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)
Friday, July 18, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

by Kate Muir, Times Online

Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4331024.ece

His books sell in their millions, his TV programmes are rapturously received, and he's appeared in Doctor Who. Not bad for a 67-year-old academic. Now Richard Dawkins, scourge of creationists, is championing his Victorian hero

RD

Listen to a podcast with Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge. The nearest we get to this now is celebrating the thrill of Germaine Greer walking out of Celebrity Big Brother.

The marginalisation of academia is partly self-created by its pomp and obfuscatory language. Dawkins broke out of the ghetto long ago thanks not just to an extraordinary mind, but to a gift for elegant communication and controversy: the English-language version of his recent paean to atheism, The God Delusion, has sold 1.5million copies (it has been translated into 31 other languages). He is big in airport bookshops. In 1976, when his first book, The Selfish Gene, was published, The New York Times explained the mind-expanding pleasure of his science-lit as "the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius".

In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on. His audience is surprisingly grateful, and also relieved to see someone slapping creationists about and tossing them into the primordial soup, as well as explaining atheism positively. Before I went to interview him about his new three-part television series, Dawkins on Darwin, various over-excited friends offered to accompany me and texted questions for me to ask him; signed copies were requested of The God Delusion, which one Iranian exile said he had recently found himself reading as his plane landed — everyone else was clutching the Koran.

The Darwin-Dawkins combo was of some fascination too; one acquaintance lent me her much-loved copy of On the Origin of Species. "The language is beautiful. I read it for a Victorian literature course, not science," she said. And that, perhaps, is one of the reasons for the strong connection between Dawkins and Darwin. "Every line of Darwin, you know he really wanted to be understood," says Dawkins. "There was no pretentious showing off about him."

When Dawkins set out long ago to bring science to the masses, he says he was not consciously imitating Darwin, but had the same aims as him: "To be understood, to inspire." His post at Oxford — the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science — is appropriate. The ethologist-philosopher has been appearing on television since Horizon in the Seventies; his last series for Channel 4 was The Enemies of Reason, an attack on the bandwagons of astrology, the tarot, psychics and homoeopathy.

He has also embraced new media: his website gets huge traffic and is linked to Facebook and MySpace: "67 — Male — Oxford — London". There are 40 Dawkins-related videos on YouTube, some of which have been viewed more than one million times. It's not the usual medium of communication for a man of his generation.

For final proof that Dawkins, rather than God, is everywhere, you need only to have seen the most recent series of Doctor Who, in which Dawkins played a cameo as himself. Russell T. Davies, the executive producer of the series, is a fan. "He has brought atheism proudly out of the closet," Davies says.

Dawkins has a real-life connection with Doctor Who: he is married to Lalla Ward, who was previously the wife of Tom Baker, having played the role of his assistant, Romana, in the series in the Seventies. Dawkins met her at a birthday party in 1992 for the late Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Lalla floats in and out of Dawkins's vast living room and kitchen in Oxford, smiling and bearing espressos in terracotta mugs.

The Dawkins on Darwin programme — note who gets the first namecheck — was commissioned to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the presentation to the Linnean Society in London of Darwin's paper on his theory of evolution, and the bicentennial of his birth next year. Dawkins says that natural selection is "the most important idea to occur to the human mind", the slow change of species over millions of ideas disproving the religious theory of intelligent design by God.

That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. "It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated," he says. "But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it." Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. "I don't like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they're up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein's theory of relativity."

In the programme, he worries that evolution takes up little more than two hours of a child's science education in school, against potentially a lifetime of religious indoctrination at home. He tries to persuade a class of secondary school children about evolution. He frowns, exasperated. "It is such a tragedy that children are being deprived of this extraordinary exciting knowledge, which is theirs for the taking. What a privilege that they live in the 21st century, when that knowledge is available, but how tragic that they're being educated as though it were two centuries earlier."

At his home, among the modular sofas, tribal masks, plaster skulls, and three huge, painted animals from an old fairground ride, Dawkins is smiling and persuasive, his arguments clipped and accurate, no breath wasted. He is no elbow-patched, tweedy academic; his spotted socks and shoes are rather cutting edge, and he looks much younger than his 67 years. By contrast, on television he becomes almost a messianic teacher, his statements framed in the language of his true religion — science. At times, in the winds of Chesil Beach unearthing fossils, his glasses glinting, he suddenly has the choleric look of a 19th-century vicar; almost Trollopian.

