Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Richard Dawkins


101. Beware the Believers

Comment #151849 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Actually we should apologize here, namely for being totally inconsiderate. It is not us who are depicted here as a menacing, self-aggrandizing bully. . . But sorry, again. It's not our very image that's being put up and made fun of in the video.

Oh goodness, I'd hate it if anybody thought I didn't like it because I was being made fun of. I didn't even notice that I was being made fun of. I evidently understood so little that I actually felt quite flattered by my apparent role in the video. My problem with this video is that I can't find anything funny in it. It doesn't even make me smile, let alone laugh. I'm sure it must be an age thing. I feel the same way about South Park (though not the Simpsons, which I find witty and highly perceptive about modern life). In both South Park and this video, I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that people think it MUST be funny because it is obviously TRYING to be funny. If people here really genuinely and sincerely find this video funny and witty, I am happy to defer to them and put it down to age.
Richard

102. Beware the Believers

Comment #151723 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:55 am

. . . the humour here is not primarily in the satirical content. It comes from the burlesque - the incongruous juxtaposition of radically different style and content.

OK, thank you, now I'm starting to get it. I still don't find it funny but I'm starting to get the point. Sorry to be so slow.
Richard

103. Beware the Believers

Comment #151715 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:48 am

Bah humbug - You old fuddy-duddy, not even when Dan Dennett pops up from the bottom goin' Yeah! ?

Well, OK, but apart from Dan Dennett saying "Yeah", what have the Romans ever done for us?
Richard

104. Beware the Believers

Comment #151713 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:45 am

"Post Modernism" does make sense in the arts

Well, thank you, I'm learning something today. At least, this is the closest I have ever come to understanding that "Post Modernism" means anything at all.
Richard

105. Beware the Believers

Comment #151704 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

Whichever side it is on, it is well made, clever and very funny.


You mean you don't understand it well enough to know which side it is satirizing, yet you still consider it well made, clever and very funny? Well, maybe it is possible to laugh when you don't really understand the joke. But I couldn't even raise a smile.

Did the person who said it was the funniest thing since 'Life of Brian' really mean it? Really sincerely? 'Life of Brian' nearly makes me die of laughter every time I see it, and I re-watch it at least once a year. I understand exactly what is being satirized, and I can see exactly how well it achieves its result. Maybe I'd better have another go at this rap one and see if I can see at least one funny thing in it the second time around.

Richard

106. Beware the Believers

Comment #151685 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 7:50 am

Maybe it's postmodern. Would that account for the fact that even people who purport to like it don't know what it means?
Richard

107. Beware the Believers

Comment #151544 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

If anyone can understand a single word of this, don't bother to translate, just tell me whose side it's on. I get the feeling (same with South Park) that there are people out there who assume that something that is obviously MEANT to be funny therefore must BE funny, and they immediately shower it with accolades such as "Wow", "Hilarious", "Awesome" and, most side-splitting of all, "LOL".

Sorry, I seem to be showing my age. Enjoy yourselves LOLling away.

Richard

108. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151529 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 12:10 am

PZ is a priceless asset, a hero of our time.

By the way, he has another excellent article over at Pharyngula, where he makes the point that, to the extent that Hitler and the eugenicists borrowed anything from Darwinism, they borrowed from the OBVIOUS part that everybody knew for centuries before Darwin, namely ARTIFICIAL selection. Everybody knew how to breed cattle for milk, flowers for colour, horses for speed and so on. That was what Hitler and the eugenicists tried to apply to humans. Darwin's genius was to see that NATURE might do the same thing as human breeders, and hence produce all of life including the illusion of design. See 'The Simple Falsehood at the Heart of Expelled.'

Richard

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150765 by Richard Dawkins on March 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Obviously I am not asking whether I am right about the general proposition that Mark Mathis is a liar. I am asking about the SPECIFIC contradiction to which I drew attention in Post Number 388 on this thread.

Richard

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150755 by Richard Dawkins on March 27, 2008 at 11:43 am

May I just add one more thing to the indictment of hypocrisy against Mark Mathis, something that had not occurred to me before, or at least not quite so clearly?

1. Mathis tries to claim that he did not deceive PZ, me, Eugenie Scott and the rest of us into taking part in his film in the first place. He tries to claim that we were invited in good faith, and that we accepted in good faith.

