The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Channel 4: The Genius of Darwin

Posted 6 August 2008 by PvM

The UK based Channel 4 is airing a three series program titled The Genius of Charles Darwin

He has presented television documentaries for Channel 4 including The Root of All Evil? and The Enemies of Reason. He is well known for his atheism and his forthright criticism of religious doctrine. In the forthcoming Channel 4 series Dawkins on Darwin he argues that Darwinism provides a more thrilling view of creation than any religion.

The first episode can be viewed at Google Video The next few months the BBC and other channels will be producing some interesting programs for the celebration of the 200 year anniversary. Make sure you check out the Channel 4 Site as it provides some useful materials.

97 Comments

Rough Guide to Evolution · 7 August 2008

It is an accomplished introduction for the naive viewer, but don't believe everything you see in the programme!

http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-dawkins-get-it-wrong-on-darwins.html
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/darwinian-myths-and-cartesian-doubt.html
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/few-comments-from-van-wyhe-on-dawkins.html

David vun Kannon, FCD · 7 August 2008

PvM,

I'm sorry, but the way you've quoted this material makes it sound as if the focus is on Dawkins and attacks on religion, not Charles Darwin and evolution. Perhaps a quote that described the content rather than the host would be more appropriate.

I think Dawkins has done a good job communicating scientific ideas, and 'reasonable' job communicating atheism. I hope this program is not "The Genius of Richard Dawkins, Atheist".

ivorygirl · 7 August 2008

I thought it was a average program,only good in parts.
Dawkins opening statement"that evolution is a vastly superior explanation to anything religion has ever provided"
would not be well recieved in the US dispite it's truth.

PvM · 7 August 2008

ivorygirl said: I thought it was a average program,only good in parts. Dawkins opening statement"that evolution is a vastly superior explanation to anything religion has ever provided" would not be well recieved in the US dispite it's truth.
Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible and if this meant that Hindu children are equally correct in believing the often contradictory claims. In other words, the fact that "I grew up xxxx" was shown to lead to some interesting problems when substituting Catholic, Islamic, Hindu for xxxxx. While the program certainly explains the genius of Darwin, Dawkins also adds a hefty atheistic spin to the mix. Some of the responses by UcD have been predictable and yet they seem to be missing the point. There are some interesting publications surfacing in the year of Darwin's celebration. There is a book which, incorrectly I believe, accuses Darwin of having stolen one of Wallace's ideas on natural selection. I will likely write a posting on this topic because I came to realize that there has been a rich history of writers who have accused Darwin of improper actions and an even richer history of writers who have studied Darwin and have compared his earlier writings, his notebooks and his letters with "Origins". So much I did not know about Darwin, it was shocking to me. The depth and breath of Darwin's research and writings is even more amazing than it used to be to me. Of course, the fact that something is a better scientific explanation than religious explanations comes to me as no surprise. Religion is not meant to explain the how, but rather the why and evolutionary theory can never be, or should never be seen, as contradicting religious claims, lest said religious claims invade the realm of science. As such we see how YEC, ID all subvert science and undermine theology with their foolish and in case of ID, vacuous claims and we come to realize how for instance the position of the Catholic church, however confusing given the guidance of the DI in providing talking points, remains one which separates science and theology and remains critical of Intelligent Design. For us Christians, Dawkins' message may be a wake up call showing how atheism, which does not rely on any theological baggage is better equipped to deal with scientific findings than the many religions we have come to be comfortable with. As Christians, our task is not to lament and complain about these facts but rather learn and adapt. Unless of course we insist on remaining foolish...

PvM · 7 August 2008

ivorygirl said: I thought it was a average program,only good in parts. Dawkins opening statement"that evolution is a vastly superior explanation to anything religion has ever provided" would not be well recieved in the US dispite it's truth.
Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible and if this meant that Hindu children are equally correct in believing the often contradictory claims. In other words, the fact that "I grew up xxxx" was shown to lead to some interesting problems when substituting Catholic, Islamic, Hindu for xxxxx. While the program certainly explains the genius of Darwin, Dawkins also adds a hefty atheistic spin to the mix. Some of the responses by UcD have been predictable and yet they seem to be missing the point. There are some interesting publications surfacing in the year of Darwin's celebration. There is a book which, incorrectly I believe, accuses Darwin of having stolen one of Wallace's ideas on natural selection. I will likely write a posting on this topic because I came to realize that there has been a rich history of writers who have accused Darwin of improper actions and an even richer history of writers who have studied Darwin and have compared his earlier writings, his notebooks and his letters with "Origins". So much I did not know about Darwin, it was shocking to me. The depth and breath of Darwin's research and writings is even more amazing than it used to be to me. Of course, the fact that something is a better scientific explanation than religious explanations comes to me as no surprise. Religion is not meant to explain the how, but rather the why and evolutionary theory can never be, or should never be seen, as contradicting religious claims, lest said religious claims invade the realm of science. As such we see how YEC, ID all subvert science and undermine theology with their foolish and in case of ID, vacuous claims and we come to realize how for instance the position of the Catholic church, however confusing given the guidance of the DI in providing talking points, remains one which separates science and theology and remains critical of Intelligent Design. For us Christians, Dawkins' message may be a wake up call showing how atheism, which does not rely on any theological baggage is better equipped to deal with scientific findings than the many religions we have come to be comfortable with. As Christians, our task is not to lament and complain about these facts but rather learn and adapt. Unless of course we insist on remaining foolish...