Dawkins has long been nicknamed "Darwin's Rottweiler", a reference to the Victorian biologist T.H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for advocating natural selection and sensationally debated the cause, in 1860, against the Bishop of Oxford.

That was then and this is now, yet what has changed? "In a Gallup poll 44 per cent of the American people said that they believe the world is less than 10,000 years old," Dawkins says. "It's a massive error. I've likened it to believing that the width of America from New York to San Francisco is 7.8 yards — that's the equivalent error if you scale it up to the true age of the Earth, which is something like 4.6 billion years."

For Dawkins, there is a tree of life; not the one featuring Adam and Eve, but the one tantalisingly sketched by Darwin with the two words "I think" written above, showing how different species branch slowly off from each other over millions of years, until fish are on one branch, and apes on the opposite. If creationism falls, so, logically for Dawkins, does the rest of religion piled upon it.

"There is something very, very odd about American fundamentalism, and it's spreading to this country. I am frequently hearing of science teachers who have problems teaching evolution, mostly to Muslim students." At this point, Dawkins lapses into a "let's-not-go-there" silence. In The God Delusion, he mostly mauls Christianity. "I said something about Islam, but not as much. I regarded the book as attacking all religion, especially the three monotheistic religions — Islam, Judaism and Christianity. There's no particular emphasis on any of them; I know more about Christianity, so I emphasised it."

He claims the television film is not about Christianity but Darwinism, and that he tried to steer clear of religion, which he covered in an earlier two-part series for Channel 4, The Root of All Evil?. There is much about Darwin's five-year journey on HMS Beagle and about the Galapagos Islands, and there are scenes shot in Kenya, where Dawkins was born in 1941. The savannah scenes amply demonstrate the survival of the fittest, and the suffering, starving, struggling and death of the natural world. There is also an oddly touching moment when Dawkins holds specimens of racing pigeons that Darwin used to study the domestic breeding of animals. The label on each bird is handwritten by the great man. How did Dawkins feel, holding these artefacts? "Quite tearful, really… It is sort of moving to see his own handwriting on these labels he must have handled and examined many times."

Again he lapses into silence, but I now know to sit out these Pinteresque moments rather than interrupt — while most interviewees are floundering, Dawkins is thinking. "There's a very important misunderstanding of the relationship between Hitler and Darwin, which is relevant to this," he resumes. "A lot of people think that Hitler sort of was a Darwinian, which he absolutely wasn't. What Hitler did was to take the principle of domestic breeding of animals and apply it to humans. What Darwin did was to take the principle of the domestic breeding of animals and apply it to nature. It's all done by nature, by who as a matter of fact survives."

In 2006 Dawkins used his book royalties — and some donations from Silicon Valley — to set up the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a charity on both sides of the Atlantic that supports the teaching of science and evolution. His own website is labelled "a clear-thinking oasis". It contains articles, a chatroom, an online shop that sells "RDF" mugs for $10, and "A-for-Atheist" T-shirts for $20. There's even a hoodie.

Although Dawkins is facing mandatory retirement from his chair at Oxford University, he will remain active on the web and through his writing, lecturing (at the Edinburgh Book Festival next) and television programmes. His recent tours of America, speaking alongside co-thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, have met with standing ovations from packed audiences. "I think that there is something happening in America. I think it is revulsion against Bush, and revulsion against militant Islam," Dawkins says.

He is also a member of the Brights, a group who out themselves as atheists. But he is not too keen on the name. "The word Brights gets a lot of ridicule. A lot of Americans think it's arrogant, that it's saying non-religious people are cleverer than religious people. On average they probably are, but you're not allowed to say that." He grins.

Television has proved a powerful part of his arsenal. When he was first asked to present a Horizon programme based on The Selfish Gene, he refused. "I was too shy." They found another presenter. But Dawkins does have one of those early posh BBC accents, and his slightly geeky enthusiasm and erudition works on screen. "Yes, I do quite enjoy doing it now. I don't like speaking rehearsed lines to camera — and it's quite trying when a plane goes over and we have to do a retake. I like it when it's spontaneous and natural."

I tell him it's a relief to learn something from the television in these dark times, especially when he shares a channel with Big Brother, surely the ultimate cultural meme of the moment. (A meme is an idea that replicates across society, the cultural equivalent of a gene, and another one of Dawkins's inventions.)

