1. Comment #397290 by neander on July 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm

NOT gloomy - WONDERFUL. Almost what I told my children. A far more wonderful, amazing, and BEAUTIFUL truth than any made up simplistic, patronizing crap that is usually pedalled to children.

Other Comments by neander

2. Comment #397291 by BlueCollar8theist on July 16, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Telling children the truth?? Wow, I didn't think there was an abundance of that kind of parenting anymore! There needs to be more of it!

Other Comments by BlueCollar8theist

3. Comment #397293 by wouldbesakota on July 16, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Why on earth does he go on to talk about his great, great, etc. granddad- Henry Clinton?

Isn't that totally irrelevant?

Anyway, he was (as always) totally articulate and charming to the usual questions.

edit: Actually, some of the questions aren't that bad. On the more positive side of interviews he gets.

Other Comments by wouldbesakota

4. Comment #397298 by Quine on July 16, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Listening to this, I am again reminded of why I resist putting the "ism" on the end of Darwin's name. Also, nothing about what anyone chooses to do with the information of how we got here has any impact on the truth of it.

Other Comments by Quine

5. Comment #397302 by mybelle on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 pm

Richard is always on point and always a pleasure to listen to.

I'd also love to hear more of the book reading with him and Lalla... anyone know where I can find a recording of one?

Other Comments by mybelle

6. Comment #397309 by SaintStephen on July 16, 2009 at 11:11 pm

I don't recall his exact statement, but the host of this radio show said something to the effect of "Some of us need more" -- implying that even a gloriously elegant and astoundingly detailed understanding of how we came to be on this planet, aka Darwinian evolution, just isn't enough or isn't completely satisfying to some or even many (presumably religious) people.

It makes one wonder whether any of these people who "need more" have considered what their hypothetical (delusional?) god might say to them when they arrive at their Pearly Gates. It's completely possible that this deity might simply say "Yes, evolution is definitely the means by which I created you. By the way, Dawkins may be a real smarty-pants, but he ain't gettin' in here, so y'all can get down on your knees and keep prayin' to me... This is the 365,665,333,456,432E 872th evolutionary simulation I've run on my computer Deep Thought, and it's the first time I got the monkeys to develop big brains. Most other times it's been one of those arrogant dinosaur species, or that silly squid thing in the oceans. The dolphins have come close many times, just like the whales. Once I even got bee swarms that could integrate differential equations!"

Question: would this be "enough" for those who need more? I would surmise that it would be immensely unsatisfying to religious minds. These people are looking for vindication, salvation from pain or loneliness, revenge, or perhaps for the same thing we are all fans of: a long-lasting, deeply euphoric life experience not unlike a permanent drug trip or a vivid dream state. Eternal Happiness, if you will allow the cliche.

The radio host also garnished his comment with a smug wink to his listeners (you could hear the schoolboy giggle in his voice), as if it was perfectly obvious why Dawkins' passion and exuberance about evolution and science simply wouldn't cut the mustard for those who "need more."

I submit that these people are merely lazy. Achieving a measure of understanding in science is hard work. It's apparently much easier to just let their god do all of the heavy lifting.

Anyway, it's so damn impressive (!) how Richard simply rises above all conspiratorial giggles with his soaring intellect and magnificent command of the English language. Richard's voice increases my dopamine levels -- I have no evidence of this, but it's certainly a falsifiable hypothesis.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

7. Comment #397312 by Ian-S on July 17, 2009 at 12:02 am

Good point about the "I need more" response. I got the same in a recent 'debate'. It didn't occur to me till now that the words are directly from the mouths of the greedy and selfish, who Jesus hates apparently ;¬)

Other Comments by Ian-S

8. Comment #397324 by retep57 on July 17, 2009 at 1:40 am

I am sick of the "I need more" Cr@p , as if a fairytale version of events somehow deserves a "more" label, I want the TRUTH, simple as that ! In terms of reality - Truth is always more than lies. More can apply to fantasies in that they might be more entertaining, more interesting (?) more funny, more ridiculous, more deceitful. Perhaps the "I need more" people need more enlightenment but don't realise it.

