Thursday, August 7, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

by Libby Purves

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article4474112.ece

It's not a simple choice between God and evolution: none of us can know that there is nothing out there

Firmly I believe and truly that Professor Richard Dawkins is an honest scientist and great communicator. He's magic on telly: his programmes sending up New Agers were fun, especially when he let a lady "replace his Atlantean cells" by blowing on him. As for his reverence for Darwin and evolutionary theory, I share it. Have done ever since school.

My convent school, to be exact. The chief science-nun, despite her wimple and veil, was dead keen on Darwin. Most educated Christians are. Which is why the first episode of the professor's Channel 4 series, The Genius of Charles Darwin, had me alternately cheering and cursing. Talking about evolution, he is terrific. But every few minutes he spoils it by announcing that natural selection means there is, categorically, no God. Not needed as wildlife designer - ergo, non-existent.

Professor Dawkins met a class of children, some of them indoctrinated by that crazily literal minority who think the world began 6,000 years ago on a divine drawing board. Instead of explaining natural selection and letting them work out that maybe the Creator works in more mysterious ways than the Genesis myth, he offered them a choice as stark as any bonkers tin-hut preacher from the Quivering Brethren shouting: "Repent or burn!"

Evolution or God - take your choice, kid! The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism. OK, he is provoked, as we all are, by nutters. But most believers are not creationists. Some are scientists. They reckon that an omnipotent being capable of giving humans free will is equally capable of setting a cosmic ball rolling - Big Bang, abiogenesis, all that - and letting it proceed through eons of evolution, selection and struggle. One of the oddest aspects of Dawkins's TV programme, rich in antelope-mauling and gobbly snakes, was his emotional implication that, gee, Nature is too cruel to have been invented by God! A wet, mawkish, bunny-hugging argument.

Darwin shines; evolution is as marvellous as Dawkins says. But it is not fair to use Darwin's beautifully evolved brain to bang the drum for your private conviction that there is nothing out there. Nobody knows. Not really. Teaching children real science is one thing, making them choose God or evolution is another.

Stupid, too, in a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If you offer a choice between science on one hand and faith and tradition on the other, too many people will reject science. A subtle and well-evolved species like us can accept both ammonites and Alleluias. Live with it, Prof.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, August 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 229 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #225756 by Nathanial_BB on August 7, 2008 at 10:56 am

Go Go Prof!!!

Other Comments by Nathanial_BB

2. Comment #225758 by Don_Quix on August 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

But most believers are not creationists.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US most "believers" in Christianity certainly *are* literal creationists. You can't believe in literal creationism and still accept the fact of evolution, unless of course you've spent some time in the Ministry of Love.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

3. Comment #225759 by Luthien on August 7, 2008 at 10:59 am

Nature is too cruel to have been invented by God! A wet, mawkish, bunny-hugging argument.

No, it proves definitively that the nice, supposedly loving christian god does not exist! I can think of nothing more wet and mawkish than clinging to some vague deist argument without the slightest bit of evidence.

Other Comments by Luthien

4. Comment #225760 by decius on August 7, 2008 at 10:59 am

So much verbose praise and conceding the obvious, as if it would help to validate her egregious argument from ignorance and her preposterous charge against Richard.

Other Comments by decius

5. Comment #225763 by thewhitepearl on August 7, 2008 at 11:02 am

But most believers are not creationists. Some are scientists.

..............[sighs]..............[shakes head]

If most believers are not creationists and some are scientists...what are the rest?

Teaching children real science is one thing, making them choose God or evolution is another

Making them realise how incompatible they are together helps. And which god? Certainly not the god of the bible. That is a creationist story. Not a scientific one.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

6. Comment #225765 by Richard Dawkins on August 7, 2008 at 11:05 am

I have submitted the following letter to The Times. Of course, I have no idea whether they will publish it.

Sir:
In her article (7th August) about Episode 1 of my television documentary, 'The Genius of Charles Darwin', Libby Purves says that I offered the children a choice 'as stark as any bonkers tin-hut preacher from the Quivering Brethren shouting:"Repent or burn!" Evolution or God - take your choice, kid! The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism.'