Dawkins becomes unusually agitated at the mention of the reality television show. "I find that very shocking. I utterly despise Big Brother and I'm really sorry to be associated with it on Channel 4. It really is demeaning." You might assume that he would find the programme fascinating, the studio equivalent of a wildlife show, with nature red in tooth and claw. But he has nothing but contempt for the survival of the fittest in the Big Brother house. "I have heard indications that the bullying style of some of the Big Brother characters is copied by schoolchildren. Schoolchildren doing copycat bullying because they learn about it from these vile people, the trailer trash who go on Big Brother."

Perhaps we must blame trailer-trash education for our television celebrities. Have you seen the Key Stage science course for 11-year-olds, I ask Dawkins. He hasn't, but I can tell him that it is dull, uninspiring, and so simplistic as to be almost inaccurate. Evolution doesn't get a look-in. "I should love to have everybody taught about evolution from a fairly early age, because it is so important, so exciting," he says. "It answers so many questions and mysteries; it solves so many problems. Until you know about it, you're wandering around on this Earth looking at trees and birds and flowers, not knowing why any of them is there. Evolution is the answer to that riddle, so you're not really a whole person if you don't know where you come from and why you exist. And it's not difficult. It's not like relativity, it's not like quantum theory — it's something teachable to fairly young children."

Click to enlarge
RD w/ cricket


Dawkins was first taught about evolution by his parents, who are in their nineties now. His family moved from Kenya to Nyasaland, now Malawi, when he was two and then on to England when he was eight. You might expect that he had a Gerald Durrell type of childhood, collecting African beetles in matchboxes, but he says: "I didn't take much advantage of that. I must say I wasn't the real enthusiastic naturalist. My route to science and biology was almost more philosophical. I was interested in the questions of existence — why are we here?"

He did not fall in love with Darwin until he was an undergraduate, and now the culmination of their long affair of the mind is the television series and a book on evolution, which will also take in modern knowledge of genetics and DNA. Dawkins has also just edited The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, which contains essays by dozens of those scientists who manage to inspire ordinary people, including Steven Pinker, Oliver Sacks and Steve Jones.

He does not see why literature and science should be enemies. "If you push novelty of language and metaphor enough, you can end up with a new way of seeing." His love of books began as a child, with Dr Dolittle — of course. "He was rather like Darwin in a way, a doctor who loved animals, with this top hat, who went on little ships roughly the same vintage as the Beagle."

Of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins says: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction… It is designed to appeal to the imagination. Cliché or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth." He likes science fiction — Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Fred Hoyle — but he adores P. G. Wodehouse. "I've read all of him. I know it almost by heart." As for influences on his writing style, he says: "Dare I suggest Evelyn Waugh? I admire the spare economy — not many adjectives except in certain purple passages when he's turning on the purple tap."

Best not to go into Waugh and religion here, although Dawkins does describe himself as a "cultural Christian". He says: "I admit to a sort of vague affection for Anglicanism inherited from my parents. I like the idea of the vicar turning up to the village cricket match."

He also admits to having a curious ambivalence towards Christians who accept the theory of evolution, because on the one hand they are natural allies. On the other hand, at least the people he refers to as "fundamentalist wingnuts" agree with him that the scientific world is incompatible with supernaturalism. "They dig their heels in on one side, and me on the other."

Yet there is almost a spiritual side to Dawkins, a childlike wonder and joy in the marvels of the universe. He talks about being moved almost to tears when he took his two-year-old daughter Juliet (his only child, from his marriage to Eve Barham), wrapped in blankets, out into the back garden in 1986 to see Halley's Comet in the night sky. Dawkins could barely see the comet, but, aware that he would never see it again in his lifetime, he whispered to Juliet that she might just see it when it passed again, when she was 78. He chokes up a little talking about it again, and it reminds me of the Ted Hughes poem Full Moon and Little Frieda, when Hughes's toddler daughter is in the garden in the evening and suddenly shouts "Moon, Moon" in the silence.

Dawkins is equally emotional when he talks about the ashes of the planetary scientist Eugene Shoemaker being taken to the Moon in a capsule aboard a space probe. "Shoemaker wanted to be an astronaut, but for reasons of health, he couldn't go. Instead, he spent his life training astronauts and conducting research on the specimens they brought back, and he gave the Shoemaker-Levy comet its name. When he died, people lobbied Nasa to send his ashes to the Moon, which they did, with a plaque [on the capsule] with a quote from Romeo and Juliet: 'And, when he shall die/ Take him and cut him out in little stars/ And he will make the face of heaven so fine/ That all the world will be in love with night/ And pay no worship to the garish sun.'"

