1. Comment #414688 by fsm1965 on September 13, 2009 at 7:03 pm

V interesting to see the cognitive disonance that accepts evolution as "god's way of creating the world"!

BTW, where was the flat-earther in the show?

Other Comments by fsm1965

2. Comment #414690 by David Lambie on September 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Hopefully, we should also be able to pick this up on BBC iPlayer...

Other Comments by David Lambie

3. Comment #414712 by Follow Peter Egan on September 13, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Atwood keeps interrupting. Very irritating. The vicar wanted to have his cake and eat it.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

4. Comment #414713 by chameleonpete on September 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mnk94/Newsnight_Review_11_09_2009/

here you go.

Other Comments by chameleonpete

5. Comment #414722 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2009 at 8:23 pm

1. Comment #414688 by fsm1965 on September 13, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Why cognitive dissonance? Darwin didn't see it as such.

3. Comment #414712 by Follow Peter Egan on September 13, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I thought she came across as calm, measured, articulate and knowledgeable.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

6. Comment #414723 by Quetzalcoatl on September 13, 2009 at 8:26 pm

fides_et_ratio-

It's uncertain what, if any, religious beliefs Darwin held by the end of his life.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #414725 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2009 at 8:30 pm

I didn't mean to suggest he held a religious belief, it seems he didn't. I meant that he didn't think that natural selection necessarily was at odds with faith in God.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

8. Comment #414737 by Stafford Gordon on September 13, 2009 at 8:59 pm

I find it interesting that Richard Coles calls the book "The Origin of THE Species".

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

9. Comment #414741 by Ignorant Amos on September 13, 2009 at 9:12 pm

7. Comment #414725 by fides_et_ratio

Did he not?

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

10. Comment #414752 by Stafford Gordon on September 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm

I love the way Trevor Nunn talks about Dawkins getting into "a slightly weak area"; perhaps clever Trevor would like to "direct" Dawkins.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

11. Comment #414754 by NewEnglandBob on September 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm

To me, it seemed that half of what Richard Coles said contradicted the other half.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

12. Comment #414756 by Dhamma on September 13, 2009 at 9:41 pm

I really wish reporters stop saying some people don't "believe" in evolution. It's not about belief, but acceptance, of evolution.

Other Comments by Dhamma

13. Comment #414765 by Johnny O on September 13, 2009 at 10:06 pm

I like Richard Coles, he doesn't take himself too seriously and even made a few jokes at the expense of Christianity when he was on Have I Got News For You. Plus I quite liked The Communards, which he was a member of...

I disagree with his belief's, but he's ok in my book.

Other Comments by Johnny O

14. Comment #414770 by prolibertas on September 13, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Darwin was agnostic. He was also an accomodationist, saying evolution and theism were compatible.

However, the question of whether Darwin was an accomodationist has no bearing whatsoever on whether he was JUSTIFIED in being accomodationist. My view is, no. Evolution makes God (traditionally understood), redundant and indifferent at best and cruel and capricious at worst.

I mean, can you honestly see no cognitive dissonance in believing in a God who is loving and yet chooses to create complex life according to a process of survival of the fittest and culling of the weak?

Other Comments by prolibertas

15. Comment #414772 by Spinoza on September 13, 2009 at 10:23 pm

I thought all these panel members were very good!

Other Comments by Spinoza

16. Comment #414807 by Fuzzy Duck on September 13, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Spinoza: I thought the same. No obnoxious bickering. They all had something intriguing to say. It felt like a real conversation (even with the host), rather than a staged confrontation.


-Kevin

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

17. Comment #414810 by robotaholic on September 13, 2009 at 11:52 pm

If evolution is yahweh's way of creating life on the earth, then the theory of electromagnetic radion is zeus's way of creating lightening bolts.

Other Comments by robotaholic

18. Comment #414813 by Frankus1122 on September 14, 2009 at 12:07 am

The point that Margaret Atwood made near the end about the human ability to project infinitely into the past and future is one that Matthew Alper made in his book The God Part of the Brain. He said that was crucial to our development of religion.