That is unjust, to the point of outright mendacity, and an insult to any professional educator. It was the creation-indoctrinated children themselves who made the leap: 'Evolution = Atheism'. I was scrupulously careful NOT to make that connection in the presence of the children, although I have made it elsewhere, spelling out the nuanced argument in The God Delusion.

She goes on to say, 'OK, he is provoked, as we all are, by nutters. But most believers are not creationists.' I expect it's true that the few believers Libby Purves meets over canapes are not creationists. But "MOST believers"? Most believers in Bradford? The Scottish Highlands? Pakistan? Indonesia? The Arab world? South America? Indeed, North America? Polls suggest that more than 40% of the British population are creationists. For the subset who call themselves believers, the figure must be considerably more than 50%. Please don't say 'most people', when what you really mean is Islington and Hampstead Garden Suburb.

Richard Dawkins, New College, Oxford

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

7. Comment #225770 by elise97 on August 7, 2008 at 11:10 am

but libby, the first thing theists ALWAYS seem to drag up (even those lightweight educated ones that you dont think are creationists) is the argument from design.

Other Comments by elise97

8. Comment #225773 by Nathanial_BB on August 7, 2008 at 11:10 am

note to self - scan the letters page of The Times over the next few days...

Thank you Richard :)

Other Comments by Nathanial_BB

9. Comment #225775 by hungarianelephant on August 7, 2008 at 11:12 am

They reckon that an omnipotent being capable of giving humans free will is equally capable of setting a cosmic ball rolling - Big Bang, abiogenesis, all that - and letting it proceed through eons of evolution, selection and struggle.

This sort of argumentation makes my brain hurt. A logically impossible being with certain characteristics must necessarily possess certain other characteristics. Therefore God exists. Does she actually realise what she is saying?

And a fairly odd sort of deity he is too, apparently. Not the thunder-wielding, human-smiting, micromanager of the OT. More of a Delia Smith character - mix it all up, stick it in the oven and leave to cook for 3.8 billion years.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

10. Comment #225782 by Apathy personified on August 7, 2008 at 11:24 am

Talk about siege mentality - 'Boo hoo, he said God doesn't exist, and that makes me a sad panda'
These people have already made up their mind about what RD has said, before he even opens his mouth.

I have a challenge for her -
'Clever lady who has brought to Richards attention that some people can and do believe in god and accept the fact of evolution (a point he has, of course, NEVER EVER heard before) - Can you explain the mechanism by which your god created life please? So it's about, what, 5 billion years after the universe was created that primitive life first appeared? - So how does your non- interventionist god intervene, then disappear?'

Other Comments by Apathy personified

11. Comment #225784 by Old Sarum on August 7, 2008 at 11:25 am

More of a Delia Smith character - mix it all up, stick it in the oven and leave to cook for 3.8 billion years.

Yes, but not at all wet, mawkish or bunny-hugging. So more like a cross between Delia Smith & Margaret Thatcher, with a bit of Myra Hindley thrown in.

Other Comments by Old Sarum

12. Comment #225790 by black wolf on August 7, 2008 at 11:32 am

Ok, God makes a universe from outside of its existence to have one species develop on one planet of billions of billions according to the plan that they will eventually die and glorify him forever. Apparently also according to the plan, they need to become sinful after millenia of clueless cycles of life and death so that they can be presented with the fair choice of worship or death (in the best case) to avoid death.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Other Comments by black wolf

13. Comment #225800 by Lev-CapeTown on August 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

They reckon that an omnipotent being capable of giving humans free will is equally capable of setting a cosmic ball rolling

Sure, if you believe your god (note I have not used capital letters) can do anything then, by definition he CAN do anything..

But the point is WHY? Why add another complexity to the equation. Another complexity that has no more right to be there then a mongoose that can create marshmallows out of air. It doesn't help the cause in any way if your aim is to progress in understanding. It only helps, if your aim is to remain ignorant and NAIVE about everything unexplained YET.

Lev

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

14. Comment #225801 by Jack Rawlinson on August 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

RD writes:

Please don't say 'most people', when what you really mean is Islington and Hampstead Garden Suburb.

