1. Comment #429384 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2009 at 9:35 am

Excellent lecture, based on excellent book. Well worth listening to, even if you think you know it. Try to get this lecture widely disseminated, especially among young people and people likely to be influenced by creationist wingnuts. If you are a school teacher, or know a school teacher, try to get the lecture shown in school. Jerry is superb.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

2. Comment #429385 by TheBlindWatcher on November 4, 2009 at 9:59 am

I would also like to recommend Jerry Coyne's book - "Why Evolution is True" - it is superbly written. It is shorter than TGOE by Dawkins but is so beautifully written: logical, thorough & interesting. For my situation, a preferred book to have a "creationist" read.

Other Comments by TheBlindWatcher

3. Comment #429386 by Friend Giskard on November 4, 2009 at 10:03 am

I fear that, in the eyes of some, this lecture will be tainted by the AAI association, and that will have consequences for its chances of being used as an educational tool in schools. Jerry needs to deliver it again, and Josh record it again in a different setting. (If that's not too much trouble!)

OK. Now to watch it.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

4. Comment #429387 by Mark Lowley on November 4, 2009 at 10:14 am

or try to get the god delusion played in school, now that would be something.

Other Comments by Mark Lowley

5. Comment #429393 by Jos Gibbons on November 4, 2009 at 11:28 am

Comment #429387 by Mark Lowley

How do you "play" a book? The documentary "The Root of All Evil?" I could understand, or perhaps "The Enemies of Reason"; but playing a book?

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

6. Comment #429398 by Mark Lowley on November 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Ever heard of audiobooks?

Other Comments by Mark Lowley

7. Comment #429403 by Jos Gibbons on November 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Comment #429398 by Mark Lowley

Fair enough (abridged or otherwise). I can't help thinking a video-less playback in a school would fail to capture children's attention, but you never know.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

8. Comment #429406 by Dr Benway on November 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Oh hell. MacBook mousepad did something weird and flagged someone's post for something. I'm very sorry.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

9. Comment #429424 by General_Intangibles on November 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Well, don't show this lecture in Hawaiian classrooms without expecting the children to be a little confused. At about 32 minutes into the lecture, Coyne mentions that there are no endemic mammals on oceanic islands - including the Hawaiian islands. This statement is not accurate. There are at least two mammals endemic to the islands - Hawaiian hoary bats and Hawaiian monk seals (children in Hawaiian schools are taught this bit of trivia in their science classes). The general observation about animals on oceanic islands is still correct - these particular mammals are the only kinds of mammals (swimmers, flyers) that could have made it to the Hawaiian islands on their own. Perhaps Coyne meant to say that you won't find endemic four-legged mammals like the mongoose on oceanic islands.

You can easily imagine though that a creationist might take Coyne's statement and say something like: "Eeevilutionists say that you can disprove Darwin’s theory if you find endemic mammals on oceanic islands - well here they are!" (Banana Man and his sidekick produce a picture of the Hawaiian hoary bat and the monk seal). "See, God did it!"

Other Comments by General_Intangibles

10. Comment #429426 by SRWB on November 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Jerry's book was excellent - I recommend it to others all the time. I am about to start Richard's book.

Other Comments by SRWB

11. Comment #429427 by Son of Rea on November 4, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Great information. I understand he was playing to an atheistic audience, but I wish he had not been so condescending toward the religious.

One of the chief complaints among my friends when we debate such matters from time to time, is the disrespectful, arrogant attitude of atheists towards believers.

I would share this video with one such friend, but he would be angered by the japes, and his mind would become closed to the information.

Other Comments by Son of Rea

12. Comment #429430 by Sally Luxmoore on November 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Comment #429427 by Son of Rea

"Condescending"?? Your religious friends need to toughen up and face facts.

The graphs that he was referring to were not made-up inventions. Where it is clearly shown that there is a negative correlation between religious societies and acceptance of evolution (and also between those societies and general equality and well-being)- it is the religious that are the ones who need to accept criticism.