It's not quite pagan worship, but "it's a fine example of secular spirituality", says Dawkins.

Dawkins on Darwin will be shown on Channel 4 from August 4. Dawkins on Darwin and The Richard Dawkins Collection (4DVD, £19.99 and £29.99) are released on August 25

Comments 1 - 50 of 1396 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #213680 by thewhitepearl on July 18, 2008 at 7:02 pm

 avatar
Big Brother, surely the ultimate cultural meme of the moment


Seriously? People actually watch that? More mindless brain vapor.

All in all, it really is great that there is an indepth article about Dawkins. A " behind the scene" story so to speak. However, I'm disappointed with the way it was written. It reminds me of a middle school biography report. Ideas all over the place. Random sentences with random ideas and facts.

[edit] Is there a dog in the picture? By that dances with wolves looking statue? (It looks like he's holding a mini-sheep dog. Either that or a fat maltese)

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

2. Comment #213681 by maton100 on July 18, 2008 at 7:02 pm

 avatarAll hail the king of debunkery!

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #213685 by Laurie Fraser on July 18, 2008 at 7:10 pm

 avatarAnyone who is a fan of P.G. Wodehouse has got to be a good fellow.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

4. Comment #213690 by Chris Bell on July 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm

You can see a small glimpse of Richard's house there. I bet a tour of his house would be fascinationg - lots of artifacts and such.

Hitchens gave a TV tour of his home! Come on Richard!

Other Comments by Chris Bell

5. Comment #213697 by dragonfirematrix on July 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm

 avatarTo Dr. Dawkins, bravo! Live long and prosper.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

6. Comment #213700 by Diocletian on July 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm

This was such great fun to read and not a single line about him being shrill or strident or the other all too common comments about him. Well done Kate Muir.

Other Comments by Diocletian

7. Comment #213708 by robotaholic on July 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm

 avatarOne day I'll get this man's autograph :)

EDIT- the comments after the article are annoying and they only show the first few... I put my comment of support in but it doesn't show-

People are calling Richard Dawkins arrogant. I think claiming to know what a creator of the entire universe wants you to do, think, and say is far more arrogant than humbly following the scientific method of observation and repeatability.

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #213711 by thewhitepearl on July 18, 2008 at 8:04 pm

 avatar
One day I'll get this man's autograph :)


Yeah me too. I wish he would come to Dallas. I want a picture with him. I'd have it printed on a canvas and hung on my wall. If I don't ever get a picture.....Well I'll just tattoo his face on me somewhere.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

9. Comment #213716 by William1w1 on July 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm

I always try to comment about the article that I've read, so I'm glad that I can finally talk about Richard Dawkins.

I've always been an athiest, well at least since I could ask the question of why we're here. Throughout school, from roughly grade two onwards, I would try to convince people of the ridiculousness of believing in God. I must say that I often felt quite alone. Even when I found other atheists, they generally felt that religions deserve more respect than anything, even scientific inquiry. I often felt bad because I lost respect for people based on their beliefs. It was not until later that I realized that if someone believes something so massively stupid, then it should indeed be difficult to respect him or her.

And then I read 'The God Delusion.' Every argument Dawkins made resounded with perfection. He left no basic argument out of his book. I felt wholly satisfied because he had touched on everything that I wanted him to. Perhaps what was best was the realization that there are other intelligent and liberal people out there who find that religious people do not deserve respect for such ludicrous beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is awesome. I'm an 18-year-old man, and if I saw him I'd probably scream and then babble like a schoolgirl meeting her favourite pop-star... I don't think I'd ask for an autograph. I've never understood the importance of a signature. I would definitely take a picture if I had a camera though.

Other Comments by William1w1

10. Comment #213729 by Layla Nasreddin on July 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm

 avatarThe story about Juliet (also retold in Climbing Mount Improbable) brings to mind the time I also went out with my father one night to see Halley's Comet when I was 8, since I was such a huge astronomy buff at the time. The thing was, even with a (very small) telescope, there wasn't a heck of a lot to see, alas; all I remember is a tiny whitish smudge.

And the term "trailer trash" has made it across the pond, I see... ;-)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

11. Comment #213732 by KrisRamJ on July 18, 2008 at 8:42 pm

 avatarThere's a few more than 40 RD videos on YouTube - I just did a search and it's 3,670 if you search for "Richard Dawkins"...