2. If that were really true, wouldn't it be natural to invite PZ and the rest of us to attend pre-screenings, as honoured guests? The fact that he threw PZ out of the theatre in Minneapolis, and goes to strenuous lengths to keep all of us out of advance screenings (Eugenie has documented her positive exclusion) amounts to a damning admission that we are perceived as enemies, and therefore that his claim to have invited us to take part in an objective discussion of the issues, without deceiving us, is a lie.

Mathis cannot have it both ways. Either he was telling us the truth in the first place, when he invited us to participate in the film, in which case we should be invited to see it as an extension of the good faith with which he originally invited us to participate. Or he is right to treat us as enemies, to be excluded from advance showings, in which case he is lying when he claims to have invited us in good faith originally.

Well, it is obvious to any objective observer that Mark Mathis is a serial liar, frantically trying to spin his way out of the hole he has dug for himself. But I have not seen this particular contradiction spelled out before, in quite these stark terms.

Am I right?

Richard

111. Fleabytes

Comment #137580 by Richard Dawkins on March 3, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #137570 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 7:41 am

Richard-
the smart thing would have been not to remind everyone about your secret shame. Now it can be used against you in the future.

What secret shame? Please be clear.
Thank you
Richard

112. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137461 by Richard Dawkins on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 am

I hope nobody can confirm the scurrilous rumour that, when an early Attenborough documentary was first released in America, his commentary was dubbed by Robert Redford because the TV company wanted an American accent.

Richard

113. Fleabytes

Comment #137455 by Richard Dawkins on March 2, 2008 at 11:48 pm

2317. Comment #136327 by Diacanu on February 29, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Steve Zara-
By the way, I liked Paula's review.....
It's 2000 posts good. She should be a horsewoman. I want to see her up in the corner of the site at the table making Dan and Richard laugh.

Diacanu, Steve Zara and other admirers of Paula might like to know that she and I will be having an on-stage conversation in Inverness on April 2nd, organised by the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute and simultaneously broadcast to its outlying stations throughout the Highlands and Islands.

Place: Eden Court Theatre, Inverness.
Time: 4.30pm, Wednesday April 2nd.
Tickets are free but must be booked in advance. You need to contact the Eden Court Theatre box office on 01463 234 234. Max 4 tickets per booking, and names are needed for each ticket (to prevent people booking en masse and then not actually taking the seats). (I apologise for posting out-of-date instructions for booking tickets before)

After my on-stage conversation with Paula, I shall take questions from the audience, chaired by Isabel Fraser of BBC Scotland. The whole event will last two hours, and be split roughly 50/50 between the conversation and the Q & A. It will be filmed and later given to Josh for possible posting on this site.

Richard

114. Fleabytes

Comment #136398 by Richard Dawkins on March 1, 2008 at 5:02 am

NMcC wrote

Thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that Josh was the moderator here and that you wouldn't, and probably couldn't, intervene to have posts removed

It is true that Josh has the final decision over what is posted or removed. However, like any reasonable person, he listens to suggestions. And I think most reasonable people would agree that death threats, even if humorously intended, are in a different league from cartoons and operas.

Richard

115. Fleabytes

Comment #136364 by Richard Dawkins on March 1, 2008 at 1:56 am

2286. Comment #136256 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm
JOSH

I see you have given in to that whining fraud Robertson and removed my posts 669, 674, and 676.

Since I do not wish to be associated in any way with a site that stiffles free speech and dictates (and at the behest of a despicable Christian liar, to boot) what should or should not be considered 'humourous', please do me the honour of removing the rest of my posts.

I would appreciate it if this post alone was left as a mark of protest.

As far as I'm concerned, your surrender to the likes of religious fruitcakes like Robertson is pathetic.

In leaving this site for good, I'd simply like to state that, like others, I've learnt a lot and appreciate very much the education I've recieved.

Josh did not give in to the whining fraud. Nor did I. The wishes of an unpleasant fruitcake are of no interest to me and are best ignored. I asked Josh to remove your posts because they were in poor taste, even though I accept that you intended them humorously. I have no objection to humour at Robertson's expense, but at least let's try to make it funny.
Richard

116. Fleabytes

Comment #133900 by Richard Dawkins on February 27, 2008 at 2:28 am

The ill-named "Clearthinker" wrote

PS. Just one question. Why is Paula's article not listed on the front page. It was after all written on the 19th Feb. Is this an oversight or is the webmaster slightly ashamed of it? Just curious.