Trouble is, it seems that the kind of people we are talking about are those least able to understand information presented in graph form. There is after all, another negative correlation - the one between the general level of education (and by implication, intelligence) and religiosity...

Maybe we can't win...
The Dunning Kruger effect: (unskilled and unaware of it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y&feature=PlayList&p=011160D4E6021B56&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

13. Comment #429435 by Mark Jones on November 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Comment #429427 by Son of Rea

Your comment reflects a debate that has been raging online for some time about the appropriate strategy to adopt. Have any of your theist friends been persuaded that they're wrong by respectful, humble atheists?

I would share this video with one such friend, but he would be angered by the japes, and his mind would become closed to the information.

One is tempted to suggest an anger management course for your friend, but would he get the joke :-)? The serious point is that he needs to grow up and take on board these issues that are presented by atheists (some of which have been for hundreds of years) and not just dismiss them because he's being teased. Non-theists have been at the receiving end of much harsher treatments over the centuries.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

14. Comment #429495 by bluegollum on November 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm

I'll give the same respect to creationists as I do flat earthers. I really don't think evolution is difficult to grasp, some people just *do not* want to, that kind of arrogance is far more contemptable than the jibes made against them

Other Comments by bluegollum

15. Comment #429509 by Son of Rea on November 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Sally, my point had nothing to do with the facts that were presented. They were excellent.

But the in-between comments are not necessary. Like flipping the bird, and other condescending comments.

Here is the bottom line: if you treat another human respectfully, you will indeed get farther with your arguments than if you put them on the defensive.

When you say something insulting, the listener's mind focuses on that, and mulls it over, and all that is said afterward is missed.

A person whom I believe to be a good spokesman, is Sam Harris. He presents his arguments calmly, and respectfully.

And yes, I know for a fact, a non-atheist is more willing to listen to such a person. Would you rather discuss a point with someone who is insulting and condescending, or with someone who calmly and respectfully makes their points?

I would have thought this obvious to intelligent and reasonable people.

Other Comments by Son of Rea

16. Comment #429513 by Mitch Kahle on November 4, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Friend Giskard on November 4, 2009
I fear that, in the eyes of some, this lecture will be tainted by the AAI association, and that will have consequences for its chances of being used as an educational tool in schools. Jerry needs to deliver it again, and Josh record it again in a different setting.

No! We do not apologize. Atheists are the friends of science. Theists can "suck it!"

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

17. Comment #429520 by root2squared on November 4, 2009 at 8:41 pm

One of the chief complaints among my friends when we debate such matters from time to time, is the disrespectful, arrogant attitude of atheists towards believers.

So the people who make fantastic claims in the face of massive contradictions, and with zero evidence claim we are arrogant. No wonder I don't have any respect for them.

Other Comments by root2squared

18. Comment #429521 by SaintStephen on November 4, 2009 at 8:41 pm

15. Comment #429509 by Son of Rea on November 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Would you rather discuss a point with someone who is insulting and condescending, or with someone who calmly and respectfully makes their points?

Please. Two simpleminded posts and all of a sudden you've found the missing link in the war between science and religion?

No, Ma'am, I don't give a rat's ass if someone is screaming at me at the top of their lungs -- as a scientist I'll listen anyway and separate the wheat from the chaff. If the information is there, I'll get it.

And then I'll reply in kind. Emotions don't invalidate solid arguments.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

19. Comment #429533 by andersemil on November 4, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Well proud of Denmark being at no 2 most accepting of the theory of evolution-- now if only people here would stop believing in angels and alternative medicine!

Other Comments by andersemil

20. Comment #429537 by Sciros on November 4, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Mark Jones

Your comment reflects a debate that has been raging online for some time about the appropriate strategy to adopt.

I'm of the impression that the conclusion is always that there is room for more than one strategy.