Other Comments by KrisRamJ

12. Comment #213736 by Philster61 on July 18, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Long live King Richard!!!!!

Other Comments by Philster61

13. Comment #213742 by black wolf on July 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm

 avatarfrom the comments on their site:
"Dwarkins does not understand Americans. ... and the Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism is a religion equal to any other."
"( sorry darwin in wrong, evolution is just a viral infection)"
"To describe Hawkins as evangelical is pretty good..."
"... Christians who accept" evolution. That is, of course, the majority - including my Catholic Church."
"Dawkin's brand of Scientism is far more damaging then a few wingnuts in America that don't buy evolution (44% is nonsense). "

My comments on these:
- Why is it that believers apparently exclusively and persistently misspell Dawkins' name or can't tell him and Stephen Hawking apart? This reveals a willful ignorance of science and profound disrespect for a person's dignity. I try my best to spell any person's name correctly, even if it means I'll have to find a book that references him or a website to make sure. And in these cases, the article providing the correct spelling is right in front of their rage-dazzled eyes.
- The 44% figure is not only from a respectable polling institution, but has been corroborated by polls from other institutions and consecutive years. Flatly denying all those polls' validity from personal disbelief is a classic argument from incredulity and further illustrating how ignorance disrespects its own intellect.
- The SC didn't rule that atheism is a religion, and again, it is willfully ignorant or mendacious to claim it had.
- no, truth is not dependant on majority opinion or hurt feelings of national pride
- The Catholics and evolution:
"Although I, personally, believe in some form of evolution, I have serious problems with the way some theories of evolution are presented as fact, especially given the flaws in those theories, and any atheistic theory of evolution is, of course wholly incompatible with Christianity (and rational thought)." - commenter
"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo- Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." - Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn
While these do not represent the official majority position of the CC, we are well aware that it takes some degree of naiveté and obfuscative interpretative quibbling to bring the text of the scriptures into accordance with a complete view of the Theory of Evolution, inanely pretending that the authors of Genesis had been inspired to paraphrase evolution in the most obscurantist way conceivable. And they illustrate how quickly a large portion of the Catholic grass roots to some of is leaders would eagerly revert to 19th century creationism if science didn't uphold the pressure.

edits applied to grammar, content and added commentary 6:06 CET

Other Comments by black wolf

14. Comment #213769 by Enlightenme.. on July 18, 2008 at 9:34 pm

 avatarIn the first sentence: "a knight of the mind".

And obviously by now, along with Stephen Hawking, should be a member of The Most Noble Order of the Garter.
A knight of the realm.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #213775 by black wolf on July 18, 2008 at 9:43 pm

 avatarEnlightenme..,
did you know that Hawking declined knighthood twice? He doesn't think such a title means anything to him or his professionial standing.

Other Comments by black wolf

16. Comment #213783 by Hellene on July 18, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Mr. Dawkins,

I would like to thank you for devotion to the principles of Reason and Science. It is my belief that as human beings it is our obligation to help the Universe find out about itself. You sir along with your peers, are on the apex of that effort. Here in Florida we are under threat of a named storm that keeps coming back season after season. It's name is Rhonda Storms and it besieges the state capital when the senate is in session.
She lost the round this year. I personally vow to use what little power I have to see that she loses the next. The so-called "academic freedom bill" must never be allowed to poison the minds of our youth.

Thank you.

Please keep inspiring us!

The Hellene.
Tampa Florida

Other Comments by Hellene

17. Comment #213792 by NewSkeptic on July 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm

A polite, thoughtful article! Where did this kind of objective reporting come from? ;-)

I look forward to the programme and I am most keen to see what is in the Richard Dawkins DVD Collection!

Cheers, Skeptic!

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

18. Comment #213793 by Roy_H on July 18, 2008 at 10:36 pm

 avatar"The word Brights gets a lot of ridicule. A lot of Americans think it's arrogant, that it's saying non-religious people are cleverer than religious people. On average they probably are, but you're not allowed to say that."
Beautiful!

Other Comments by Roy_H

19. Comment #213797 by mordacious1 on July 18, 2008 at 11:38 pm

 avatarThe podcast is the Dawkins-McGarbage debate.