Robertson, I don't know many really nasty people, but you certainly are one. The word "unchristian" is sometimes used to mean unpleasant, ungenerous, mean-spirited. By that definition, Robertson, you are a walking oxymoron.
For the record, nobody associated with RD.net is remotely ashamed. Actually very proud. The reason Paula's article was not listed on the front page had nothing to do with its merits (which are excellent). It had everything to do with its subject matter (your book) which is not interesting or important enough to merit front page treatment, even when it is being deservedly torn to shreds.
Richard

117. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #133852 by Richard Dawkins on February 27, 2008 at 12:06 am

Richard Morgan:

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

How do you do it, by the way? Do you improvise at an electronic keyboard, and have the computer record what you do, then edit it? I have no conception of how this kind of thing is done, but I am extremely impressed.
Richard D

118. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132132 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 9:17 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Richard D - in one of your books you mentioned taking your baby daughter out one night to see a comet. You explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and you would not) you wanted her to be able to say that she'd seen it twice.
I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this :

"You'll see it again, but..."
(Dedicated to Richard Dawkins and his daughter.)

http://www.esnips.com/web/WeSawTheComet

(It's one of my "straight from my heart" compositions.)

It's lovely. Thank you very much.
Richard
By the way, if anyone is curious, the story concerned is in Climbing Mount Improbable, on page 131 of the UK edition and page 144 of the US edition.

119. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132060 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 4:34 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

So yes I actually composed this, not for the lava lizards (who, judging from the way they scuttle, prefer Reggae), but as a celebration of your message as expressed in The Lava Lizards Tale.

Thank you. I am touched and delighted.
Richard

120. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132047 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 2:55 am

Richard, I found the audio file by clicking on "Listen" just to the right of FILE..
Hope it helps and it is rather pleasing to listen to..Cheers

This worked for me, thank you.
But, Richard M, did you actually COMPOSE this music especially for the lava lizards? If so, I am very impressed.

121. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132042 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 2:23 am

The link to the site esnips.com should open a page that plays an mp3.
Perhaps this will work for you :
http://www.esnips.com/web/SuiteforEvolution

This one, like the other one, does indeed open a page. But what do I THEN have to click in order to play the mp3? It certainly doesn't spontaneously start playing, and there is no obvious clue as to what has to be clicked on that page.
Richard

122. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132024 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 12:10 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Please, somebody, anybody, give me a reaction to my little "sound collage".
I'm not a troll.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

I'd like to listen to this, but all I get is an error message:
Flip4Mac WMV cannot play this movie

Any suggestions? Have others had trouble listening to it?
Richard

123. Fleabytes

Comment #131257 by Richard Dawkins on February 22, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:04 am
For the first, and only time in my intellectually nondescript existence I believe I can critique one of my heroes, Prof. RD. He states:
ad hominem / ad feminam

Now all latin lovers would know that homo refers to humanity. Vir refers to the masculine sex. So a ad-hom is an ad-man/ad-women (vir/femina)

Damn, you are right of course. I should have consulted that well-known classical scholar R Dawkins. See footnote on page 115 of The God Delusion::
Classical Latin and Greek were better equipped. Latin homo (Greek anthropo-) means human, as opposed to vir (andro-) which means man, and femina (gyne-) which means woman. Thus anthropology pertains to all humanity, where andrology and gynecology are sexually exclusive branches of medicine.

Thanks for reminding me.
Richard

124. Fleabytes

Comment #131153 by Richard Dawkins on February 22, 2008 at 2:44 am

I understand from Josh that he is happy to give David Robertson the right of reply to Paula's review. Contrary to Robertson's assertions, it was NEVER, of course, for propounding Christian views that he was banned in the first place. Plenty of others do that. It is pretty hard to earn a ban hereabouts, but the Wee Flea seems to court it so that he can boast about it. Anyway, he is not now banned from responding to Paula's review. She has given us a remarkably thorough dissection of Robertson's book and the others. Let him reply to THOSE ARGUMENTS without ad hominem / ad feminam unpleasantness, and he will be welcome to do so.
Richard

125. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129464 by Richard Dawkins on February 19, 2008 at 7:03 am

I would be interested to hear which arguments by McGrath Justin Barrett supports. I have yet to see a viable argument from him.