Some people really do stop paying attention when put on the defensive, and some people are easier to put on the defensive than others.

Richard doesn't sugar-coat what he has to say, and that means he may have more trouble getting his points across to some people than would someone who does sugar-coat things. (I think the opposite is true as well.)

I'm glad we have the whole spectrum of approaches "in play."

EDIT: and it is not so much that Richard doesn't sugar-coat things, I suppose, but more that Richard doesn't even bother addressing religion in his writing on science except in cases where it "stands in his way," so to speak.

And the irony there is, I think, that the religious people who will continue reading through his books despite that are either people who are indeed not stubborn and very willing to give Richard a fair chance, and people who are like "I don't care, I'm right and he's wrong anyway!" The in-between people, who aren't quite so strong in their religious convictions, but don't quite have it in them to push past what they see as "stabs" at their world view, may be disinclined to actually read through a whole book.

Other Comments by Sciros

21. Comment #429546 by genetheory on November 4, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Excellent video - would be wonderful if creationists WOULD take the time to watch it. Unfortunately, in my experience they are simply not interested in other explanations... They already have 'the truth' and are clearly frightened of fact based reality getting in the way of their world view.

Other Comments by genetheory

22. Comment #429552 by andersemil on November 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Unfortunately, in my experience they are simply not interested in other explanations... They already have 'the truth' and are clearly frightened of fact based reality getting in the way of their world view.

Well... in the Q&A section Jerry quotes PZ Myers: "You don't teach them evolution, you teach them rational and critical thinking". I guess he means that you don't want to shovel facts down their throats, you want them to choose the facts which are already there based on their own reasoning. Incidentally, this is why I think science and philosophy in its basics should be taught even from early school years.

Other Comments by andersemil

23. Comment #429574 by Grace Margaret on November 4, 2009 at 11:53 pm

Jerry Coyne is definitely superb. Would love to see more presentations from Coyne, very informative and enjoyable.

Other Comments by Grace Margaret

24. Comment #429584 by yyy on November 5, 2009 at 12:15 am

'science and philosophy in its basics should be taught even from early school years'

The dominant reading material I remember from my early forced schooling is a lot of pointless fiction. IMO, dictionaries and encyclopedias make most sense as general starting material, and autodidacticism makes more sense than school since brains are isolated and 'evolve' their own unique neuron paths. School just adds some idiotic unfitting social paradigm on top of that, and is more tied to future employment and historical legacy of schools having existed in the past than actually learning.

The nonfiction taught was usually just a string of facts to temporarily memorize with mnemonics to pass some pointless test. The function of tests still perplexes me; I guess that helps authorities place people in their respective 'gold group' or 'brown group' as joked about in matt groening's 'life is hell' books (feynman: 'i don't like honors'). 'Proving' to authorities that you learned something is an annoyance that gets in the way of learning itself. And peer pressure makes it desirable for males to be in the brown group actually since that group is 'cool'. Seriously, in one class we watched movies.. retarded movies like 'home alone' if I remember, then had a 'test' on it.. and that was the class. I learned the same amount in that class as any of the others though.

In my crappy college, I always tried to learn on my own by simply going to the library to read books I chose; too bad there was so much busywork and such from the retarded forced subjects constantly getting in the way of my own learning.

A basic problem is.. one should choose their own teachers. I certainly wouldn't choose any of the public school or college teachers I had. I would choose pleny of book writers as teachers (indirectly, through reading their books.. on my own without annoying tests..) to stand on the shoulders of giants. Public school teachers is generally standing on the shoulders of idiots.

Other Comments by yyy

25. Comment #429603 by Mark Jones on November 5, 2009 at 1:38 am

Comment #429537 by Sciros

I'm of the impression that the conclusion is always that there is room for more than one strategy.