PS Richard D was arch enemy number 1 in the old days when i was a seventh day adventist. Now i have seen the light and consider the rainbow pretty much unwoven ( great book btw). The SDA's do have an emphasis on truth , it is just that the religious don't recognise it easily. It is possible, just be patient with them, ( i accidentally typed "US" then corrected myself, old habits die hard! Most religious people are NOT idiots, true they are probably deluded - It is only the power of reason, logic etc in books like God delusion that actually changed my mind. I was never stupid but i have believed stupid things in the past. Keep up the GOOD work!

cheers Peter

Other Comments by retep57

9. Comment #397327 by Skeptic Jim on July 17, 2009 at 1:44 am

What a cowardly way to present a debate!

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

10. Comment #397330 by CaptainMandate on July 17, 2009 at 2:01 am

Sigh, what a Dad

A "good" parent should always lie to their child. they get very uppity if they start learning stuff, makes them want to learn more

clearly a "good" parent isn't mentally equipped to handle an inquisitive mind

Not had a listen yet but I'm sure it will make my piss boil!

If only I grew up with a dad like Richard, happy to tell me mind-blowing stuff at the age when that's all I wanted. I was one of the lucky ones, my dad was a physicist so I did get some mind-blowing stuff from him but alas my mother did most of my upbringing and she was one of those "good" parents who tell you stuff like flowers are there to be pretty and leave you thinking "I guess that means I'm supposed to shut up now"

I guess this shows that the problem wit dealing with the bigger questions about life is that many parents just aren't mature anough to handle them

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

11. Comment #397334 by Liveliest Crib on July 17, 2009 at 2:09 am

What is so difficult to understand about the notion that while Darwinian natural selection actually happens, we should not pattern our morals, societies or civilizations after it? As a matter of reality, I recognize that, every so often, tornadoes will swirl through the American mid-west, knocking down houses and killing people in the process, but I hardly deduce that, therefore, human societies ought to develop cyclone generators to schedule occasional, artificial death and destruction. And that doesn't strike me as terribly counterintuitive.

There is nothing paradoxical about being passionately Darwinian in an empirical sense and passionately anti-Darwinian in a normative sense.

retep57 @ #397324:

I am sick of the "I need more" Cr@p

Me too. The nitwit host probably mistakes it for deep thought, but it's not unlike the four-year-old's "game of why." You know, where the child asks a question beginning with the word "why," and then continues to ask "Why?" after every answer you offer.

Yeah, people "need more." Uh huh. The "more" people seem to require is a conscious entity who will look after them, punish others they dislike, and alter the laws of physics on their behalf on their most petty and selfish of whims.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

12. Comment #397335 by andersemil on July 17, 2009 at 2:16 am

STOP talking about Darwinism!! There's no such thing as Darwinism. There's nature, which works according to darwin's theory of evolution. Period! This debate sounds like it's two religions up against each other. Really infuriates me

Other Comments by andersemil

13. Comment #397337 by sbooder on July 17, 2009 at 2:45 am

I really think that some people believe that Darwin did not just discover the process of evolution, but invented evolution its self.

If you are incapable of distinguishing between the biological process of evolution and social Darwinism then there is no hope.

Someone else mentioned this, but just because you need more than evolution, it dose not mean there is more…live with it!

My last point, which I have made before. Can we stop using the question: Why? It is so ambiguous.

Surely: How? Is a far clearer question when it comes to life?

Other Comments by sbooder

14. Comment #397346 by Jos Gibbons on July 17, 2009 at 3:12 am

Was this guy trying to make everyone hate Dawkins by pointing out he had some questionable ancestors? That's a new one, I must say. Still though, given the concept of original sin, it was bound to emerge. I wonder how effective this technique really is - would anyone be turned off RD by it? Sadly, perhaps many would.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

15. Comment #397351 by NightSod on July 17, 2009 at 3:35 am

To think I stopped reading "Moby Dick" for twenty minutes in order to hear this. O_o

Anyway, "some of us need more.": almost always a euphimism for "some of us WANT something else." It couldn't be clearer from the presentation that he hasn't read Darwin's books or understood his theory.
So, "more" then!? He merely pushes this plate of food aside in the hope of being offered something more palatable.