There is no suggestion that Justin Barrett supports McGrath. Read what it says more carefully:
Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath . . .

Richard

126. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126962 by Richard Dawkins on February 14, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I wish Richard would stop using hitchens arguement that you cant appreciate literature if you don't understand the bible.


Since I devoted pages 340 to 344 of The God Delusion to developing this very argument, it is mildly irritating to hear it attributed to Christopher Hitchens. Much as I admire his book, it was published after mine!
Richard

127. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125250 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 6:16 am

I wonder if they should have an American

I think that's an excellent idea. Moreover, because of the relative values of the pound and the dollar, and also the considerable perk of a Fellowship at New College (it was new in 1379, you see), the salary will look considerably more attractive to Americans than would have been the case in the past. I have sent the advertisement to several Americans, including Carolyn Porco, Lawrence Krauss and PZ Myers.

Richard

128. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125156 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 3:12 am

Do we still say "Prof. Dawkins" or will it become "Professor Emeritus Dawkins"?


I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but the thread is not really supposed to be about me but about suggestions for my successor and especially about Charles Simonyi's wonderful manifesto.

Richard

129. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125125 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 2:21 am

Sir, I hope your exit was either your own choice, or due to a time limit imposed on incumbents. I would hate to think your more recent books and public visibility caused Oxford to ease you out in favour of someone less passionate.


Nothing of the kind, I assure you. I have simply reached the mandatory retirement age.
Richard

130. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125118 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 2:02 am

Thank you for over 30 years of wonderful books, lectures, debates and documentaries. Thank you for raising the collective consciousness of the world about the religious delusion.

Don't worry, you are not getting rid of me that easily! Retirement from the Oxford Chair will free me up to be even more strident, shrill etc etc etc. I expect to be busier than ever, with two Foundations to run (the British and American branches of RDFRS), books to write (I have already started the next one) and who knows what else?
Richard

131. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125043 by Richard Dawkins on February 10, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Boteach was terrible. He couldn't even make a good case, let alone a successful joke.

Is there more than meets the eye? How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Why did Dawkins debate him 4 times?


How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Easy. He moved from America to a house in the city of Oxford and set himself up as a rabbi. He persuaded students at Oxford to set up an unofficial Jewish student group, which he supervised and financed (he had considerable financial resources, which seem to have come from a Jewish organization in New York). He never had any official standing at the University of Oxford at all.

Why did I debate him 4 times? I didn't. He organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended.

Richard

132. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123660 by Richard Dawkins on February 7, 2008 at 1:16 pm

The ABoC has definitely stirred up a hornets nest...no matter what he may decide to say tomorrow! there are over 6,800 comments submitted to the BBC website alone (1750 posted) (Edit: and rising). Many other papers are also running the story with readers comments as well, most of them in the same vein as the posts here..

Please give urls so we can all go and see
Thanks
Richard

133. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120282 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

PZ is magnificent. Brilliant. Well-informed, good-humoured and devastatingly effective.

I was amused at how, when he called Simmons ignorant (of whale fossils) both Simmons and the chairman objected as though PZ had violated the decencies of debate by using a word like 'ignorant'. To call somebody 'ignorant' as a generalised insult might be ruled out by the rules of politeness. But to call somebody ignorant when he has just unequivocally DEMONSTRATED his ignorance, in a subject about which he had written a whole book, is simply a matter of fact, and not impolite at all.

Well done PZed.

Interestingly, Dembski's 'Uncommon Descent' website carried a thread to discuss the debate on the fly, as it happened. However, when they saw that their man Simmons was being slaughtered, and when they saw that even their own posters were (however reluctantly) recognizing this, they abruptly closed the thread down. Fortunately, somebody had saved it, and you can see it at
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=24870#entry95440

Richard

134. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118844 by Richard Dawkins on January 31, 2008 at 4:08 am

Am I the only one who noticed Richard didn't clap even so much as once throughout the show? I think it was quite funny actually, everyone was swooning over everyone else, and Prof Dawkins was just sitting there with a "..Actually, no" look on his face.