From what I've seen this is probably true, and seems sensible. The accommodationists have to show that the approach should be restricted to a 'respectful' one, by *all*. AFAICS, there is no evidence that this is the only approach that *should* be taken. But I'm open to it, if they can present some evidence. So far, they haven't. They just say they don't like the abrasive approach; and that's not good enough, IMO.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

26. Comment #429667 by William Carlton on November 5, 2009 at 1:52 pm

I've enjoyed every one of these talks immensely. I don't consider myself an accomodationist by any means. I find, however, that many of those opposed to "accomodationism" in this context use the epithet as reflexively---and often inaccurately---as their foes use phrases like "militant atheist".

Sam Harris caused a stir when he appeared before an AAI conference and suggested that the word "atheism" itself has outlived its usefulness. He was virtually run out on a rail. This, of course, because he violated one of the more odious conventions of public speaking: pandering to your audience.

Which is the only principle I can see being defended here. If we mean for these talks to travel well outside of the conference's extended audience, then I'm on board with letting the content---devastating as it already is toward magical thinking---speak for itself.

Other Comments by William Carlton

27. Comment #429670 by magnumdb on November 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Coyne's book is what I was reading when I saw Dawkins' during his Greatest Show On Earth book tour. I felt like I was the owner of two of the best books on evolution at that moment.

Other Comments by magnumdb

28. Comment #429760 by David Blackwell on November 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm

What intriguing stuff: Religion very much undergirds non-acceptance of the fact of evolution. The more a society is non-functional, the more religion is occasioned. Igitur, we should be doing all we can to (for example) help bring about serious health care reform in the U.S. Does anyone know how to easily access the text of G. Paul's article on the research on this--the article in Evolutionary Psychology that Jerry Coyne refers to?

Other Comments by David Blackwell

29. Comment #429780 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 5, 2009 at 8:18 pm

Interesting lecture!

Funny, incidentally, how Coyne and Dawkins seem to be very fond of flipping the bird to demonstrate how a horse's hoof evolved from five digits to one. ;)

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

30. Comment #429799 by forestsoul on November 5, 2009 at 8:43 pm

I noticed that Canada was not included in the list of countries.

I'm curious as to where Canada would place in the graph, being so closely tied to the U.S. in many ways, yet so different in many other ways (legal gay marriage country-wide, health care, much lower murder rate, etc).

Other Comments by forestsoul

31. Comment #429801 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm

I've heard that Canada doesn't have a lot of the same bullshit that we do. There's a Bible belt but apparently it doesn't wield the same power that it does here. Also, the "Harry Potter Controversy" apparently isn't there either.

My dad was on business in Canada (while Bush was in office) and was discussing politics with a Canadian. The Canadian said "I don't know if the PM is married, and I don't give a shit!" :)

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

32. Comment #429816 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm

What about the religion/social dysfunction correlation? Is that CAUSATION or just correlation, with other factors coming into play? I'd like to see more research on this.

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

33. Comment #429852 by snowbourne on November 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm

A truly enlightening and thought provoking lecture!A beautiful balance of serious scholarship and humorous elements presented for easy comprehension. I loved it; and, I can't wait to read both Jerry's and Richard's books!

Other Comments by snowbourne

34. Comment #429895 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 1:42 am

I watched this video on Pharyngula. Coyne is brilliant.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

35. Comment #429964 by Peter_E_Jones on November 6, 2009 at 12:30 pm

In 9. Comment #429424 by General_Intangibles

Coyne mentions that there are no endemic mammals on oceanic islands. . .

In Coyne's book he quotes Darwin on p. 114 and he himself distinguishes terrestrial, aquatic and aerial mammals. He goes on to say that the latter two have the means to make it to oceanic islands. He does mention that sometimes terrestrial animals make it across on a fortuitous raft.

He should really have been more careful with the wording on his slide and qualified mammal.

