Biologist Richard Dawkins on the evolution debate

by Lori Kozlowski - LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sciw-dawkins-qanda4-2009nov04,0,3848402,full.story

In the 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark book, "On the Origin of Species," researchers have accrued massive amounts of evidence in support of evolution and the mechanics behind the process. Yet today only 4 in 10 Americans believe that evolution occurred.

British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, an eminent scholar and outspoken atheist, has for decades written best-selling books on evolutionary processes and has repeatedly called for rational public thinking on the matter. In his latest book, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" (Free Press, 2009), he provides an illustrated primer on how it all works. (For The Times book review, go here.)

Dawkins' deep admiration and reverence for scientific processes are evident. He covers the gamut: the power that lies in biology, the delicacy and perfection of natural selection, how everything once lived in the sea, and why Darwin loved orchids.

In a rapid round of questions, Dawkins talked about the book and the ongoing argument about evolution.

Unlike your previous book "The God Delusion," which argues that belief in a personal god is not only incorrect but irrational, your latest seems to be more of an educational text -- providing proof and explaining scientific processes. Was that your aim?

Yes, that was my intention. But it is not a textbook. It's a book for lay people.

Throughout the book, you seem to have a deep respect, almost a love, as if you are in awe of the process. Is evolution your religion?

Well, I don't want to say that. I quite like how you say I am in awe of the process though.

As biology and biological processes go, would you say that life is complicated or a simple process?

Life is very complicated. But the process that gives rise to it is very simple.
...
Continue reading
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sciw-dawkins-qanda4-2009nov04,0,3848402,full.story

Posted: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 8 of 8 |

Reload Comments

Page Numbers

1. Comment #429535 by beelzebub on November 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Hmm.. not bad, though a little on the short side, and none too deep either.
My favourite line was -
"I think: Stop calling it a theory -- that confuses people. Start calling it a fact."

Other Comments by beelzebub

2. Comment #429545 by SaintStephen on November 4, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Kozlowski: You describe breeding and conditioning the gene pool for certain outcomes. In our lifetime, do you think we'll begin to see humans shape the clay of our own genetics? Bioengineering for a master race?

Dawkins: I doubt it. We could have done this any time in the last thousand years. As we made greyhounds and bulldogs and roses and so on. We could have done that for humans. Why would we start doing bioengineering on them now?

I've heard this answer a couple times now. Lori Kozlowski's question was about "a master race" and she further stipulated "in our lifetime", therefore Richard's answer makes sense. I wish the question could have been rephrased, because I have trouble believing that Richard doubts the possible future benefits of bioengineering in general, particularly with regard to replacing organs and limbs.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

3. Comment #429564 by glenister_m on November 4, 2009 at 11:17 pm

I would be very surprized if we don't start bioengineering people in the "near" future.

I think the reason we haven't done much in the past involves the time and logistics involved in selective breeding. Certainly some leaders like Genghis Khan added substantially to the gene pool in their area (a high percentage of people carry a genetic marker from an ancestor, which is assumed to be him). I have heard that slave owners in the States did practice a limited form (trying to breed the strongest slaves with other strong slaves - this was an explanation proposed for the sudden boxing success of Jack Jefferson in the early 20th century).

We have had some recent success in gene therapy, so how much longer before we decide to cure diabetes or other genetic diseases. Its a short step from curing diseases to deciding to try to improve people.

Other Comments by glenister_m

4. Comment #429589 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 12:31 am

the sudden boxing success of Jack Jefferson in the early 20th century).

Of course you meant Jack Johnson.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

5. Comment #429624 by Enlightenme.. on November 5, 2009 at 6:12 am

Richard has answered that question the same way he did here even without the dimwitted loading of 'master race' being added.

But he is of course wrong, we just won't call it Eugenics! Enough time has now passed to not automatically think 'Godwin', or 'Goddard'.

"We could have done it any time in the last thousand years"
Not if the prevailing wisdom was we are of a different essence to dogs or pigeons, rendering it unworkable devilry!
Nevertheless in anycase, the 'bluebloods' did tend to do it for quite some time in Europe, with some unfortunate consequences for the royal family for example, stumbling across something that is tightly genetically determinable.

In the first chapter, you draw an analogy between history teachers trying to teach about World War II and the Holocaust and getting derailed by Holocaust deniers. You say science teachers today face the same situation with groups that don't want them to teach evolution. Do you think this is uniquely an American problem?

No. I don't. It's a problem in Britain as well. In Britain, I think it is because of the growing Islamic population in schools. It's a problem in some other European countries; I've heard rather unpleasant stories from the Netherlands and Belgium.

I think that the Holocaust denial thing, and this suggestion that muslims have this much influence generally over UK science in schools appear rather unfortunately close together here.
(one tends to think of Iran (or Ahmadinejad) rather than neonazis when HD is mentioned these days)

I was under an impression that it's mainly just the Vardy schools here, and I would wonder whether there's any real evidence the mainstream moderates (never mind the cultural-only muslims) are really reading Yahya's Atlas of Creation?

< /feeling like a concern troll!>

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

6. Comment #429953 by blister on November 6, 2009 at 11:20 am

No. I don't. It's a problem in Britain as well. In Britain, I think it is because of the growing Islamic population in schools. It's a problem in some other European countries; I've heard rather unpleasant stories from the Netherlands and Belgium.

Does anyone know which unpleasant stories from the Netherlands and Belgium Richard is referring to?

Other Comments by blister

7. Comment #430802 by God fearing Atheist on November 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm

If there was one thing you'd want to get across to the scientific community about this book and evolution, what is it?

I think: Stop calling it a theory -- that confuses people. Start calling it a fact.

Yes, except that doesn't help other "scientific theories". It might be better to educate people about the two dictionary meanings of "theory", and encourage the public to use "hypothesis" when they want the common meaning, and "theory" only when they want the scientific meaning.

Ok, too difficult, I'll shurrup.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

8. Comment #432049 by hadespussercats on November 16, 2009 at 2:21 am

"That it is a matter or chance. That it's unguided. People believe the only alternative to randomness is intelligent design."

This seems like a very bad typo, since it might lead readers to think precisely the opposite of Professor Dawkins' meaning, which I've understood as: natural selection is NOT a process guided by chance.

Other Comments by hadespussercats

Reload Comments