We on the panel were specifically asked NOT to clap, because we were wearing microphones. If you saw other panel members clapping, they were disobeying instructions.
Richard

135. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116235 by Richard Dawkins on January 25, 2008 at 11:56 pm

In calling attention to the success the "Convert your friends or they'll go to hell" meme is having in propagating itself among its target audience, I did not mean to suggest that we shouldn't propagate the film among a different audience, for a different purpose: ridicule, and replying to Christian apologists who claim that "Nobody nowadays takes hell seriously", "You are completely out of date about religion", "You need to read some theology" etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

I think we should send this film to every bishop and vicar and priest and Christian-apologist parliamentarian and congressman we know. Challenge them to put their own Christian house in order. Make them feel ashamed for their religion.

And my advice to Carmine Bello (Double Bass Atheist) is the same. Send this film to the school chaplain (if there is one: you don't say which part of the world you come from), to the school head teacher, to the local priest, to the school governors, to the local school board (if you have one: again it would help if we knew which country your son's school is in). Stir up outrage in the local community, in the Parent Teachers' Association, get it shown on the news on the local TV station. This film speaks for itself. Spread it around by all means, but among a target audience that will be EMBARRASSED and SHAMED by it.

Richard

136. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116136 by Richard Dawkins on January 25, 2008 at 3:32 pm

It's all very well for us to be facetious and frivolous and humorous in our condemnation. But take a look at the Comments on GodTube itself. Not just the latest page, click on "View All Comments". I haven't counted them, but a brisk sampling suggests that a majority are enthusiastically in favour of this film. That is what is truly frightening, especially given that it is clearly aimed at young people. And note that the main message is not "Believe in Jesus YOURSELF or you'll go to hell." It is, "If you don't tell your friends about Jesus, your friends will go to hell." In other words, it is propaganda to go out and proselytize, tell your schoolfriends about Jesus. It's a self-spreading meme. And the evidence of the Comments is that it works. It's the most unpleasant example I have seen since Jesus Camp.

Richard

137. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #114668 by Richard Dawkins on January 22, 2008 at 2:33 pm

After the first 100 messages came in, I printed them and sent the printout to Ian Baird. Ian visited George next day, and read the messages to him (with his eyes the way they are, he cannot read at present). Here is Ian's report on George's reaction

It was amazing to see his response! He was simply overwhelmed at the NUMBER of people who had contributed, and at the sentiments expressed. He laughed loudly at some of the wit - especially the one who said, "You'll be relieved to hear I'm not offering to pray for you." He has asked me if it would be possible to insert onto the website a kind of general thanksgiving, expressing gratitude, humility in the face of such generosity of spirit, and ... this is his particular response, his difficulty in recognising himself as the "heroic" "inspirational" etc. person that he was labelled as, when all he has done all his life is to try to make the right decisions to get the results right. Anyway, in summary, it has proved to be a magnificent idea to start the thread. Ian

I shall now print all 230 comments and bind two copies of the complete printout, one for George, and one for Ian who has been such a loyal friend to George for so many years. I have no doubt that Ian will read the last 130 messages to George on his next visit.

Thanks to all who have written in.

Richard

138. Honour Killings

Comment #113674 by Richard Dawkins on January 20, 2008 at 10:19 am

The tragedy of forced marriage and honour killing could have been avoided if the poor girls were educated in a single sex state funded Muslim schools by female Muslim teachers.

Oh of course! If only the girls were properly educated to be nice, submissive, docile wives and mothers, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO KILL THEM. Oh how silly of me, I should have realised.

139. The Group Delusion

Comment #110290 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm

"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas"

Hahaha! Ohh, that's brilliant.

Son of God Delusion?

Richard

140. The Group Delusion

Comment #110187 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I am struggling to figure out what the term "altrustic gene" means. Altruism between vehicles is due to selfish genes, through mechanisms such as kin selection and the "green beard" idea. But an "altruistic" gene presumably aids the propogation of unrelated genes? Would an "altruistic" gene remove itself from the gene pool out of sympathy for the plight of another gene?

Yes, you are right. An 'altruistic gene' in that sense would always be removed from the population by natural selection. The Wilsons were using the phrase in a different sense: an altruistic gene, for them, is one that makes its vehicles behave altruistically towards other vehicles.