Ouch! :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

15. Comment #225803 by faouloki on August 7, 2008 at 11:43 am

She's creating a fire hazard leaving all those straw men lying around.

Other Comments by faouloki

16. Comment #225804 by happinessiseasy on August 7, 2008 at 11:45 am

"crazily literal minority"

IF ONLY

Other Comments by happinessiseasy

17. Comment #225807 by Eventhorizon on August 7, 2008 at 11:47 am

So Libby Purves has thrown her dummy out of her pram again.
I always like to see how quickly these 'mainstream' Christians try and distance themselves from what they see as 'nutters' - oh that they dont see they irony.
One day the penny will drop and they'll realise how we all feel!

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

18. Comment #225811 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 11:53 am

There is a clear choice between evolution and "goddidit." RD has simply restated, for the n'th time, that the latter cannot be the case.

Other Comments by Quine

19. Comment #225812 by Dhamma on August 7, 2008 at 11:55 am

what is she proposing? She believes in the evolution, and what religion? If she's a christian she's contradicting herself.

If she admits the bible is wrong in the creation story, then why should one believe in anything else a book says that claims to be holy? If a book is holy, HOLY, there's not a chance a single word in it can be wrong. "My holy book has lots of errors, but I believe in it anyway".

I can to some degree understand if people think there's a god in the universe (despite all the issues raised), but I can in no way understand how one can associate it with a specific religion.

I'm giving up on humans!!!

Other Comments by Dhamma

20. Comment #225818 by Mango on August 7, 2008 at 12:00 pm

But every few minutes he spoils it by announcing that natural selection means there is, categorically, no God.

I also found these asides by Dr. Dawkins somewhat out of place for a documentary about Darwin and they hampered the documentary's flow. And even though Dr. Dawkins did not explicitly say it, he does imply that one must either choose between evolution, which is undeniably true to a reasonable person who evaluates the evidence, and religious belief. But surely one can still be a theist or deist and still accept evolution, and even Dr. Dawkins himself admits he is technically an agnostic (as we all must be, if we choose to remain scientific).

A far better strategy would have been to leave all references to his personal atheism at home and let the public mull over the facts of evolution. If a large percentage of the viewing public are indeed Young Earth Creationists, the program would have been successful even if it just sneaked a little scientific understanding into their brains. Instead, Dr. Dawkins taints the educational program for them by draping his (disgusting, to them) atheism around it.

Other Comments by Mango

21. Comment #225823 by Eventhorizon on August 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Mango

I suppose you could 'reasonably' be a deist but then why would you believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence?
Theists take an even bigger leap

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

22. Comment #225824 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I would be interested to hear Libby Purves explain exactly how a omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator is consistent with evolution.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

23. Comment #225826 by PaulJ on August 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

The problem with there being a choice between Evolution and God, is that evolution is to a degree compatible with deism, but not with theism. Theism seems to propose the whole package of a personal, interventionist, miracle-performing God who answers prayers - which is definitely incompatible with evolution. But this is exactly the kind of God that most religious people appear to believe in.

If your God is the mystical, unknowable idea that cranked the starting handle of the universe's engine, then stood back while the universe got on with everything else, then evolution has very little to say about him/her/it. But that's not what most religious people believe.

Libby Purves's moderate (and relatively reasonable) faith is just another example of providing cover and perceived respectability for the "nutters".

It's not a simple choice between God and evolution: none of us can know that there is nothing out there

This is a bit of non sequitur. Even if we don't know there's nothing out there, we can still assess the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.

This stuff isn't going away. Not until all religious belief is shown to be the security-blanket wishful thinking it (to us) obviously is.

Other Comments by PaulJ

24. Comment #225827 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #225818 by Mango:

... and even Dr. Dawkins himself admits he is technically an agnostic (as we all must be, if we choose to remain scientific)

We need not be "agnostic" re any given description of a deity that we can show is bogus. There will always be the possibility that a deity created the world specifically to look as if no deity exists. The idea of "technically agnostic" is a difference that makes no difference.

