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

← Dawkins on Darwin

Dawkins on Darwin - Comments

YesSir's Avatar Comment 1 by YesSir

Richard - please come to Australia, we need some of your consciousness raising ...

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:06:00 UTC | #190380

dantemm's Avatar Comment 2 by dantemm

I wish I got Channel 4...

~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:36:00 UTC | #190396

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 3 by TeraBrat

That was a great interview.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:22:00 UTC | #190418

Sciros's Avatar Comment 4 by Sciros

Uh-oh! At the end of the interview Prof. Dawkins accidentally misspoke and said "If I can show them that religion is true, which I can, then..." instead of "that evolution is true, which I can..."

I'm willing to bet anywhere up to seven dollars that some creationist or another (or several) will use that clip in some rubbish film they cobble together in their ongoing war against reason.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:57:00 UTC | #190464

Sargeist's Avatar Comment 5 by Sargeist

My comment seemed to have vanished, so apologies if this double posts.

Does anyone know when this programme is going to be on Channel 4?

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:00 UTC | #190575

Atheist Chaplain's Avatar Comment 6 by Atheist Chaplain

I'm with YesSir on wishing Richard would come down to Australia, I would certainly go to any lectures or speaking engagements is the opportunity arose.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:54:00 UTC | #190577

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 8 by Steve Zara

Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:56:00 UTC | #190580

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 7 by the great teapot

Thanks Sciros
You have just increased the chances tenfold.

Nice work again Paula(and Richard). I am disappointed not to hear the scottish accent I had imagined prior to the first interview.
I still half expect you to say "So, you'll have had your tea Richard"

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:56:00 UTC | #190579

Muetze's Avatar Comment 9 by Muetze

What is this programme that they are showing clips from, and when will it air?

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:53:00 UTC | #190588

mikesherwod53's Avatar Comment 10 by mikesherwod53

re transublegation
The $5 note in my wallet is REALLY a $20 bill. Yes I know it LOOKS like a 5 buck and passes all the Bank tests for a $5-00 bill and even tastes like one but that's SO SO besides the point. Besides I'/ve got a bunch of guys who'll beat the cra\p out of you if you don't give me change for a 20 & by the way your kid sister is included in that deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:01:00 UTC | #190591

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 11 by Paula Kirby

Muetze: What is this programme that they are showing clips from, and when will it air?
It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think. I was sent DVDs of it as part of my preparation for the interview, and it really is excellent: the best of his TV series so far, I would say. Strong message, astonishing film sequences, great soundtrack; and really gripping all the way through.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:01:00 UTC | #190592

Muetze's Avatar Comment 12 by Muetze

Thanks Paula, something to look foreward to. :-)

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:03:00 UTC | #190593

mikesherwod53's Avatar Comment 13 by mikesherwod53

Uh-oh! At the end of the interview Prof. Dawkins accidentally misspoke...

I'm willing to bet anywhere up to seven dollars that some creationist or another (or several) will use that clip in some rubbish film they cobble together in their ongoing war against reason.

Tut tut don't you realise that logic fairness and even good manners are ciobwebs when one is dealing with our salvation in Christ.
Who was the Jesuit who said a valid arguement is one that convinces people of what is true.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:05:00 UTC | #190594

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 14 by helen sotiriadis

i saw these videos earlier.. but is the link not working now?

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:42:00 UTC | #190757

Jefferson'sWall's Avatar Comment 15 by Jefferson'sWall

the link doesn't work anymore!?!

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:19:00 UTC | #190775

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 16 by Richard Dawkins

Yes, it looks as though the Channel 4 web page is down. I suspect it now won't be fixed until after the weekend. I'll phone them on Monday.
Richard

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:55:00 UTC | #190843

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 17 by the great teapot

| have saved it to my computer, for an advanced copy of your next DVD Richard I am more than happy to forward it to the website.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:26:00 UTC | #190850

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 18 by the great teapot

or failing that, I will do it anyway.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:27:00 UTC | #190851

Lisa Bauer's Avatar Comment 19 by Lisa Bauer

It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think.


Any chance we in the colonies (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) will get to see that? Or will we just have to wait for it to show up on Youtube? (And how about an un-bleeped version of that "hate e-mail" segment shown in one of the clips? I think that would be absolutely hilarious...)

Great performance, by the way (I got to see it before it went down).

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:29:00 UTC | #190852

room101's Avatar Comment 20 by room101

I agree with Steve wholeheartedly...I really think it's best to let Richard be Richard, to allow him ample time to explain things, which is what you have to do when dealing with something as complex as biology. And there's no back and
forth "ping-ponging" between Richard and some theist, with each getting only 5 minutes.

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:00:00 UTC | #190933

LeeC's Avatar Comment 21 by LeeC

Brian English wrote:

I see Richard hasn't falsified my theory yet......:)


It would be expensive to come to Oz for Richard, however surely we could all promise to buy a T-shirt and a book to make it worth his while?

Oh, and Melbourne would be the place to come of course if it was only to be one city :)

Lee
PS
Years ago though I did see Richard on a book tour at Leeds Uni - I was a poor student then and could not afford a hardback copy of any book, but now I will promise to buy two copies should Richard come to Melbourne to make up for it.

Can't be fairer than that?

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:28:00 UTC | #190980

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 22 by rod-the-farmer

Here is a question I would like to hear answered by others on this site. I am trying to come up with the single most convincing evidence for an old Earth, in the sense that this one piece would have the most effect on YEC types. Something that would show that evolution by natural selection, while quite slow in some areas, has an enormous amount of time in which to operate. What I have come up with is the combination of plate tectonics and the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, particularly if you examine the continental shelf. We can already detect their on-going slow separation, and by extrapolation, they have been moving apart for much longer than 6,000 years or so.