Richard

141. The Group Delusion

Comment #110183 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I am not a student of Biology (in fact, I am an absolute beginner on the subject), but after a careful reading of this article I have a question regarding the outcome of the research shown: while it can be shown that some species reach a pareto-optimal point in their behaviour, why is it we can see other similar species not exhibiting this behaviour, yet surviving just as well? Therefore, does this behaviour have an evolutionary advantage at all? Given the generational span of insects and the age of the earth, shouldn't we expect to see all insect species currently behaving in the same, optimal way?

Can anybody help?

The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reasoning is that there should be only one species of animal on earth, following the optimal way to be an animal. But of course you KNOW why you are wrong. There are lots of different ways of making a living, lots of different diets, habitats, nesting sites; and the different ways of making a living can be dissected into ever finer subdivisions.

One of the most interesting aspects of this is that existing species of animals and plants constitute opportunities for new species to evolve to exploit them. Darwin has a famous analogy of a set of wedges, in Chapter 3 of The Origin of Species:

Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being struck, and then another with greater force.

What might shift an ancestral digger wasp species from 'aggressive space' in the ecological landscape to 'tolerant space' to 'cooperative space'? Of course I don't know in detail (it would take another Jane Brockmann years to work it out) but I know the KIND of thing we are looking for. It could be a change in food abundance, a change in a competitor species, a change in predation pressure. A forest contains thousands of different ecological opportunities, and thousands of different species evolve in their own special ways to to take advantage of those opportunities.

Richard

142. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109158 by Richard Dawkins on January 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

What impresses me about the Pharyngula thread on this very same subject (url given above) is how most of the Commenters stick to the point, instead of waltzing off into little private conversations that really should be dealt with in private e-mails.

Richard

143. Changing my Mind

Comment #106872 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Nice to hear the name Bateson again. This Patrick Bateson seems to be related to William Bateson, whom I remember from the "Batesian mimicry" from my biology lessons.

Er, well, Patrick Bateson is indeed related to the distinguished geneticist William Bateson (1861-1926). But Batesian mimicry is named after the explorer and naturalist H.W.Bates (1825-1892). Not that it matters. I guess I'm just a little bit of a pedant.

Richard

144. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98948 by Richard Dawkins on December 15, 2007 at 1:29 am

Josh, you did a great job of filming that discussion as it looks totally professional.

Wait till you see the DVD, at full HD resolution!

Thanks Josh. For everything.

Richard

145. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96276 by Richard Dawkins on December 10, 2007 at 9:18 am

What this news story does not say is that the offending sign seems to have been lifted directly from our site! See http://richarddawkins.net/underTopStoryB

It is also, incidentally, somewhat similar to the one that Channel Four used to promote Root of All Evil in early 2006. But Channel Four didn't dare use the exact Lennon quote, for fear of being sued. Instead they said "Imagine a World without Religion." They did use a photo of the pre-9/11 New York skyline, but it was a different photo. The one used in Rockville seems to be identical to ours, and presumably comes from our site, as designed by Josh. I am delighted!

Richard

146. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96034 by Richard Dawkins on December 9, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Here's an encouraging fact. As the producer was showing me out after the show, he told me that the great majority of callers were on my side. The BBC filterers deliberately choose those who disagree with the guest, for the obvious reason that it makes for more interesting television/radio. So, the English woman from France was actually in the substantial majority of those who phoned in.

Richard

147. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92152 by Richard Dawkins on November 30, 2007 at 1:22 am

Of course Beth is completely right, and I really do apologize for making my article so easy to misunderstand.

I am not advocating a promiscuously swinging lifestyle, and I am not advocating deception and lying in personal relationships. I myself am well capable of jealousy. Moreover, I well understand the powerful biological reasons for it, having to do with the raising of children and other things. I was saying I wish I could rise above it, and I understand why it is so hard.

My jocular comparisons, for example with 'faithfulness' to red wine when flirting with white, were intended to show up how uniquely odd sexual jealousy is, in its powerful compulsion. It was a similar trick to my consciousness-raising question in another context: "Would you ever talk about a Keynesian child, or a secular humanist child?" That question forces people to notice, by contrast, how odd it is that we uniquely accept religious labels for children. This one was intended to do the same thing for sexual jealousy. Sex is the one area where violent jealousy is conventionally thought virtuous. I was just pointing out the oddity, not saying it is inexplicable and not even, necessarily, condemning it -- although I would personally like to rise above it, and I think the sum total of happiness would be raised if we could manage it.