Other Comments by Quine

25. Comment #225830 by Glen Davidson on August 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Well I would rather that Dawkins would more often mention that science is what leaves no real scope for a detectable God.

After all, evolution could indicate absolutely no involvement of God in biology, and yet the universe might be fine-tuned for life (I don't believe it, I'm just pointing out that they're two different subjects).

Evolution is difficult for religion to swallow because it closed the last large gap in which magic might still be invoked. It's not like heliocentrism and physics hadn't already pushed God out of many areas. Biology was special simply because physics didn't explain it until Darwin and others came up with meaningful mechanisms of evolution.

I don't think that emphasizing evolution's role in pushing magic out of the picture assists in getting people to treat it like any other science. And that's what we need to get across to people (esp. in the US), the fact that evolution is simply the application of scientific principles to biology.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

26. Comment #225831 by br0k3nglass on August 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Professor Dawkins is always most careful never to hoist an "evolution or god" choice upon others. He merely asks that people look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions, leaving all preconceptions aside. If he makes statements about how HIS study of evolution led him to reject HIS belief in god, he is well within his right to do so.

As he himself says, it is usually the people listening to what he says (either on TV or in a classroom) who are the first to jump on the "evolution or god" bandwagon.

Other Comments by br0k3nglass

27. Comment #225833 by Mango on August 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Quine: We need not be "agnostic" re any given description of a deity that we can show is bogus.

I concur, and functionally I'm an atheist just as I'm an a-unicornist, but you know that scientists are technically agnostic about such things so why fight me over this point which I think we agree on? We cannot show anything is bogus, which is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a useful figure to lampoon what some people take seriously.

Other Comments by Mango

28. Comment #225835 by Peacebeuponme on August 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm

private conviction that there is nothing out there.

What the FUCK do people mean when they say this?

What the fuck can they possibly mean by something 'out there'?

What exactly do they think Richard is denying?

Define something properly and then we can talk about it, for fuck's sake.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

29. Comment #225838 by Apathy personified on August 7, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Peace,

What the fuck can they possibly mean by something 'out there'?

Clearly she has had her head warped by watching the latest x-files film, titled - 'i want to believe' - how appropriate for these plastic religites.

Edit: Clarity

Other Comments by Apathy personified

30. Comment #225841 by aquilacane on August 7, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Another guy who thinks his personal belief (void of evidence) needs to be considered. What an idiot.

Other Comments by aquilacane

31. Comment #225842 by scottishgeologist on August 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Libby seems to like the idea of theistic evolution. However, it was pointed out (on the FCOS forum by a guy called Richard Tallach, I think) that "theistic evolution drives a coach and horses through the biblical plan of redemption"

The whole Christian worldview hinges on the idea of "Perfection (as God made it) -> Fall -> Sin -> Need for a Saviour -> Jesus -> Rapture -> Redeemed saved in cosmic bliss / Reprobate burning for ever ->New Heavens & New Earth"

Theistic Evolution is COMPLETELY incompatible with this.

The only reason that Theo Evo is even considered by Christians is because of the advance of science, and a need to try to accomodate the obvious (evolution) with their cosmic comfort blanket.

In this respect, the fundie creationists are actually less intellectually dishonest.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

32. Comment #225844 by Quine on August 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Mango, I am not fighting you.

Comment #225833 by Mango:

We cannot show anything is bogus, which is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a useful figure to lampoon what some people take seriously.

Well, I hold that we can show that any religion you pick teaches things that are not true, and thus, in my view, is bogus.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #225846 by chewedbarber on August 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm

and letting it proceed through eons of evolution, selection and struggle.

That is not the God of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism and so not the God of most believers.

'Sophisticated' believers seem to be atheist bound by tradition to the religion of their families; this might explain these types of outrageous rationalizations where words take on new meanings to protect what is a weak belief in my parents belief.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

34. Comment #225847 by thewhitepearl on August 7, 2008 at 12:34 pm

What the FUCK do people mean when they say this?

What the fuck can they possibly mean by something 'out there'?

What exactly do they think Richard is denying?