Anyway, I was about to set sail.
As you were.

Other Comments by NightSod

16. Comment #397352 by Jamie Walton on July 17, 2009 at 3:45 am

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling evolution by natural selection 'Darwinism'.

Other Comments by Jamie Walton

17. Comment #397357 by Stafford Gordon on July 17, 2009 at 3:58 am

That made me feel better!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

18. Comment #397362 by Ignorant Amos on July 17, 2009 at 4:15 am

6. Comment #397309 by SaintStephen

Post marked as excellent.

Anyone on this site who hasn't read "Unweaving the Rainbow"....you're missing a great book, I highly recommend it.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

19. Comment #397366 by Roland_F on July 17, 2009 at 4:31 am

Well again the *BIG question* or the *WHY question*.
Seriously has any theist ever answered them ?! The only thing I hear to whatever deep question about purpose of the universe, purpose of life, suffering and pain in the world etc. is usually a simple GODDIDIT, and if it’s beautiful in an outpour of anthropocentrism it’s all created from God for human entertainment .
And any answer to a further detailing question is a “only dog knows”, or “dog must have a plan”, or “this is beyond human ken, but dog understand” or “dog moves in mysterious ways” rubbish never a meaningful answer and of course never forget that Jebus loves us all . . .

Other Comments by Roland_F

20. Comment #397367 by Ignorant Amos on July 17, 2009 at 4:42 am

14. Comment #397346 by Jos Gibbons

Was this guy trying to make everyone hate Dawkins by pointing out he had some questionable ancestors?

Depends what side you were on really as to whether Richards grand parent was a villian or a hero!!!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

21. Comment #397369 by Steve Zara on July 17, 2009 at 4:54 am

Comment #397366 by Roland_F

Seriously has any theist ever answered them ?!

Ah, but theism isn't about answering questions. Not really. I'm serious. What theism is truly about, at its core is the justification of personal feelings. The justification of a feeling that you are significant on the cosmic scale. The justification of a feeling that you will survive death. The justification of your feeling that women are inferior, or that homosexuality is disgusting.

If theism really did answer "why" questions, then it would fail. The point is to feel comfortable with your own feelings of "why", not to have definite answers.

To show that this is the case, consider the number of people who switch faith when their beliefs don't match the faith they happen to be in. People who switched to Catholicism when the Church of England approved of the ordination of women. Such people believe that their internal feelings have a deeper connection to truth than all the authorities in the church. They get an answer, and reject it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #397383 by sbooder on July 17, 2009 at 5:36 am

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling evolution by natural selection 'Darwinism'.

Did anyone say there is?... I must have missed that.

Other Comments by sbooder

23. Comment #397389 by Cartomancer on July 17, 2009 at 6:09 am

The best response, I think, to all this seven-times-great-grandfather stuff goes as follows:

Sir Henry Clinton is actually Richard's four-times-great grandfather, not seven times. Richard Dawkins, like most people, actually had 64 four-times-great grandparents and not just one. I am pretty sure most of these people did not lead anti-American forces in the secessionary war.

If you want to go another fifteen generations back you can also trace Richard's family to King Edward III, and thence to Henry II and the Norman counts of Anjou, thence to the 9th century Viking lords who conquered Normandy.

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Royal/Notes/dawkins.txt

So I guess you could make all kinds of slurs about the violent antics of Richard's ancestors. Thing is though, pretty much everyone can trace their ancestry back to such people. Half of Europe, it is thought, can trace its ancestry to Charlemagne, and similar numbers of Asians to Genghis Khan. Go back far enough and pretty much everybody has some pretty unpleasant ancestors.