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #213799 by Enlightenme.. on July 18, 2008 at 11:53 pm

 avatarComment #213775 by black wolf :

"Enlightenme..,
did you know that Hawking declined knighthood twice? He doesn't think such a title means anything to him or his professionial standing. "


I'm not sure that's quite true.
There is no mention of this on wikipedia, and the way you phrase it suggests he has actually been cited for the honour, and declined it.
I very much doubt that has happened, and it's worth noting that Stephen Hawking is an OBE (or CBE) and also a Companion of Honour.

Sometimes things are attributed to people's off-the-cuff remarks concerning the merits of the British honours system, and how important it is to their standing &c, and then blown out of proportion by the media.

Correction to my post :
The part of the British honours system that Richard should be in is The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
I'm not quite sure how the system works, but it has a rank order (of course) ; MBE OBE CBE KBE/DBE and GBE , the two highest of which are knights/dames, addressed as 'Sir'/'Ma'am'.

And what did Charles Darwin get?..
(they cannot be awarded posthumously)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

21. Comment #213800 by irate_atheist on July 18, 2008 at 11:53 pm

 avatar
I should love to have everybody taught about evolution from a fairly early age, because it is so important, so exciting," he says. "It answers so many questions and mysteries; it solves so many problems. Until you know about it, you're wandering around on this Earth looking at trees and birds and flowers, not knowing why any of them is there. Evolution is the answer to that riddle, so you're not really a whole person if you don't know where you come from and why you exist. And it's not difficult. It's not like relativity, it's not like quantum theory â€" it's something teachable to fairly young children."
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. If religion is allowed to wreck childrens' minds, the very least we can do is tell them the truth instead. Barring my untimely death, my son will be as educated as possible, as young as possible, about this. I can only but hope this will counter the expected propaganda from the four preachers, two vicars and the ex-nun in my in-laws.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

22. Comment #213801 by doglived on July 18, 2008 at 11:54 pm

 avatarOh dear, the podcast features the comedian Alister E. McGrath. I tire of his routine: "I've discovered religion to enormously powerful and transformative." And then he goes on for many, many punch lines, none of which find my funny bone. He describes religion as if it's a kind of alcoholic Superman, who has the "capacity to do very very bad things as well as very good things ... and my real point is simply this, if you single out the bad acts of drunk superman it is easy to condemn him."

I must go re-read PZ's parody of McGrath which is truly funny.

Other Comments by doglived

23. Comment #213802 by Eventhorizon on July 19, 2008 at 12:10 am

 avatarI'd like to see a cameo by Richard on The Simpsons next
Anyone have Matt Groenings email address?

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

24. Comment #213803 by beanson on July 19, 2008 at 12:15 am

 avatarIt is truly bizarre that Evolutionary theory isn't given prominence as a school subject at all levels. One would be hard pressed to find another scientific theory which has such direct bearing on the image we have of ourselves as human and is yet as easy to understand...

...and so easy to misunderstand and misrepresent- simply leave out the natural selection element, preach that Darwinism means randomness and one can easily convince the ignorant that it could have no explanatory power over design

Other Comments by beanson

25. Comment #213805 by Kubenzi on July 19, 2008 at 12:30 am

 avatarpainted animals from an old fairground ride

Cmon Richard,youve been holding out.Pics or it didnt happen:D

Other Comments by Kubenzi

26. Comment #213806 by mordacious1 on July 19, 2008 at 12:36 am

 avatarirate

At least she is an "ex-nun". This must lead to some interesting dinner table discussions and possibly fisticuffs.

Other Comments by mordacious1

27. Comment #213808 by Dr Doctor on July 19, 2008 at 12:38 am

 avatar"[edit] Is there a dog in the picture? By that dances with wolves looking statue? (It looks like he's holding a mini-sheep dog. Either that or a fat maltese) "

Its not fat, just fluffy.

"Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge. The nearest we get to this now is celebrating the thrill of Germaine Greer walking out of Celebrity Big Brother."

Hoho, masterly slap down there of Germaine "I'm an intellectual you know" Greer and British TV.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

28. Comment #213809 by purbrookian on July 19, 2008 at 12:46 am

 avatarHellene, you're on the money with the warning about the imbecile Storms. Keep up the fight against such industrial-strength ignorance.

Other Comments by purbrookian

29. Comment #213811 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 12:51 am

Hoho, masterly slap down there of Germaine "I'm an intellectual you know" Greer and British TV.