Define something properly and then we can talk about it, for fuck's sake.

Peace be upon you

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

35. Comment #225850 by a non e-moose on August 7, 2008 at 12:36 pm

She has a point. Having focused on debates with fundies of various sorts, I sometimes find myself categorizing anti-evolutionists as theists and evolutionists as atheists. This is of course not true (at least not the latter).

I personally think that not only evolution is incompatible with religious faith, but that REALITY is incompatible with religious faith, so there is no need to put evolution in particular in the crossfire between atheism and theism.

Of course, evolution in particular is under attack by creationists, and they want it to be a case of religion vs. atheism, but I think biologists should avoid that, and stick to evidence.

Astronomy and Geology, for example, are equally incompatible with creationism (at least young earth creationism), but they are uncontroversial.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

36. Comment #225852 by Logicel on August 7, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Purves is a terrible writer! Her style is a breathless rant, but without proper snark--her snark is more petulant pouting without providing any insightful edge (or entertainment).

Stupid, too, in a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If you offer a choice between science on one hand and faith and tradition on the other, too many people will reject science. A subtle and well-evolved species like us can accept both ammonites and Alleluias. Live with it, Prof.
____

Stupid? How about this burning stupidity (and as a Catholic, Purves would embrace this astounding nonsense): Therefore, a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.

Moderates like you, Purves, are the problem--you wallow around in your inanity, giving credibility to the dangerous notion that belief without evidence, i.e, faith, is virtuous. Our evolved brains have been cobbled together through evolution, and though quite useful, can also fool us blatantly and consistently without the least bit of subtleness. It is quite easy to dance the cognitive dissonance jig like you, Purves, for which you will be confronted and criticized.

Live with it, Purves.

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #225855 by beanson on August 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Most people who have listened to Radio 4 over the years regard Libby as a bit of a joke, her pompous tone and self-regarding viewpoint have vanquished her to an ever diminishing broadcasting realm

Other Comments by beanson

38. Comment #225859 by paceetrate on August 7, 2008 at 12:49 pm

What a load of tripe this Purves person spouts, for reasons others have already stated.

I think the only way in which Richard could be accused of being "naive" is in his seemingly unfailing optimism that humanity will be able to pull itself out of the ditch before it's too late. But maybe I'm just cynical. ;)

Other Comments by paceetrate

39. Comment #225862 by Logicel on August 7, 2008 at 12:52 pm

It is honest and direct for RD to state in his TV program that it was because of evolution that made him an atheist. I am guessing that honesty is what is making pathetic murkies like Purves to feel uncomfortable.

The honesty and frankness of a well respected and admired scientist like Dawkins is much more disquieting to the religious status quo than if he did do what they falsely accuse him of, that is, of trying to stridently push his atheism onto others.

Other Comments by Logicel

40. Comment #225873 by gyokusai on August 7, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Mango sez:
A far better strategy would have been to leave all references to his personal atheism at home and let the public mull over the facts of evolution.

Why yes, terrific idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before! Let's all go at once and ... oh, wait.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

41. Comment #225876 by squinky on August 7, 2008 at 1:06 pm

The knockdown argument remains intact:

Let a group of children recreate society and you will find two things: A whole new mythos with new gods and supernatural powers and eventually, steadily...the truth as arrived at by scientific inquiry and careful observation.

Once reality is accurately described and reliable predictions can be made, modern civilization takes off (weather forecasting, acricultural advances, transportation, self-defence, medicine, etc) and has enormous and magnificent selective advantages.

Other Comments by squinky

42. Comment #225879 by ConsciousMachine on August 7, 2008 at 1:11 pm

@32 by Glen Davidson:

Well I would rather that Dawkins would more often mention that science is what leaves no real scope for a detectable God.