We make attempts in our lives to plan for the future. We build bridges so we don't have to take the long way around, we grow crops so we may eat in the winter, we save money so we may make things more comfortable for us in the future. We do these things to relieve stress and anxiety. Our consciousness of the now is projected into the infinite future. To relieve the anxiety of our consciousness ceasing to exist we create a fiction that tells us we will live forever.

It seems to be his contention that religion and the concept of god evolved as a coping mechanism to deal with the anxiety associated with our understanding of consciousness and the infinite.

I'm not exactly sure how religion leads to less stress which leads to better chances of survival but it's not my theory, just my two cents.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

19. Comment #414834 by chuckgoecke on September 14, 2009 at 2:33 am

At one point Richard mentions that humans and birds have relatively similar senses of aesthetic beauty, thus we can appreciate beautiful bird plumage or songs. Lucky for us we do not share an aesthetic kinship with mandrills or chimps and their colorful rumps. http://k41.pbase.com/o4/04/640504/1/63896866.RtnShbR7.AmorousMandrills1Jul06.jpg

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

20. Comment #414842 by Grant N on September 14, 2009 at 4:03 am

I say, Kudos to Martha Kearney. I have never seen her before, but what intelligent and thoughtful questions with deep knowledge of the subject matter. Excellently choreographed direction of the panel's discussion with marvelous segues. Most enjoyable. Could have listened for another hour to this quintet.

Other Comments by Grant N

21. Comment #414856 by mordacious1 on September 14, 2009 at 5:00 am

"Inherit the Wind" was a play about McCarthyism, not "Darwinism", btw.

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #414857 by SaintStephen on September 14, 2009 at 5:01 am

16. Comment #414807 by Fuzzy Duck on September 13, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Spinoza: I thought the same. No obnoxious bickering. They all had something intriguing to
say. It felt like a real conversation (even with the host), rather than a staged confrontation.

NO, Kevin! There must be blood! Such capitulation from the fearless author of An Interview with Death!

Just kidding, of course.

I found it hard not to like Richard Coles. But I also think this particular interview format played to his strengths, and he made the most of it with a very impressive showing. His preacher monkey-suit, however, kept putting me into cognitive dissonance. It was a little surreal for me actually, although it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest even a decade ago before reading atheist views began to raise my consciousness about these matters.

Coles's opinions were elegantly stated, his deference to Richard on certain points showed warmth and great respect, but I still couldn't help feeling like I was being hypnotized by a master salesman... HEY! Where's my wallet? Did anybody else catch his quick glance at Richard while saying that a John Collier portrait of Darwin hangs at the top of the stairs in the Athenaeum, where the bishops have lunch and "look at it" every day? Classic! See, Dawkins? We're all in this together, right mate?

At this point in my own personal development, I would much prefer it if these same four people could be put into a comfortable room, sans moderator, and be given food and drink and access to phones, lavatories, wireless laptops, and a large projection screen. Yes, now we'll really be talking. Ask all of them to commit to no less than four hours on the air. Eight hours would be even better. An all day business conference, so to speak. Not pre-recorded and edited, but live TV.

And then just let the chips fall where they may. Because I don't think much is really learned or accomplished in these moderated sessions, which are completely at the mercy of sponsors, producers with an agenda, and bean counters. A skilled preacher who's quick on his feet like Richard Coles thrives in moderated sessions, but let's see how well he does when he's figuratively shrinking into a corner with our own very articulate and brilliant rottweiler barking at him, especially in front of the ladies.

Yes, I want blood.

It was also surreal to me how an argument as logically unassailable and persuasive as "Who created the Creator?" can simply be dismissed in the way it was in this program. Richard, in my book, scored major points when he started addressing director Trevor Nunn's contention that he "gets into a slightly weak area" by not having an explanation for how life began on Earth. As if this was Richard Dawkins's personal cross to bear, or something! What an idiot. With friends like Nunn, who needs enemies. In any event, Richard begins by responding to the moderator's inane (if understandable) question "Could God possibly be the answer to that question?" with "Well that wouldn't help at all... because whatever else you can say, it's not going to help to say Goddidit because you just push the problem back one stage further." Richard then goes on to add a lot of nice detail on first replicators, etc.