My quotation from The African Queen ("Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put in this world to overcome") was intended to demonstrate a piquant paradox. The Katherine Hepburn character was encouraging the Humphrey Bogart character to rise above his natural sex drive. I was pointing out the paradox that 'rising above nature' can take us in exactly the opposite – less obvious -- direction. I thought it an amusing irony that our primitively strong impulse to jealousy furnishes us with an example where wild nature forbids sex, while rising above nature encourages it!

I did not intend to advocate lying under oath, and I probably should have talked in general terms rather than about the Clinton case in particular. My main point is that people should not be asked prying questions about matters that are nobody else's business, and especially not under oath. Taking an oath is a sacred relic of our religious history which really does have some value. It retains a kind of sacredness which we respect, even though we no longer believe in the religiously sacred. The ritual of swearing an oath is precious as a last resort, when it is really really important to get at the truth, and we should respect it. Respect means not only that we should not lie under oath. It also means that judges and prosecutors should not abuse the oath by asking impertinent questions of witnesses under oath: questions about private matters where nobody has the right to pry.

It is a little analogous to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf, or shouting "fire" is something we should never do frivolously or as a prank. It is too important. Truth where fire is concerned is sacred. Don't abuse it, because one day there really will be a fire. In the same way, don't abuse the sacredness of the oath by asking witnesses illegitimate questions about private matters which tempt them – with some justification -- to lie. That's the conventional direction in which we assume nature will take us. One day, you may need to ask a genuinely important question, where you really do need to get at the truth. Then you will regret having abused the sacredness of the oath.

That is what I meant to say, and I'm sorry I seemed to be suggesting that it is OK to lie under oath. That was going too far.

Richard

148. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89400 by Richard Dawkins on November 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I just used the computer in the lobby of the Embassy Suites Hotel in central Washington DC to log in to our site. I was reading this thread when I was denied access to Page 2. The hotel's computer censor popped up a message telling me that the page contained material that was unfit for young people to see. The offending phrase was specified as "genital mutilation". Interesting that young people are deemed unfit to READ ABOUT something that is actually DONE TO millions of young people in Islamic culture, including the young Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Richard

149. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #84928 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2007 at 8:47 am

This is one of the most damning pieces of investigative journalism I have read for a long time. Congratulations to Mark Oppenheimer. The cynical exploiting of this poor old man is nothing short of disgraceful. I wish there were some way for Varghese and the publishers to be taken to court. At least, this whole distasteful episode will serve as yet another telling example of the desperation of the religious lobby -- that they are prepared to stoop so despicably low.

Richard

150. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #82960 by Richard Dawkins on October 28, 2007 at 11:06 am

When's Prof D going to pop his head around the virtual door and tell us whether he'd like a gong?

I like having the queen around to represent us - yes, she is of a different time, but she may be the only public figure we have who displays grace and restraint. old fashioned? maybe, but in our celebrity and chav-oriented society I think a bit of aristocratic behaviour redresses the balance.

alternatively, can I suggest sweeping away the current royal family (figuratively I guess) and making David Attenborough king?


Now there's an idea I really can empathize with: Attenborough for King! As for the knighthood, how could I turn down what Sir David (and Sir Salman) saw fit to accept? The fact that the queen nominally confers it is purely incidental. For the benefit of non-British readers, there are all sorts of things the queen nominally does. She dissolves parliament and calls a general election (but if she tried to do it without being told to by the Prime Minister of the day, all hell would break loose). And after an election, she appoints the Prime Minister (but if she appointed anybody other than the winner of the election, she would precipitate the mother of all constitutional crises). The queen is really a kind of animated rubber stamp. That is one of the problems with Prince Charles: he shows signs of having ideas above his station: of wanting to be more than a rubber stamp; wanting to impose his dopey homeopathic, spirits-whispering-in-the-trees ideas on the country. If he tries that on when he is king, it could (should) be the end of the monarchy. With a bit of luck, the Queen will live to 100 like her mother, so we might not have to face that problem. Long may she live!

Richard

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next