Then of course you can go many thousands of generations back to when we were all hominids in Africa, ganging up to club our rivals to death with stones. Then back to when we were reptiles and fish. Then back to when we were all bacteria, fighting our little single-celled jelly battles against all and sundry.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

24. Comment #397406 by MarcCountry on July 17, 2009 at 6:44 am

What is with this boneheaded narrator? "He loves Darwin, but he loathes Darwin..." Huh? Being a "political anti-darwinist" as Dawkins puts it, obviously doesn't entail any kind of 'loathing' of Darwin himself... duh!


Mmmm... jelly battles.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

25. Comment #397411 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2009 at 6:55 am

carto. #3973889

nice post. Im happy that the interview audience
was a 'sophisticated' one otherwise they could have been swayed by the interviewers somewhat antagonistic comments.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

26. Comment #397476 by RichardC on July 17, 2009 at 8:42 am

When I hear Richard say, as he often does, that he is anti-Darwinian when it come to politics etc. I always think; No, hold on. I have read your books and understand that while evolution has made us competitive and graspingly selfish, it has also developed in us all that is fine and commendable - altruism, considerateness, the foresight to plan for the future and to consider wider consequences (even though this may in a sense be merely a mask and ultimately reducible to fundamental selfishness at the gene level).
It may seem anti-Darwinian to wear condoms but at a deeper, more subtle level it must really be Darwinian because this is how we have evolved to behave. In speaking like this Richard seems to endorse the simplistic and erroneous idea of Darwinian evolution producing only that which is primitive and selfish; this seems to undermine the main thesis of his wonderful Selfish Gene book. I agree that we must resist our destructive urges and instincts, but in doing this our only resource are the urges and instincts that have also evolved through Darwinian evolution - altruism, foresight, etc. (Of course this touches on the whole subject of choice and freewill and whether ultimately we are free to make any choice at all!). I’m a huge fan of Richard’s, but every time I hear him speak like this I sense an inconsistency. I’ve never seen this point brought up before and wonder if anyone else thinks as I do.

Other Comments by RichardC

27. Comment #397518 by Meph on July 17, 2009 at 10:26 am

I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Robert was simply poisoning the well against Richard with the whole great great great grandparents thing.

This is typical theistic behavior. Their arguments don't stand on their own so they must resort to lies and logical fallacies.

I used to be a passionate fan about Radio Lab (from which the audio of this post is from.) But Robert Krulwich's persistent infusion of theism into the show have really left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm saddened to say it, but I'm no longer a fan.

Other Comments by Meph

28. Comment #397523 by Dr Doctor on July 17, 2009 at 10:42 am

Ah, but theism isn't about answering questions. Not really. I'm serious. What theism is truly about, at its core is the justification of personal feelings. The justification of a feeling that you are significant on the cosmic scale.

Quoted for truth. Which is why I find the appointment of Collins so worrying.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

29. Comment #397525 by Cluebot on July 17, 2009 at 10:58 am

That introduction is more telling of Robert's character; I wonder how many villains we'd find in his family tree if we looked that many generations back. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out? :)

Richard, how do you keep your temper with these unprincipled hypocrites?

Other Comments by Cluebot

30. Comment #397527 by mordacious1 on July 17, 2009 at 11:03 am

Oh boy, this means Richard and I have family connections. My great, great, etc. grandfather shoveled out Edward III's stables. :)

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #397533 by Ygern on July 17, 2009 at 11:34 am

At first I thought that this host was some sort of self-styled Poe a la The Colbert Report, but I can't find anything to support this (I'm not an American, I have never heard of Robert Krulwich before). The only things I can find are sites which seem to praise him for tackling difficult science topics.

If he is a Poe, then he's not really funny. If he is serious; then my admiration for Richard, who answered with such patience and clarity, has gone up even further.

Some of his questions show that he does understand the science underpinning the interview; so I am genuinely puzzled by the slightly jeering tone. Perhaps it is meant in jest.

