convincing fashion, so that the combination of all three should inevitably lead them to the conclusion that the Earth is many times older than 6,000 years.

Then can posit that Dog created & buried fossils to confuse us, or test our faith, or whatever. Or the speed of light changed over time, or the rate of radioactive decay, or some such fabrication to make their argument for a young earth possible, by countering other scientific proofs. But I personally would find it hard to suggest that Dog made the shorelines of the two continents nearly identical, plus made the various plates move around the surface of the earth, and at varying speeds, just to give scientists something to amuse them.

Any comments, or suggestions for a different "single" argument that would convince them ?

I know, there are a great many scientific proofs that together, make up an enormous body of evidence. I don't think we can get YEC types to listen to them all. I would just like to hit them with one big bang, so to speak.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

26. Comment #201108 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 3:53 am

#200665 by Steve Zara: Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

#201041 by room101: I agree with Steve wholeheartedly...I really think it's best to let Richard be Richard, to allow him ample time to explain things, which is what you have to do when dealing with something as complex as biology. And there's no back and forth "ping-ponging" between Richard and some theist, with each getting only 5 minutes.

I don't normally post to say "me too". But ... me too!

Paula sets the context, a bit like the abstract and headlines in an article, or the chapter headings and chapter introductions in a book, and Richard expands on it, like the rest of the article or chapter. It structures things much better than Richard switching between introducing the next topic, and then delivering it. We easily see that we have arrived at a new topic. (Although Richard alone is OK if there are visual aids to show the structure, which tends not to work well on TV/video. I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?)

I wonder what the point of the typical debate is? Entertainment? Yes, if Christopher Hitchens is involved! But mostly they leave me frustrated or infuriated. What have I, or anyone else, learned? They are better suited to topics where there isn't a right answer, (eg. within politics). Point-scoring doesn't settle scientific issues.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

27. Comment #201111 by Geoff on June 29, 2008 at 4:07 am

25. Comment #201098 by rod-the-farmer

Here is a question I would like to hear answered by others on this site. I am trying to come up with the single most convincing evidence for an old Earth, in the sense that this one piece would have the most effect on YEC types. Something that would show that evolution by natural selection, while quite slow in some areas, has an enormous amount of time in which to operate. What I have come up with is the combination of plate tectonics and the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, particularly if you examine the continental shelf. We can already detect their on-going slow separation, and by extrapolation, they have been moving apart for much longer than 6,000 years or so.

We've all tried that, rod. Their latest idea is something they call the hydroplate theory, which actually does have the continents whizzing around at amazing speeds. I'm afraid their reality denial is such that no amount of real science will shake them.

Other Comments by Geoff

28. Comment #201115 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 4:53 am

Barry Pearson: I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?

Well, I've been called worse, Barry!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

29. Comment #201126 by toomanytribbles on June 29, 2008 at 5:24 am

wooohoooo it's up on youtube..
part 1 of 6 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYp5aDajcxQ

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

30. Comment #201131 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:40 am

Rod the Farmer,

The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds.

No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They all hate each others guts as well - what do you expect with extreme ideologues?

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

Remember, there is such a thing as Poe's Law. No matter how much you parody them, they will somewhere believe what you are parodying.

Most of them are so stupid that no only do they not understand even basic science but they don't understand the creationist position. Yet they all think they are "right".

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

31. Comment #201133 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 5:52 am

Roger Stanyard: No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They're shameless about introducing what is effectively magic into their arguments, too. They have no difficulty in exempting their god from the laws of physics, so it really doesn't matter WHAT evidence you show them, they'll just argue that god magicked it to look that way.

Their whole belief system is based on myth and emotion. And fear too, of course. It seems rather optimistic to expect mere evidence to change their minds!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

32. Comment #201136 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 6:23 am

#201131 by Roger Stanyard: The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds....

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

We need to know who we are trying to convince. Those people are really a "lost generation". This is a battle being played out over generations.