My thinking is that it is probably not hard to convince YEC's that the theory of plate tectonics is real/legitimate. It should be even easier to get them to agree the coastlines certainly appear as if they were once connected. That is just a visual thing anyone can see. The factual data regarding the separation should be demonstrable in a convincing fashion, so that the combination of all three should inevitably lead them to the conclusion that the Earth is many times older than 6,000 years.

Then can posit that Dog created & buried fossils to confuse us, or test our faith, or whatever. Or the speed of light changed over time, or the rate of radioactive decay, or some such fabrication to make their argument for a young earth possible, by countering other scientific proofs. But I personally would find it hard to suggest that Dog made the shorelines of the two continents nearly identical, plus made the various plates move around the surface of the earth, and at varying speeds, just to give scientists something to amuse them.

Any comments, or suggestions for a different "single" argument that would convince them ?

I know, there are a great many scientific proofs that together, make up an enormous body of evidence. I don't think we can get YEC types to listen to them all. I would just like to hit them with one big bang, so to speak.

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:51:00 UTC | #190985

Barry Pearson's Avatar Comment 23 by Barry Pearson

#200665 by Steve Zara: Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

#201041 by room101: I agree with Steve wholeheartedly...I really think it's best to let Richard be Richard, to allow him ample time to explain things, which is what you have to do when dealing with something as complex as biology. And there's no back and forth "ping-ponging" between Richard and some theist, with each getting only 5 minutes.
I don't normally post to say "me too". But ... me too!

Paula sets the context, a bit like the abstract and headlines in an article, or the chapter headings and chapter introductions in a book, and Richard expands on it, like the rest of the article or chapter. It structures things much better than Richard switching between introducing the next topic, and then delivering it. We easily see that we have arrived at a new topic. (Although Richard alone is OK if there are visual aids to show the structure, which tends not to work well on TV/video. I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?)

I wonder what the point of the typical debate is? Entertainment? Yes, if Christopher Hitchens is involved! But mostly they leave me frustrated or infuriated. What have I, or anyone else, learned? They are better suited to topics where there isn't a right answer, (eg. within politics). Point-scoring doesn't settle scientific issues.

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:53:00 UTC | #190995

Geoff's Avatar Comment 24 by Geoff

25. Comment #201098 by rod-the-farmer

Here is a question I would like to hear answered by others on this site. I am trying to come up with the single most convincing evidence for an old Earth, in the sense that this one piece would have the most effect on YEC types. Something that would show that evolution by natural selection, while quite slow in some areas, has an enormous amount of time in which to operate. What I have come up with is the combination of plate tectonics and the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, particularly if you examine the continental shelf. We can already detect their on-going slow separation, and by extrapolation, they have been moving apart for much longer than 6,000 years or so.


We've all tried that, rod. Their latest idea is something they call the hydroplate theory, which actually does have the continents whizzing around at amazing speeds. I'm afraid their reality denial is such that no amount of real science will shake them.

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:07:00 UTC | #190998

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 25 by Paula Kirby

Barry Pearson: I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?
Well, I've been called worse, Barry!

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:00 UTC | #191002

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 26 by helen sotiriadis

wooohoooo it's up on youtube..
part 1 of 6 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYp5aDajcxQ

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:24:00 UTC | #191013

Roger Stanyard's Avatar Comment 27 by Roger Stanyard

Rod the Farmer,

The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds.

No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They all hate each others guts as well - what do you expect with extreme ideologues?

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

Remember, there is such a thing as Poe's Law. No matter how much you parody them, they will somewhere believe what you are parodying.

Most of them are so stupid that no only do they not understand even basic science but they don't understand the creationist position. Yet they all think they are "right".

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:40:00 UTC | #191017

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 28 by Paula Kirby

Roger Stanyard: No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.
They're shameless about introducing what is effectively magic into their arguments, too. They have no difficulty in exempting their god from the laws of physics, so it really doesn't matter WHAT evidence you show them, they'll just argue that god magicked it to look that way.

Their whole belief system is based on myth and emotion. And fear too, of course. It seems rather optimistic to expect mere evidence to change their minds!

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:52:00 UTC | #191019

Barry Pearson's Avatar Comment 29 by Barry Pearson

#201131 by Roger Stanyard: The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds....

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.
We need to know who we are trying to convince. Those people are really a "lost generation". This is a battle being played out over generations.

Here is a repeat of something I said a couple of days ago:
.... We shouldn't judge the success of the "rational viewpoint", or "the enlightenment", by whether existing Creationists are converted. A few may be but most won't be. Our success should be judged by the degree to which their endeavours are "contained", and by the beliefs of the next generation.

Will there be replacements for Dembski, Behe, etc, in the next generation? If so, how will their views compare? Note that Behe doesn't appear to deny evolution and common descent. Will the next generation, if there is one, similarly accept many scientific positions, and confine themselves to narrower conflicts than the current generation?

.... Many Creationists are fully aware that this is largely a battle for the next generation. We should all act and judge accordingly.
That is why, despite being childfree, I recently joined BCSE. (And people in the US should join NCSE).

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:23:00 UTC | #191022

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 30 by phil rimmer

Just caught it. Splendid work.

I though Paula's framing of the issues was elegantly done. It helped make the thing flow in a very satisfying way. Well done indeed!

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:27:00 UTC | #191023