Other Comments by Ygern

32. Comment #397542 by 4horsefins on July 17, 2009 at 12:23 pm

I am a frequent visitor to this sight. Pardon me if everyone has noticed but me...Cluebot has the best avatar in the history of rd.net. If we collectively voted on funniest avatar, it would wins hands down in my opinion...and as far as the narrator recalling Richard's ancestory...it gives an interesting look into the creationist mind. It makes me wonder if while having dinner with his family the night after the interview he realizes...shit...I have those same ancestors.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

33. Comment #397545 by Crazycharlie on July 17, 2009 at 12:30 pm

As an American, I'm embarrassed about the general lack of understanding of science and in particular evolution in this country. Media organizations in the U.S. are well aware of this ignorance so they always try to "dumb down" reporting on scientific subjects. Robert Krulwich is a perfect example of the type of science reporter news organizations employ. I gritted my teeth in embarrassment listening to the silly way in which Krulwich asked his questions of Richard. To a news editor and to the American public, a guy like Krulwich is a safe , nonthreatening, funny looking and sounding geek whereas, someone like Richard is a well spoken, highly intelligent, scientist and intellectual who also happens to be good looking-- in other words Richard is very threatening to the average American.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

34. Comment #397548 by robotaholic on July 17, 2009 at 12:45 pm

regarding "some of us *ahem* need more":

I don't think his brain has the capacity to hold the scientific explanation for the mind-blowing facts regarding flower pollination and it's evolution. The amount of data would surpass his neuronal capacity- probably anyone's-Let alone...needing more- He needs quit being so arrogant-

Other Comments by robotaholic

35. Comment #397552 by Rational_Skeptic on July 17, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Radiolab is one of my favourite podcasts. As Robert said at the outset, his "opponent" is usually Jad - his co-host who is away on leave. Jad argues the "There's no purpose, and I'm OK with that, why should we presume there's anything else?" side as a recurring meme in their shows. True, Radiolab does dumb-down the science, but they do it in such an artistic way - they do it in a way that for me anyway invites further inquiry. Radiolab inspires the "Wow, I want to find out more about that!" in me, and that's where they are successful. Please do download their previous shows. They're quite good.

Other Comments by Rational_Skeptic

36. Comment #397553 by Hellene on July 17, 2009 at 12:56 pm

*laughing*

I'm sorry but did anyone get a visual Oliver Twist ?

"Please sir can I have some more ? "

"YOU WANT MORE ?!?"

(pointing to the universe)

Other Comments by Hellene

37. Comment #397565 by SaintStephen on July 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm

That is very funny Hellene!


Comment #397553 by Hellene ranked as excellent (and very humorous!)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

38. Comment #397566 by rod-the-farmer on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Well, I "ranked" a comment for the first time. Never used that function before. And the winner is......ta daa...sbooder and his point that Darwin didn't invent evolution, Darwin discovered it.

Simple idea. I think we need to mention this a lot more to the less rational out there.

(Ok, calms down, takes deep breath.)

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

39. Comment #397569 by Crazycharlie on July 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Rational-Skeptic-- I like Radiolab to, it's Krulwich that bothers me. He perpetuates the stereotype of anyone that has a interest in science must be a geek. It's so typical of this country.( A geek, for anyone who is not familiar with American slang, is someone who is a awkward, weird or odd person with limited social skills overly interested in electronics or science.)

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

40. Comment #397593 by HarlanEllisonFan on July 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm

This host is so dishonest! Dawkins is trying to explain something that is complex and often counter intuitive and the host keeps framing it with this eye-rolling, "Well, ok..." attitude. Dawkins isn't going out on a limb, it's science!

Other Comments by HarlanEllisonFan

41. Comment #397599 by prolibertas on July 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Religionists who ask those 'WHY do humans exist' type questions aren't actually interested in answers, per se. After all, we have the answer: evolution by natural selection. What these people really want are COMFORTING answers, or ego-stroking answers. They want to suck on pacifiers. That's the only rationale I can see for separating 'how' and 'why' questions in the first place. The guy himself said it, whinging about how the scientific 'how' answers 'weren't enough' for him- as though the universe owed him something.