Other Comments by Peter_E_Jones

36. Comment #430002 by juiceman1_2000 on November 6, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Hello all, it's my first post here, after reading and watching so much information discovered through the site. I've no idea whether this has been discussed previously, and not being a biologist, I've no idea whether the actual proximity of internal wiring facilitates what I'm considering.

Is it possible that the detour taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve is due to the evolutionary necessity of interacting with the lungs? It is said to be evolved from fishes who had gills. But since we use lungs, and the air inside them to generate sound, is it possible that the detour is NECESSARY to conduct some co-ordination or synchronization between the lungs and the larynx.

You won't be able to make sounds if there's no air in your lungs to carry the sound vibrations. So has the nerve been re-routed to finally orchestrate this newly evolved function of producing sound?

If this is so, then it wouldn't be a 'design' flaw. I'd appreciate a response if possible, and an informed one would be ideal.

Other Comments by juiceman1_2000

37. Comment #430121 by prolibertas on November 7, 2009 at 2:26 am

We should be getting that correlation-between-God-belief-and-societal-dysfunction graph on the buses. They can argue against the other slogans we've put up, but they can't argue with the stats.

Other Comments by prolibertas

38. Comment #430137 by Thylacoleo on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 am

@ Comment #429387 by Mark Lowley

I managed to convince my high school library to buy The God Delusion as part of its next intake :D
I thought it was a great victory until, after I returned it, one my friends borrowed it... Their dog ate it...

Other Comments by Thylacoleo

39. Comment #430169 by SaintStephen on November 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Their dog ate it...

Damn those theists are real dogs.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

40. Comment #430631 by superatheist on November 9, 2009 at 6:54 pm

I think I am going to do a minor in Biology or Evolution in my University, because of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.

Other Comments by superatheist

41. Comment #430751 by Shuggy on November 10, 2009 at 7:35 am

36. Comment #430002 by juiceman1_2000 on November 6, 2009

Is it possible that the detour taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve is due to the evolutionary necessity of interacting with the lungs? It is said to be evolved from fishes who had gills. But since we use lungs, and the air inside them to generate sound, is it possible that the detour is NECESSARY to conduct some co-ordination or synchronization between the lungs and the larynx.

You won't be able to make sounds if there's no air in your lungs to carry the sound vibrations. So has the nerve been re-routed to finally orchestrate this newly evolved function of producing sound?

One counter to that is that it is most recurrent of all - well, longest - in the giraffe, which hardly makes any sound. Also, it is universal across the lunged animals, I think, whether they make sound or not.

The lungs are not to "carry the sound vibrations" but to provide air-pressure to drive the larynx - rather like bagpipes. We - or at least skilled Scots - can squeeze the bag with one arm and play the tune with the fingers at the same time, which uses three sets of nerves, so it is quite practical to do it within the animal with two.

Finally, the fact that it passes behind the aorta and could not change to passing in front by a simple mutation is sufficient to explain its recurrency. Further explanation is redundent.

The test is, does the recurrent laryngeal nerve in fact send any branches into the lungs?

Other Comments by Shuggy

42. Comment #430804 by David Blackwell on November 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm

With reference to Nov. 5 post #429816 by Julie asking if the Gregory Paul article in Evolutionary Psychology (the one Jerry Coyne was referring to) is just a correlational study: no it's not--or at least doesn't claim to be (on the face of it, validly). I just read it quickly yesterday, and got the impression that it's a hugely significant piece of work. A lot of the subsidiary research, and reviews and discussion of the literature, are themselves highly informative and thought provoking (details of the U.S. as a dysfunctional society, religion as the key reason why Americans are as happy as other western more secular nations, religion not as ingrained in the human psyche as we tend to assume, etc.).

Discussing the article further would require a very long post.

I hope Dan Dennett and Richard read it. I doubt either would say it had been a waste of their time.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to transmit the link, but here's how one can access the article:

http://www.epjournal.net

Gregory Paul, “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosocial Conditions,” Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.

Other Comments by David Blackwell