This should have been a deal closer, but instead the moderator moves swiftly to the accommodationist side of the aisle and Richard Coles responds with the usual weak NOMA pabulum "There are matters of faith and matters of science, and I'm just interested in seeing how we can hold all those things together." Then, of all people, Ruth Padel, one of Darwin's direct descendants, starts yapping about Charles Kingsley and the whole point is thus completely lost.

And with no blood. Conclusion: as epistemological exercises, interviews like these SUCK.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

23. Comment #414876 by DanDare on September 14, 2009 at 8:04 am

I don't know about the play, but the movie "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy and Jason Robards was about the Scopes trial with all the names changed.

Other Comments by DanDare

24. Comment #414906 by flying goose on September 14, 2009 at 9:35 am

I wish I could have seen the conversation in the Green Room. I did think what Ruth Padel said about the weak 'evolution is just God's way of doing it' not being an argument but just a satement not an argument, I thought that was interesting way of looking at it.

Richard Ds point that God is not an answer is right on the mark. It is just another question, a theological question which is usually answered first by speculation before that speculation fossilises into dogma.


Peter Egan

I like cake too.

Other Comments by flying goose

25. Comment #414915 by nickthelight on September 14, 2009 at 10:22 am

Margaret Atwood is possibly to dullest woman ever to appear on TV!

Other Comments by nickthelight

26. Comment #414930 by RussC on September 14, 2009 at 11:54 am

Comment #414906 by flying goose

I did think what Ruth Padel said about the weak 'evolution is just God's way of doing it' not being an argument but just a satement not an argument, I thought that was interesting way of looking at it.

It was a potentially useful viewpoint, but somewhat undermined by the "so we just move on" that followed it. It had a bit too much of the "can't we all just get along?" about it.

I thoroughly enjoyed this. As much as I like some of Richard's more robust confrontations, this made a pleasant change. Newsnight Review is an arts review show and remained largely so here so it was never going to be a forum for much heated debate. Nevertheless, the opportunities to make a few points were well taken, such as pointing out the weakness of the "God kicked it all off" argument.

By the way Robotaholic, consider that Zeus line stolen for future use (not on here though I promise)

Other Comments by RussC

27. Comment #414939 by God fearing Atheist on September 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm

22. Comment #414857 by SaintStephen

And with no blood. Conclusion: as epistemological exercises, interviews like these SUCK.

I saw it in a more positive light.

I think Richard Coles' comments e.g. "teach evolution from the pulpit" were telling. By "stridently" attacking religion in TGD, and now imploring moderate theists to back evolution in TGSoE, is Richard Dawkins forcing moderates to come off the fence and get involved in the fight with fundamentalists? EDIT: It is subtle, but maybe gentle programs like this will have as much real impact as "bloodier" ones.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

28. Comment #414940 by Ygern on September 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm

On the whole it was a pleasure to watch a discussion between different but nevertheless intelligent and thoughtful participants.

I was surpised to see the segment from Inherit the Wind; I thought Trevor Nunn & Kevin Spacey were smarter than that. It sounded as if they were about arguing for removing evolution from classrooms for the sake of multiculturalism as well as because of their "it could have been God" theory. Of course a lot of moderate Christians use this god-of-the-gaps to help them merge their religious belief with evolution. Richard answered this challenge (if it deserves to be called a challenge) very well. I honestly believe that explaining why Goddidit is not a valid answer might be one of the most valuable ideas to put out there.

PS: I don't understand the Margaret Atwood criticism here. She isn't the most charismatic public speaker, but so what? She spoke clearly and intelligently.