Other Comments by prolibertas

42. Comment #397600 by JMCARVAS on July 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Darwin DEFENDER?? Darwin doesn't need defenders...just followers! :)

Other Comments by JMCARVAS

43. Comment #397623 by wetbread on July 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm

I think a lot of the folks making dismissive remarks about Krulwich could stand to find out a little more about him. He's a little dorky, no doubt, but what at least two people have called eye-rolling is his version of playing devil's advocate. Regular Radiolab listeners, or those who've read/heard/seen his stuff in other contexts, will probably understand his MO a little better. Most of the criticisms above are analogous to criticizing Teller because he doesn't speak.

Other Comments by wetbread

44. Comment #397633 by robotaholic on July 17, 2009 at 7:22 pm

sorry wetbread, I guess I just 'need a little more' :-/

Other Comments by robotaholic

45. Comment #397661 by Meph on July 17, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Sorry wetbread, but I feel the need to correct you. As someone who has heard every episode of Radio Lab many times, I can safely say that Robert isn't playing devil's advocate. I'm afraid that you're reading too much into Krulwich.

This latest podcast was the straw that broke the camel's back. But, we know it takes much more than a straw to break a back, so here is the sledge hammer that severely weakened the back before a straw landed on it!

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/04/07/in-silence/

Here's the abstract:

"Here at Radiolab we explore big ideas and ask big questions to see how the world works. To do that, we often talk to scientists who are trying to answer those questions by doing experiments and gathering data. But there are some questions that don’t give in to experiments and data. And with Easter and Passover around the corner, we decided to take on one of those questions, not through science, but through a story."

At least listen to around 19:40 of this... story... Then tell me this is someone playing "devil's advocate."

Other Comments by Meph

46. Comment #397662 by BGordon on July 17, 2009 at 10:27 pm

Reference comment 397366 by Steve Zara. This is the clearest statement I have seen of an essential truth of religious belief. Thank you Steve!

Other Comments by BGordon

47. Comment #397738 by phatbat on July 18, 2009 at 6:18 am

26. Comment #397476 by RichardC

I too have often thought about this issue. Something about Richard saying this never quite rings true with me, but i'm not sure of the best way to elucidate what I think about it.

I like what you wrote but it doesn't quite get to the nub of the reason i'm uncomfortable with it and maybe i won't either but i'll give it a go.

I suppose what Richard means is that when we act altruistically we are not considering the "interests" (for want of a better word) of our genes and that is anti darwinian. But what does it really mean to behave in an anti darwinian way or a darwinian way? Since the darwinian process of natural selection produces both selfish and altruistic behavior, why is it that only the selfish behavior is labelled darwinian but not the altruistic behavior?

I'm sure there's a good answer to this but it always eludes me.

Other Comments by phatbat

48. Comment #397761 by Crazycharlie on July 18, 2009 at 8:46 am

wetbread,- I know enough about Krulwich. I, like you no doubt, have been watching him report on science for ABC for many years. I've also read various columns he has written and listened to him on Radiolab. He fits right in with the American idea that education is o.k. as long it's for practical reasons like getting a job or making money but, if you're interested in the sciences-- biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.,etc., for their own sake then you're a weirdo. It's just anti-intellectualism.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

49. Comment #397787 by Layla Nasreddin on July 18, 2009 at 10:33 am

Wow, this appears to have been recorded quite a while ago -- the book under discussion is A Devil's Chaplain. Richard appeared at the 92nd St Y on 18 November 2003, and this seems to date from then.

Incidentally, here's another radio program on the same site from the same time (2003) -- alas, only in RealAudio. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2003/11/18/segments/23130

Finally, Richard is going to appear at the 92nd St Y in New York City on 18 October 2009 -- you can get your tickets now!
http://www.92y.org/shop/event_detail.asp?productid=T-LC5PF10

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

50. Comment #397800 by Rational_G on July 18, 2009 at 10:54 am

The interviewer is so annoyingly smug.

Other Comments by Rational_G