Here is a repeat of something I said a couple of days ago:

.... We shouldn't judge the success of the "rational viewpoint", or "the enlightenment", by whether existing Creationists are converted. A few may be but most won't be. Our success should be judged by the degree to which their endeavours are "contained", and by the beliefs of the next generation.

Will there be replacements for Dembski, Behe, etc, in the next generation? If so, how will their views compare? Note that Behe doesn't appear to deny evolution and common descent. Will the next generation, if there is one, similarly accept many scientific positions, and confine themselves to narrower conflicts than the current generation?

.... Many Creationists are fully aware that this is largely a battle for the next generation. We should all act and judge accordingly.

That is why, despite being childfree, I recently joined BCSE. (And people in the US should join NCSE).

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

33. Comment #201137 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 6:27 am

Just caught it. Splendid work.

I though Paula's framing of the issues was elegantly done. It helped make the thing flow in a very satisfying way. Well done indeed!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

34. Comment #201143 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 6:50 am

Roger Stanyard......BCSE

Gosh I'm a dunce. I'll ask this question in public in case anyone else can help too.

I've been working on the idea for some cheap educational kit that can be used to show the evolution of the eye. Using a webcam as a reconfigurable sensor, various adapting enclosures and a white board, the continual improvement in utility (and even a branching into compound eyes) from a single light sensitive patch can be demonstrated
for single aspect changes to the structure.

The help I need is in identifying how this may integrate with the National Curiculum and then promoting the equipment to schools. I also need help with some simple PC based software to offer the webcam image as a single pixel (and growing multiples) and indicating averaged light levels.

(I have access to an educational equipment manufacturer, distributer.)

Any thoughts? Roger? Anyone?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

35. Comment #201148 by mikesherwod53 on June 29, 2008 at 7:16 am

DARKINS ON DARWIN
The hyperlink won't work

Other Comments by mikesherwod53

36. Comment #201157 by clatz on June 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

mikesherwod53

Try the youtube link in post #29

Other Comments by clatz

37. Comment #201182 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

There's a QuickTime version at the very top of this page now - that works perfectly!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

38. Comment #201241 by Jamie Walton on June 29, 2008 at 1:19 pm

http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/-/53/68/-/5890252/Richard-Dawkins-Dawkins-On-Darwin/Product.html?searchtype=genre

That's The DVD right? Due for release on 11/08/2008

Other Comments by Jamie Walton

39. Comment #201276 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Jamie Walton: That's The DVD right? Due for release on 11/08/2008

Yes, that will be it, Jamie.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

40. Comment #201593 by LeeC on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 pm

rod-the-farmer wrote:

Here is a question I would like to hear answered by others on this site. I am trying to come up with the single most convincing evidence for an old Earth, in the sense that this one piece would have the most effect on YEC types.

Good luck because I don't think even science works this way.

It's not that any one piece of evidence is better than the next, it is that they are ALL consistent with one another.

Personally, I've given up on the evidence argument with the YEC (what's the point?) and ask more questions about their beliefs and what it means in the real world.

Why do they think the Earth is only 6,000 years old? (Erm... could that be the bible?) What would they expect to observe in the world if it were true? What shouldn't we see etc etc...

As you will know, it all comes crumbling down as nonsense when you do this and so they are left with 'special pleading'... a poor man's logical fallacy whenever there was one.

My favourite questions on YEC resolve around Noah and his Ark - you can have hours of fun with this story alone with a creationist (should of course they chose to talk about it - most walk away)

I do see your point though - evidence that is observable with the 'naked eye' would be best. (You don't see creationists defending the flat Earth model as described in the bible for this very reason, so they can and do reject some of the bible - though I have seen a few defending the non-moving geocentric Earth model, that was a shock)

The problem with long time scales (even over a few thousand years) you cannot 'notice' this with one measurement (unlike the spherical Earth).