I don't think this is true, or rather it misses the point. Dawkins and Dennett both write quite clearly about how the theory of evolution gives a coherent naturalistic explanation of the origin of the complexity and diversity of life. This is what really acts as a thorn in the side of religion and why religions have attacked with such furor evolutionary theory and not, say the theories of gravity or electromagnetism. You are of course right when you say that it closed the last large gap of mystery in our understanding of the universe, but this doesn't go far enough to explain the particular animosity of religion toward evolutionary theory. The truth is that the theory undermines the central intuitive claim of evidence for the existence of a creator. Imagine a conversation 200 years ago:
"goddidit"
"no he didn't"
"prove he didn't"
"I can't. Prove he did"
"Well, how do you explain all the complexity of life? Everything is so suited to its purpose and environment. Something must have created it all."
[silence]

Also, the theory of evolution deals directly with man. Other theories can be pushed aside in due course; "fine the universe is mechanical, but I am special. I am something different. I did not arise from mechanical processes. Only God could have made me.

Other Comments by ConsciousMachine

43. Comment #225885 by Donald on August 7, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Stupid, too, in a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If you offer a choice between science on one hand and faith and tradition on the other, too many people will reject science. - Libby Purves

Richard is not only an experienced "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science", but he learns as well as teaches. For thirty years he has taught science without mentioning the obvious implications for religious belief. He has observed that people are not very good as "connecting the dots" in this area. So now, having established a reputation strong enough to withstand a few detractors, he scatters in a few remarks to help his listeners make the connection that some people fail to make. Good for him.

Other Comments by Donald

44. Comment #225889 by AllanW on August 7, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Libby Purves has proven herself and her views to be risible to a wise audience for a long time. This article is just the current example in a long line of poorly written, badly thought-through and laughably directed tosh. It boils down to an attitude of 'I'm ignorant and opinionated so look at me' which is beautifully skewered by Richards letter.

Other Comments by AllanW

45. Comment #225894 by testonepatella on August 7, 2008 at 1:23 pm

What a disappointment, Libby Purves! I had always taken you to be a liberal, even-handed journalist and presenter worth listening to. This ill-judged verbal diarrhoea inclines me to think again. Spend some time reading Professor Dawkins' arguments and on this website before you expose yourself to the kind of ridicule you are now meriting.

Other Comments by testonepatella

46. Comment #225898 by beanson on August 7, 2008 at 1:31 pm

"If you offer a choice between science on one hand and faith and tradition on the other, too many people will reject science."

well, yes- the one's not committed to rigourous thought certainly, but why would you want to hang with the fuckwits?

Other Comments by beanson

47. Comment #225904 by Richard Dawkins on August 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm

It is honest and direct for RD to state in his TV program that it was because of evolution that made him an atheist.

Thank you, but I have to admit that this, and other honest statements of atheism, were thrust upon me, against my will (especially right at the beginning of Episode 1), not by the Director or the television company, but by the LAWYER! That sounds weird. It isn't strictly a legal worry, but a worry about satisfying Ofcom, the regulatory body that controls British television. I don't fully understand it, but I THINK it has something to do with the need to 'respect' creationists. The lawyer thought that Ofcom would have preferred me to present 'both sides'. Because I obviously wasn't going to do that, he thought the next best thing was to be completely up front and announce, in advance, that the reason I took the line I did was that I was an atheist.

Of course, I don't like the sound of that at all. I'd prefer to say I'm an evolutionist because the evidence is so convincing. It is as though the lawyer has been infected by the 'all opinions are equally valid' viewpoint. So it's OK to promote evolution rather than creation, so long as I announce, IN ADVANCE that I am an atheist.

Does anyone understand that? I'm far from sure that I do.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

48. Comment #225910 by al-rawandi on August 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Richard,

One thing is abundantly clear from the story.... Lawyers are near useless.

Another thing is that political correctness, of which lawyers are agents, is completely useless.

-Al

Other Comments by al-rawandi

49. Comment #225914 by beanson on August 7, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Well, it's remarkable in this day to have anything intellectually polemical on TV, the lawyers get nervous when entering such territory I suppose, so they pre-empt with these disclaimers

Other Comments by beanson

50. Comment #225915 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #225904 by Richard Dawkins

That is utterly bizarre, Richard. Might I ask whose lawyer, the production company or the TV channel? Its just that Channel 4 have been producing some very unscientific science programs of late. They seem utterly infected by this equivalence of narratives thing.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last