Other Comments by Ygern

29. Comment #414942 by Ian on September 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Atwood came across as an animatronic. What is the matter with her?

~~~~~~~

The idea that evolution is God's way of doing things is not at all new, Darwin himself attacks it in a famous quote about parasitic wasps and I'm with him 100%. If a personal god did choose evolution then we're talking about someone worse than any eugenicist. He'd be a monstrously callous individual unworthy of respect, leave alone worship.

The only alternative I can see to that is a sort of 'life principle', in which case, as Richard says, why call it God?

I'm afraid nothing in this program took me anywhere new or even presented any challenge my position.

Not only does this god not exist, it's better that this god doesn't exist.

Other Comments by Ian

30. Comment #414945 by Akaei on September 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm

vid 3 of 4, If there is a hard-wiring-in of religion it seems almost obvious that the real hard-wires are more of a susceptibility to superstitious assumption (pattern detection expectancy of unseen agency random reward schedule) and a submission to authority. As a social animal the latter can be paralleled between ourselves and other social animals, esp. mammals.

I think Andy Thomson would back me up on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

Other Comments by Akaei

31. Comment #414946 by Suiryu on September 14, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Hot damn I love Richard's tie.

Other Comments by Suiryu

32. Comment #414963 by weesam on September 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Newsnight review = :(

Other Comments by weesam

33. Comment #414985 by Drad Frantle on September 14, 2009 at 3:10 pm

RD said that creationists and Holocaust deniers had one thing in common, that they both 'denied history' but there is another striking similarity - the way they do it. I think it's a useful warning sign of a bogus, politically-motivated opinion when you spot their method of arguing. This is simply to keep repeating long-debunked talking points, and then to point to the sheer quantity of bloviation thus produced to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a 'debate'. Climate change deniers operate similarly, come to think of it.

Other Comments by Drad Frantle

34. Comment #414989 by maximus444 on September 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Great show.
The likes of Richard Coles should be hailed by the secular in our societies. Dawkins could be much more effective if he were more cunning in his approach to religion, fundamentalism, and educating the public, but he's too darn honest and up front.(Which shouldn't be a bad thing of course)

Other Comments by maximus444

35. Comment #414996 by Roger Stanyard on September 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm

God Fearing Atheist says

" think Richard Coles' comments e.g. "teach evolution from the pulpit" were telling. By "stridently" attacking religion in TGD, and now imploring moderate theists to back evolution in TGSoE, is Richard Dawkins forcing moderates to come off the fence and get involved in the fight with fundamentalists? EDIT: It is subtle, but maybe gentle programs like this will have as much real impact as "bloodier" ones."

Well Richard may well have got his strategy (and timing) right (or hopelessly wrong) as the British creationists are just about to come out of the closet and state that science and religion are incompatible. In doing so, they are saying you can't be a Christian unless you are a fundamentalist who rejects science.

So it appears to Emeritus Professor Norman Nevin (ex QUB).

He is a Northern Irish fundamentalist (Plymouth Brethren) who is, perhaps, the best known academic in the province. His background is in the medical sciences and he is also a Truth in Science apologists.

He is editor of a new book due to be published on 20th November.

The book is called "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?", see: http://www.amazon.ca/Should-Christians-Embrace-Evolution-Scientific/dp/184474406X

One of the doubts we at the BCSE have had is whether he is a hard line young earth creationist. This book should answer the question once and for all. We don't know who the authors are of the articles in the book - with one exception - the twerp (Richard's description of him, IIRC) from Belper* is bragging that he was written a section of the book. This is about the first time that he has stuck his head above the parapet since his crapola with BCSE Revealed.

The new book looks as if it will be a good opportunity to throw rotten fruit/dung at the creationists and fundamentalists. Nevin surely deserves it.

Whilst he was pulling in money as an academic, he felt it prudent to hide his creationist extremism from those paying, the public.

The book is clearly not a science book. It's published by the neo-fundamentalist Intervarsity Press. IIRC this is the publishing arm of what was once described as the Jesus Freaks.