You are left with analogies along the lines that no one has 'seen' trees grow from acorns to forests of 200 year old Oak trees. Yet we can go into the forest and see ALL the stages and work out the timescales involved.

But this still will not work on a hard and fast believer in nonsense.

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

41. Comment #201599 by HourglassMemory on June 29, 2008 at 9:24 pm

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who laughed to tears when the bit from the series came up, where he reads the messages?
I of course do not like people sending rude messages to Richard, like I wouldn't want rude messages to be sent to anyone who doesn't deserve it, but.... it was very funny seeing him read them.

I bet Richard is too intelligent to let these messages affect him anyway.

Also, I can't wait for the series!!! AAGGHH!!!!!

And the interview was great, smooth, nice, informative. Great.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

42. Comment #201613 by Maverick X on June 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm

IT'S ON YOUTUBE, finally!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyqRn3UtLo





-mavx

Other Comments by Maverick X

43. Comment #201653 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 2:04 am

HourglassMemory wrote:

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who laughed to tears when the bit from the series came up, where he reads the messages?

Well, the audience was having a good laugh (and so was I), so I guess the answer to that question is NO!

I bet Richard is too intelligent to let these messages affect him anyway.

I'm afraid that intelligence has nothing to do with whether things like that affect you! A lot of very intelligent people, along with artists, are in fact quite sensitive and sometimes do not take ridicule or pointed criticism very well. (Yes, I've been reading psychology articles...)

But showing just how ridiculous and laughable this kind of hate mail is by the mere act of letting others see/hear it would be one way to diffuse any tension. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine! (Not that I have any idea how such things might affect Dawkins or not, I hasten to add!)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

44. Comment #201800 by HourglassMemory on June 30, 2008 at 9:24 am

Layla Nasreddin
"I'm afraid that intelligence has nothing to do with whether things like that affect you! A lot of very intelligent people, along with artists, are in fact quite sensitive and sometimes do not take ridicule or pointed criticism very well."

From the video, both of the series bit and where he's sitting with Paula, he doesn't seem to be laughing. He only laughs when Paula mentions the gentle followers of Jesus.

If he does take them to heart, I sure do understand him. I can assure you he's not the only one receiving this sort of messages.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

45. Comment #201904 by Paula Kirby on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hourglass Memory: From the video, both of the series bit and where he's sitting with Paula, he doesn't seem to be laughing. He only laughs when Paula mentions the gentle followers of Jesus.

Unfortunately the clip shown at the Festival stopped a little earlier than I'd intended, and so the best bit of this sequence wasn't shown. In it Richard reads out yet another letter from a hatred-spouting Christian (I won't tell you what it says, because it will spoil your fun when you see it - it really is very funny!), and literally can't keep a straight face as he's doing so.

He's interviewed in the film about his reaction to letters like these - and I think your concerns will be allayed when you hear his answers.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

46. Comment #201976 by Big City on June 30, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Paula, will the whole clip be on the DVD?

Other Comments by Big City

47. Comment #201981 by Paula Kirby on June 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Big City: Paula, will the whole clip be on the DVD?

So far as I know, the DVD will contain the whole of the 3-part film about Charles Darwin and evolution that Richard has made for Channel 4. It will also be broadcast on Channel 4 starting in August (I think).

The interview in the video clip here is quite separate from that. The idea was to get Richard talking about some of the things he covers in the film, and give people a bit of a preview of it.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

48. Comment #201983 by decius on June 30, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Paula,

you are very natural and incredibly talented.
Good job.

Other Comments by decius

49. Comment #201991 by Animavore on June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Can't wait to see this. Along with Attenborough making a series on Evolution these things need to be made known to the general public who aren't going to pick up a book and are at risk of being accosted by creationists and swallowing their nonsense.

Other Comments by Animavore

50. Comment #202008 by searchingfortruth on June 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm

...and please come to Costa Rica or any of the Latin America countries, we really need a new vision of the world... catholic believes are confusing people.

Other Comments by searchingfortruth