And a rather odd and inappropriate one. This is the same British TV that recently produced the wonderful "Live in Cold Blood" by David Attenborough, and which presents the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, and which had a recent documentary on the ideas of Stephen Hawking.

The entire intellectual output of British TV should not be judged by Celebrity Big Brother.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #213812 by Dr Doctor on July 19, 2008 at 12:54 am

 avatar..and you are the master of what is appropriate, and what represents the output of British TV.

Why am I not surprised.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

31. Comment #213813 by King of NH on July 19, 2008 at 12:58 am

 avatar
He does not see why literature and science should be enemies.


I couldn't agree more. Working through college, I have a need to understand the distinction, but I find it to be one of convienience and not effective outside of course requirements. Sagan, Dawkins, Darwin, Verne, and Melville have demonstrated this.

Off conversation from this string, I know, but more on the above quote:
http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/wilson/

Other Comments by King of NH

32. Comment #213814 by Steve Zara on July 19, 2008 at 1:00 am

Comment #213812 by Dr Doctor

I have a reaction to simplistic generalisations. Some may consider this a fault.

Let's see. There is also the major series on Charles Darwin which will be broadcast over the next year. (ERV has just described her envy of us Brits for being able to watch this first)

I could go on... but I think the point has been made.

EDIT: I surely have to mention the excellent "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg on BBC R4, where some of the latest ideas are discussed, both in science and the arts.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #213815 by Darwin's badger on July 19, 2008 at 1:06 am

 avatar
Comment #213806 by mordacious1 on July 19, 2008 at 12:36 am
irate

At least she is an "ex-nun". This must lead to some interesting dinner table discussions and possibly fisticuffs.
What consenting nuns get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your business. ;)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

34. Comment #213817 by dvespertilio on July 19, 2008 at 1:14 am

Why in the penultimate paragraph does the author say "almost spiritual side"? Is this not confusing spirituality with religion? I would say that Dawkins' spirituality is as real and authentic as any religious spirituality, if not more so. Does one have to believe in God or gods to be called "spiritual"? I think not.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

35. Comment #213821 by dlitt on July 19, 2008 at 1:48 am

 avatar"Spiritual" implies spirit, as opposed to the real or material or physical. I disagree with the use of the word "spiritual" outside that of the superstitious realm.

Other Comments by dlitt

36. Comment #213826 by stereoroid on July 19, 2008 at 2:05 am

 avatarA bit of a puff-piece, I suppose, but the comments are interesting.

There's one guy who wants RD to explain why the "Eye of God" will be seen in the solar eclipse that will occur on 1 August. No speculation as to how we know there will be a solar eclipse on 1 August...

Other Comments by stereoroid

37. Comment #213830 by blakjack on July 19, 2008 at 2:16 am

 avatar"....that the scientific world is incompatible with supernaturalism...."

There might be a middle way. ID, as put forward by its proponents doesn't seem the endow their god a with very high level of sophistication. Let us assume instead the ID god didn't so much design individual animals, plants, etc but actually designed the LAWS of the universe (eg the ratio of the mass of one fundamental particle relative to another - any other ratio and the universe wouldn't work), then evolution and all the other wonders of our universe would inevitably follow. That concept of god would be far more acceptable to scientists and go a long way towards mitigating the controversy. Scientists could continue with their research as the god that had set up the rules would make investigation simply part of the "grand plan"

I don't happen to subscribe to the idea of a law-creating god, but am far less irritated by that point view than by the naive statement that the universe began precisely 6,227 years ago (or wherever) with everything in place.

Other Comments by blakjack

38. Comment #213831 by alexmzk on July 19, 2008 at 2:22 am

i like the included photo of Professor Dawkins saving a wee dog from a bear.

Other Comments by alexmzk

39. Comment #213832 by dvespertilio on July 19, 2008 at 2:22 am

Re: Comment 35 by dlitt:

Spiritual in its original etymological sense refers to "breath", that which sustains our life. That's very physical and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything supernatural. The word has been corrupted from its original and most authentic sense. Like Dawkins, I have an appreciation for the finer sense of usage in the English language. It is always important to think, speak, and write as clearly as we can. But I defer to Dawkins in his ability to communicate so clearly, concisely and beautifully.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

40. Comment #213834 by dlitt on July 19, 2008 at 2:34 am

 avatarLanguage evolves:

spiritual (comparative more spiritual, superlative most spiritual)
Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul
Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred
Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural

Other Comments by dlitt

41. Comment #213835 by dlitt on July 19, 2008 at 2:41 am

 avatar...And this one's from the Oxford Dictionary:

spiritual
/spirrityool/

• adjective 1 relating to or affecting the human spirit as opposed to material or physical things. 2 relating to religion or religious belief.