Here is the twerp from Belper's description of the book "And now for the good news. Here's the intellectual ammunition, Biblical, theological and scientific, to show you why you can answer the question "Should Christians Embrace Evolution" with a decisive "No!". Here's the book for the layman which explains the issues in a way that is careful easy to follow, and that covers all the bases.

Published by Intervarsity Press and edited by Professor Norman C. Nevin - an international expert in genetics - the editors include theologians and scientists; including on the scientific side leading experts and PhDs in genetics, immunology, thermodynamics, chemistry and geology (including four professors and a senior research fellow). The theological side is no less weighty, with chapters from writers who hold positions in UCCF, denominational apologetics committees, Bible colleges and very well known pastors. And (drum roll) your friend in the Rift Valley. Oh yes!"

Oh no!

* Of "Does Richard Dawkins Exist?" crapola.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

36. Comment #415036 by quaredunt on September 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Great fun!
Atwood animatronic? That's our Maggie. Just a machine for the selfish gene and she knows it. Of all the people I have seen RD talk to, she is the one that seemed to truly get under his skin but just a little and only briefly when talking about saints. I agree that this format is way too superficial. I'd love to have seen RD and MA really go at it for a few hours over a few jars. They're both whip sharp.
As for the comment #19, about mandrills' rumps, I imagine there are plenty of humans who find that (and similar butts) very aesthetically pleasing!

Other Comments by quaredunt

37. Comment #415038 by Marcus on September 14, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Richard fudged on the Lord May proposition that religion should be used as an incentive to make people go green.

I would have expected him to have baulked at the idea, but instead he declined to give his own opinion.

Other Comments by Marcus

38. Comment #415103 by superwolf on September 14, 2009 at 10:38 pm

I wonder when Kevin Spacey will come out of the closet, and not as an atheist.

An ex-girlfriend of mine loves Margaret Atwood's work. Canadian blandiose for me. Southern Gothic, I prefer.

All in all, one of the more listenable/watchable panels on this subject.

Other Comments by superwolf

39. Comment #415111 by alaskansee on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 am

@ Fuzzy Duck

Thanks and good spoonerism by the way. We have a dog handler (frightens the bears away) in our town called Carrie Hunt, most unfortunate.

@ Superwolf

Atwood is bland and gets in the way of Richards wise comments. I couldn't handle her last book, stone something........? and I am canadian.

A friend of mine works with Kevin at the Vic, I'll ask and see.

Other Comments by alaskansee

40. Comment #415597 by bethe123 on September 16, 2009 at 2:05 am

I agree with Ygern...why the attack on Atwood?

Margaret Atwood's comments were good.

Other Comments by bethe123

41. Comment #415610 by Fuzzy Duck on September 16, 2009 at 5:07 am

@ alaskansee: I never noticed the spoonerism before, and I've had this name online for several years! (I'm still not certain if I fully see it. Is it "Does he fuck?") Anyway, it's based on a character I created a long time ago. At least it's not as bad as Carrie Hunt, though.

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

42. Comment #416045 by TurkishAtheist on September 16, 2009 at 11:04 pm

I can't get enough of Mr. Dawkins interviews, it is like an addiction for me, I daily check the website to see if there are new interviews and articles.

Other Comments by TurkishAtheist

43. Comment #416637 by RationalThinker1859 on September 18, 2009 at 6:05 am

I am quite irritated by the "I don't know about you, Richard, but..." and the "I don't know how you feel about it, Richard, but..." style of the clergy. It's used quite a lot by mild-mannered, affable god-folk. It implies that there is some kind of 50/50, equally-weighted debate going on. You never hear it from scientists.

This kind of pleasant, coffee-table, can't-we-all-just-get-along kind of atmosphere gives kudos to the vicar where none is justified. Winds me up it does.

Other Comments by RationalThinker1859

44. Comment #416944 by HFamilyDad on September 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm

What's all this God stuff? Anybody care to fill me in?

Other Comments by HFamilyDad

45. Comment #417037 by Spetznatz on September 19, 2009 at 10:06 am

@TurkishAtheist --

Presumably you're not logging in from Turkey then?!

Other Comments by Spetznatz

46. Comment #417815 by Davechoc on September 21, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Off topic slightly, but interesting to note that the music used for the film about the two Darwin exhibitions segues from the Scherzo from Mahler's Symphony No. 2 (1888-94, rev. 1903), for the early exhibition, to the third movement of Berio's Sinfonia (1968-69), which uses that same Mahler movement as a vessel for a stream-of-consciousness series of quotations from other composers in a modernist collage, for the contemporary exhibition; someone at the BBC is being discreetly very clever about their soundtrack choices!

Other Comments by Davechoc