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

← Author pits evolution against creationism

Author pits evolution against creationism - Comments

fsm1965's Avatar Comment 1 by fsm1965

Congrats on the new description "Angry"...(better than strident?)

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:33:00 UTC | #399884

sara g's Avatar Comment 2 by sara g

Did he become a household name with The God Delusion? Maybe I grew up living in a bubble where everyone was familiar with The Selfish Gene.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:42:00 UTC | #399888

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 3 by Sally Luxmoore

He became a household name three years ago


Out by a factor of 10. Selfish Gene - 1976.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:43:00 UTC | #399889

DavidSJA's Avatar Comment 4 by DavidSJA

Seriously? RD only touched on evolution in previous books?!

Uhm.

Did he read the same books by the same RD?

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:45:00 UTC | #399890

chewedbarber's Avatar Comment 5 by chewedbarber

You are very fortunate to have grown up around people who have not only heard about the selfish gene but read it. I can't imagine that is the case for the vast majority of people who can read.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:23:00 UTC | #399909

Elles's Avatar Comment 6 by Elles

That's got to be the best headline I've read in a good long time: "Author pits evolution against creationism"

Well, gee. I never thought of evolution and creationism as being polar opposites. They all seemed so well-matched!

Sub-title is even better: "Long-held disdain for Bible-based view surfaces in his new book"

Mr. Dawkins, keeping your disdain for Biblical creationism hidden for so long. I never would have guessed! You insidious scientist, keeping your true feelings silent for this long.

"Dawkins directly takes on an issue that he has only touched on in previous publications – evolution."

Um, you know... I have a lot of respect for reporters who can... you know, at least Google the people they write articles about first.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:56:00 UTC | #399925

Crapsquire's Avatar Comment 7 by Crapsquire

I was just about to send in this link when I noticed that Helena had beat me to it.

I was very pleased to note this about my fellow Canadians:

More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from animals, he writes, with a slightly lower percentage in Britain. No numbers are given for Canada, though an Angus Reid poll two years ago pegged Canadian support for creationism at 22 per cent.


I must admit though that I strongly suspect that the remaining 18% are right now having their chakras realigned. Nevertheless, it seems a step in the right direction.

Anyway, Richard, I am thrilled that you are coming to Toronto. By the way, if you're not busy after the talk, care to go out for a beer£ Ok, I know, 500 other people are hoping the same and you've no doubt got your agenda packed but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:04:00 UTC | #399932

blitz442's Avatar Comment 8 by blitz442

Comments like these, while not technically inaccurate, can really be taken the wrong way.

'In the book, he describes a televised debate he had with American creationist Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, during which he tried to convince her there was ample proof to support evolution. He didn't succeed.

"She was clearly a fairly stupid woman," he says.'

Read quickly it will seen that he is calling her stupid just for disagreeing with him. This will go straight into the "Dawkins is Arrogant" file.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:06:00 UTC | #399933

eean's Avatar Comment 9 by eean

He only "touched on" evolution in his previous books?

Haha, apparently the "journalist" thinks the God Delusion was Dawkins' first book.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:59:00 UTC | #399962

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 10 by lackofgravitas

yes, 30 years is about right, Sally. I remember watching the Christmas Lectures and listening to the Reith Lectures as a kid. It was so inspiring to see/hear all these intelligent folks talk about how the world actually was, not how people wanted it to be. Seeing scientists blow the minds of kids just by showing them stuff. They should be required viewing and listening to everyone under the age of 18.


Thinking back, I probably preferred the xmas lectures to anything I got at school.

Oh, and I found this, possibly of interest from the new chair, recently vacated by Richard:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20071129.shtml

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:00:00 UTC | #399963

sara g's Avatar Comment 11 by sara g

Someone was looking forward for a review by a fundamentalist. Was this it?

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:36:00 UTC | #400071

serendipity1's Avatar Comment 12 by serendipity1

With his new book, Dawkins directly takes on an issue that he has only touched on in previous publications – evolution.


This is a wind-up, isn't it .....

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:00:00 UTC | #400149

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 13 by Tyler Durden

In related news, Charles Darwin may have something pertinent to say about evolution...

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:20:00 UTC | #400153

serendipity1's Avatar Comment 14 by serendipity1

Rigorous journalistic research standards indeed, particularly given that in the second paragraph of the Preface of TGSoE, Richard details the extent of his previous writings on ....evolution!

Or maybe I'm setting the bar too high with the expectation that a book review would be based on a more extensive reading of the book than the first paragraph. I do apologise for my naivety.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:57:00 UTC | #400161

George Lennan's Avatar Comment 15 by George Lennan

From The Ancestor's Tale:
"When I give public lectures [] the commonest question by far is 'What might humans evolve into next?' My interlocutor always seems touchingly to imagine it is a fresh and original question and my heart sinks every time"

*Every single one* of the interviews with Richard on the subject of TGSoE available on this site includes this fresh and original question. Despite his sinking heart Richard gamely answers it again... and again... and again.

My point here (not off topic, you see!) being that Richard is scarcely, if ever, interviewed by people who have read any of his work, despite their claims to the contrary. It's a neat parallel to those who insist that a thorough appreciation of (insert denomination) theology is a prerequisite to debate on the god question.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:12:00 UTC | #400164

sara g's Avatar Comment 16 by sara g

I tried really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt and treat the remark about previous works on evolution as if it was intended ironically. No go. The rest of the article confirms he is babbling out his ass.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:30:00 UTC | #400216

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 17 by Jos Gibbons

This is quite a good article. But why was it written by a Faith and Ethics reporter? I don't see what those two things have in common personally, but most journalists feel differently, so I'm not complaining about that. What confuses me is what either has to do with a book on science, especially one that has gone to great lengths to insist on neutrality on the subject of religion per se. It's as if anything an atheist does is fair game for faith and ethics reporters; and, presumably, anything a theist does would be better still. So ... is that everything?

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:26:00 UTC | #400258

Wadsworth's Avatar Comment 18 by Wadsworth

Comment by Blitz442

"Read quickly it will seen that he is calling her stupid just for disagreeing with him. This will go straight into the "Dawkins is Arrogant" file.
"
No, it is because she disagreed with universal science, reason and education.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:34:00 UTC | #400614