Other Comments by dlitt

42. Comment #213836 by Dinah on July 19, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #213708 by robotaholic

People are calling Richard Dawkins arrogant. I think claiming to know what a creator of the entire universe wants you to do, think, and say is far more arrogant than humbly following the scientific method of observation and repeatability.


How true. And how refreshing to read an article by someone who has actually gone to interview Richard and listened to what he has to say, rather than parroting the same old tired adjectives and stereotyped opinions of other journalists and religious apologists.

Other Comments by Dinah

43. Comment #213837 by Haymoon on July 19, 2008 at 2:55 am

 avatarI'm really surprised to hear Richard Dawkins using the term "trailer trash". I've always thought it to be a crass transatlantic phrase which connotes a certain class snobbery, something I never would have thought Richard to be guilty of.

Other Comments by Haymoon

44. Comment #213839 by Matt H. on July 19, 2008 at 3:05 am

 avatar"a knight of the mind"

Make him a Knight of the Realm too.

Roll on Sir Richard Dawkins. Come on Gordon Brown, do something decent before you're kicked out of office.

A damn fine interview. In fact I think it's the best of Richard I've ever read. I wouldn't expect anything less from The Times. Despite its ownership, it's a damn fine newspaper.

Other Comments by Matt H.

45. Comment #213841 by dvespertilio on July 19, 2008 at 3:17 am

Re: Comments 39 and 40 by dlitt:

spirit: Middle English from Old French or Latin; Old French from Latin, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe. (13th century)

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Language has many levels and shades of meaning

Other Comments by dvespertilio

46. Comment #213842 by Bernard Baptiste on July 19, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #213837 by Haymoon

I think he used the term simply to convey a contempt for people who believe and perpetrate Big Brother's ridiculousness.

I tried to watch it once and lasted 10 minutes before angrily turning the telly off. If friends or family are watching it I now tactfully go out for a walk.

Comment #213839 by Matt7895

I think there was a little bit of a movement to have this happen for Richard on this site.

One thing is sure have reproductions of Richard's sanity placed anywhere public decisions have to be made.

Other Comments by Bernard Baptiste

47. Comment #213843 by mixmastergaz on July 19, 2008 at 3:27 am

 avatarHaymoon: I'm not surprised at all. Richard's always been plain spoken about things he doesn't like. The phrase maybe doesn't have quite the same impact in the UK perhaps. We don't really have trailer parks in any great number here. On a related point in the UK broadsheets there's recently been a rather childish argument about how it isn't 'pc' (can you believe anyone still wants to use the term pc? It has such a poor currency these days) to use the phrase 'chav'. Absurd that this is the sort of crap people get wound-up about whilst the Bush administration is treating the words 'contraception' and 'abortion' as synonymous.

I'm looking forward to this documentary. Richard's a natural teacher. He has a real talent for making detailed and complicated information accessible and engaging for a science-ignoramus like me.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

48. Comment #213844 by Enlightenme.. on July 19, 2008 at 3:32 am

 avatar@ Comment 36, by blakjack,

Deists are still creationists.
Find me the church of deists that does not claim to know the mind of their deity on stem-cell research, abortion, or homosexuality.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

49. Comment #213845 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 19, 2008 at 3:33 am

 avatarIt says: "One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein's theory of relativity"

I wish there were passionate debates about Special Relativity. Where is the Dawkins that specialises in Physics and really brings the subject alive to the masses?

I did a Physics degree, and I still don't really "get it". It's more than saying, "time dilation" or "Lorentzian contraction" or "mass increases". It gets confusing.

Before anyone else gets in, note to self: Fucktard
(and to prove the point, I quite like the entertainment of Big Brother. I was snobby enough to refuse to watch the first series, but the brain disease has set in now)

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

50. Comment #213847 by dlitt on July 19, 2008 at 3:37 am

 avatar
Comment #213841 by dvespertilio on July 19, 2008 at 3:17 am

[edit]Language has many levels and shades of meaning

Language - yes. Most words tend to be more precise.

The "breath" you're referring to, is a 'breath of animation' from a supernatural being.

Other Comments by dlitt
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE