This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Heat the Hornet

Heat the Hornet - Comments

debacles's Avatar Comment 1 by debacles

I loved it. That bee defense made my week. Here's some footage of some unlucky European honeybees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mseXCMfBlYI

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:14:00 UTC | #323020

Danno Davis's Avatar Comment 2 by Danno Davis

Great review, Prof. Dawkins!

"Schools should at least teach the debate..."
There is no debate, there is no debate... There. Is. No. Debate.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:17:00 UTC | #323022

tvictor's Avatar Comment 3 by tvictor

Great article.
Just got another book queued up on my list.
I'm really looking forward to reading Richard's new book as well. I'll have to buy it from overseas because the translated version comes with a delay and I'm too eager to devour it ;)

EDIT to creationists: **If** there was a scientific debate it should be settled by scientists, not high-school children.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:20:00 UTC | #323023

JFHalsey's Avatar Comment 4 by JFHalsey

Holy shit, I have to stop reading at the second paragraph and post right now to say that "God's balls banging together" has made me laugh out loud harder than anything I've read for a long time. What was this review published in'''

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:31:00 UTC | #323025

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 5 by Sally Luxmoore

Wow. I have recently bought this book and it is waiting to be read. I will get on with it asap (as soon as I have finished Your Inner Fish - also very good).
I hope that Jerry Coyne gets the chance to write a review of Richard's new book, when it comes out. I don't know if you two know each other, but there must be a lot that you'd have to talk about.
I'm delighted to see that Richard's book is due out in the Autumn - it will definitely be my birthday present to myself!

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:32:00 UTC | #323026

Mister Chong's Avatar Comment 6 by Mister Chong

So, let nobody have the gall to deny that Coyne’s book is necessary.
I deny that it's necessary and I deny that it's helpful. Creationist-bashing is a favourite pastime of biologists these days. Militant anti-creationists are ten a penny, and we don't need another book that simply repeats their tired mantra. We've heard it all before. Please, learn some new chords.

I have no idea why so many biologists feel the need to supplement themselves with Marxism, or militant atheism, or frothing-at-the-mouth anti-creationism. It is a disturbing trend. People aren't like this in the other natural sciences.

There isn't much of a point to this persistently nagging pro-evolution activism. The truth is that most people simply don't care. Most people who do accept evolution know almost nothing about evolutionary biology, and I fail to see what differentiates such people from creationists (apart from responses in the occasional pointless poll).

Both most self-professed creationists and most self-professed evolutionists know very little -- almost nothing -- about the relevant science. In addition, they have thought very, very little about their professed beliefs on evolution, and even science in general. The theory of evolution is NOTHING to these people (and I'm talking about upward of 90% of the population). Who cares what answer they spontaneously give in the odd opinion poll?

Most people, including the atheists posting on this website, do not enjoy learning about science. They're more interested in the latest episode of Big Brother -- or, in the case of people here, the stupidity of the creationists...

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:35:00 UTC | #323027

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 7 by Peacebeuponme

Cheers for the clip, debacles. Interesting.

Bloody annoying US-dramatic production though. Felt like World's Scariest Police Chases or somthing.

Give me Attenborough any day.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:39:00 UTC | #323028

BrandySpears's Avatar Comment 8 by BrandySpears

mmmmmmmmm.... god's balls? Yaweh must have forgotten to put his celestial athletic supporter on.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:40:00 UTC | #323029

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 9 by Russell Blackford

Apropos of the last para, has anyone else checked ...

http://straightfromthesource.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/uvms-president-responds-to-questions-about-commencement-speaker-ben-stein/

... lately? As I write, the latest comment says:


Human beings have 60,000 miles of blood vessels in their body. How much science education does it take to believe this happened by chance and not by design? I am a design engineer (and have designed many piping systems) and would like to know. Think, don’t follow.



I almost bashed my head through the computer screen when I read such stupidity from an educated man with a more-or-less scientific background. This kind of thinking dies hard.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:41:00 UTC | #323030

epeeist's Avatar Comment 11 by epeeist

Comment #338734 by Mister Chong:

Most people, including the atheists posting on this website, do not enjoy learning about science. They're more interested in the latest episode of Big Brother -- or, in the case of people here, the stupidity of the creationists...
How do you know this? Or are you just spouting in the hope you will get a reaction?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:50:00 UTC | #323035

Mister Chong's Avatar Comment 12 by Mister Chong

How do you know this? Or are you just spouting in the hope you will get a reaction?
I know this community fairly well. I have not been impressed by the level of scientific knowledge exhibited here. Moreover, on this website I almost never encounter interesting discussions of scientific topics.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:55:00 UTC | #323038

flying goose's Avatar Comment 13 by flying goose

Mister Chong.

Are you a scientist?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:57:00 UTC | #323041

Goldy's Avatar Comment 14 by Goldy

I have no idea why so many biologists feel the need to supplement themselves with Marxism, or militant atheism, or frothing-at-the-mouth anti-creationism. It is a disturbing trend. People aren't like this in the other natural sciences.
Not met the chemists I know then. As for a physicist I knew once...carnally, it has to be said...she outdid me in atheism.

So what you are basically saying is...and correct me if I am wrong...that trying to educate people in science is pointless as the hoi polloi will just accept evolution as they accept creationism? Basically, people are stupid and should just be allowed to live their lives and watch reality TV?
Dunno *looks around at PhD and masters students involved in cancer research sharing his office* - be a shame if some of these brains in my office right now were denied the ability to do what they can do all for the sake of not trying to teach them that science is correct.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:57:00 UTC | #323042

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 16 by Alovrin

epeeist

"Or are you just spouting in the hope you will get a reaction? "

Either that or he's a "certain kind of anthropologist."

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:58:00 UTC | #323044

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 15 by Peacebeuponme

Mister Chong

People aren't like this in the other natural sciences.
What a fucking pathetic thing to say.

Religious folk are not carrying out expensive campaigns, including lobbying governments, which deny the claims of other scientists.

You think that if christians and muslims started denying the existence of quarks then physicists would keep quiet and allow baseless nonsense theories to be taught alongside theirs in schools?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:58:00 UTC | #323043

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 17 by Peacebeuponme

Oh for fuck's sake. Why has Mr Chong's post been removed?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:00:00 UTC | #323045

Goldy's Avatar Comment 18 by Goldy

I know this community fairly well. I have not been impressed by the level of scientific knowledge exhibited here. Moreover, on this website I almost never encounter interesting discussions of scientific topics.

Given your comments of late, I dare say it is because you don't understand :-) And you have come here with your mind already made up - you don't like us. You never will and you'll be damned if you'll even try.
So....give us a flash of your brilliance.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:01:00 UTC | #323046

Muetze's Avatar Comment 19 by Muetze

This censorship is starting to worry my greatly. Chong's comment wasn't offensive, and it responded directly to the issue. If we are starting to silence people just because they voice an opposing opinion (I could see nothing else wrong with his post), I fear there might have been more truth to his post than I initially thought.

But everybody reading the page after now isn't going to find out WHAT he really wrote, are they?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:02:00 UTC | #323047

Mister Chong's Avatar Comment 20 by Mister Chong

Mister Chong.

Are you a scientist?
Training to be one, though I'm of course not going to release personal details. I'm not making an argument from authority, I'm simply articulating a small observation.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:02:00 UTC | #323048

Goldy's Avatar Comment 21 by Goldy

Oh for fuck's sake. why has Mr Chong's post been removed'
I second that comment. Please reinstate it! He makes valid points.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:02:00 UTC | #323049

ahmunnaeetchoo's Avatar Comment 22 by ahmunnaeetchoo

Did Mister Chong actually read the review? it deals with his points in depth.

troll.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:03:00 UTC | #323050

Goldy's Avatar Comment 24 by Goldy

Comment #338757 by ahmunnaeetchoo
Let him prove he is a troll first. Evidence, remember. Not assumption.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:05:00 UTC | #323053

Goldy's Avatar Comment 23 by Goldy

Training to be one? Well, stick around - you'll learn a lot from us trained to be ones (note the tense).
As for personal details, you don't need to give any (mine are freely available on Facebook :-)) but it would help to know just a smidgen more. What field and what training. And we'll see what we can do to stop getting your comments send to the sin bin...

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:05:00 UTC | #323051

Sciros's Avatar Comment 26 by Sciros

Mister Chong's post must have been flagged as 'troll' a few times. That *is* why he's here, to troll, but I wonder if the comments should be "moved" or maybe just minimized instead (the way modded-down comments are in YouTube). Slashdot has another option -- set a personal "rating threshold" for displaying comments.

Anyway, very well-written review. I am glad these books are written, though I'm sure we all wish they didn't have to be ^_^

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:06:00 UTC | #323055

Mister Chong's Avatar Comment 25 by Mister Chong

Ah, so this is how they deal with unwelcome opinions? I will post it again. Before it's flagged, note that I make genuine points of debate. I am not here to merely name-call. I adopt a somewhat indignant tone, but so does Dawkins in the leading article.

So, let nobody have the gall to deny that Coyne’s book is necessary.
I deny that it's necessary and I deny that it's helpful. Creationist-bashing is a favourite pastime of biologists these days. Militant anti-creationists are ten a penny, and we don't need another book that simply repeats their tired mantra. We've heard it all before. Please, learn some new chords.

I have no idea why so many biologists feel the need to supplement themselves with Marxism, or militant atheism, or frothing-at-the-mouth anti-creationism. It is a disturbing trend. People aren't like this in the other natural sciences.

There isn't much of a point to this persistently nagging pro-evolution activism. The truth is that most people simply don't care. Most people who do accept evolution know almost nothing about evolutionary biology, and I fail to see what differentiates such people from creationists (apart from responses in the occasional pointless poll).

Both most self-professed creationists and most self-professed evolutionists know very little -- almost nothing -- about the relevant science. In addition, they have thought very, very little about their professed beliefs on evolution, and even science in general. The theory of evolution is NOTHING to these people (and I'm talking about upward of 90% of the population). Who cares what answer they spontaneously give in the odd opinion poll?

Most people, including the atheists posting on this website, do not enjoy learning about science. They're more interested in the latest episode of Big Brother -- or, in the case of people here, the stupidity of the creationists...

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:06:00 UTC | #323054

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 27 by Peacebeuponme

Goldy

Exactly. Giving one's opinion is not trolling, even if another poster thinks it stems from ignorance.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:07:00 UTC | #323056

Vintro's Avatar Comment 28 by Vintro

Would it not be better to start confronting moderate christians, (if there is such a thing) with the information Richard is delivering. Instead of always confronting the extreme end of believers in films and TV doco's. Surely if the the moderates could be persuaded to THINK, then the extremists would not have a leg to stand on. I just think it's pointless going up against wacko fundamentalists (although it does make for great, if not disturbing entertainment). I think we have a better chance of change in mindset, by educating believers who sit on the fence, as it were.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:08:00 UTC | #323057

Tezcatlipoca's Avatar Comment 30 by Tezcatlipoca

Just put down the troll mix. I'd much rather talk about how Prof. Dawkins has given a wonderful review of Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. The parts about thunder being dog's bits banging together had me laughing out loud. I had heard of Japanese Hornets raiding hives but until now had not known that there was an evolved defense by native bees. Fascinating. I will be adding this book to my collection.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:10:00 UTC | #323060

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 29 by Peacebeuponme

Sciros

He doesn't like what he sees as militant atheism, and wants to put that view forward. That makes him a troll?

He may stir up discontent, because many disagree with him, but I see nothing wrong with the post that was removed on this thread.

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:10:00 UTC | #323059