Mike · 7 August 2008

Words define members of tribes. The only people I see using the word "Darwinist", a word I did not encounter in graduate school, are anti-evolution propagandists and atheists. So if a "Darwinist" is an atheist that "believes" in established science, what does that make me? Even though I've been speaking up against the anti-evolution movement since the 70s, I don't think I want to be referred to as a "Darwinist".

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Dawkins idiosyncratic views on both Darwin and evolutions importance for atheism can be irritating at times. But I don't begrudge him the opportunity to make a hero worship program to his taste.
Mike said: The only people I see using the word "Darwinist", a word I did not encounter in graduate school, are anti-evolution propagandists and atheists.
Atheist are decidedly not using the term. And why should they? Dawkins peculiar use, which seems to spill over from considering the importance of selection specifically to a description of common descent in general, is what I have seen irritating to many who works against antiscientists. And that includes most atheists with a rational world view. Perhaps you can go back to his anglican background to find out why he takes evolution and selection in particular to be so important for (his) atheism.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Atheist are decidedly not using the term. And why should they? Dawkins peculiar use,
Oh, and I forgot this claim: atheists aren't much of a tribe, and I doubt you can identify them as such. See my example. Famously organizing atheists is like herding cats. Even the term "atheist" is debated over and over, as it is a philosophical term that groups wildly disparate world views such as philosophical agnostics and naturalistic atheists.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Rough Guide to Evolution said: It is an accomplished introduction for the naive viewer, but don't believe everything you see in the programme!
I recently read John van Wyhe's essay with delight, and, as a layman, I must say that you make a compelling case in your comments why "concern" is a minor or non-existent factor for Darwin's delays in publication. History is much a projection of today on yesterday it seems to me, at least that is how I have made mistakes here. OTOH it is harsh to judge it as "not a science" as commenters of yours do, perhaps unless one is convinced about absolute contingency. It could be possible to make statistical hypotheses on recurrent historical processes and test them. Biology is fraught with contingency, yet it manages to be a science.

Mike · 7 August 2008

PvM said: Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible...
In the US if an evangelical minister were, in a secular classroom, to tell someone else's children what to believe about God, like Dawkins is doing here, we would all be up in arms. Why is it alright when Dawkins does it? What the hell does promoting atheism have to do with biology education? I mean, besides motivating the anti-science movement. Is it stupidity, or just narcissism, or is there a difference? Like his contribution to "Expelled" wasn't enough. I read elsewhere that this gem has been in the can for awhile. I wonder if it was kept back until "Expelled" blew over out of fear that Dawkins had already done enough damage. I'm more upset with actual scientists, or former scientists, who insist on linking religious culture wars with support for biology education than I am with the other group that does the same thing: anti-evolution propagandists, the liars for Jesus. I expect scientists and university professors to have respect for the common good, if not someone else's religious beliefs. The linking of science defense with prostyletizing atheism is obviously convincing the uninvolved majority that a "critical analysis/equal time" compromise is necessary in the biology classroom. This is insane. Dawkins and Myers aren't leading us to a "new enlightenment", they're just giving political leverage to the other prostyletizing idiots on the otherside of the cultural divide.

Jonathan A · 8 August 2008

Richard Dawkins is indeed a gifted communicator when he restricts himself to biology, the Selfish Gene and the Ancestors Tale for example fully justify his professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. However, like Torbjorn and others above I'm disappointed and irritated at his confusion of the case for evolution with the case for atheism, and at his use of the word Darwinism as if it were a cult of some sort! Darwin was indeed a genuine hero of modern science, and his findings certainly had a huge impact on modern Christian interpretations of our origins. However science itself has nothing to say directly about the absence or existence of God, there is no peer-reviewed body of scientific findings about such a purely philosophical or theological issue, and Dawkins should not imply that there is. Prof Michael Ruse and others have made the point that Mike rightly notes, that by exceeding their scientific brief, Dawkins and others are simply inviting modern creationists to claim Darwinism as yet another religion. In the videoed interviews about the TV series Dawkins refers dismissively to "bishops and cardinals" who claim that religion can accept evolutionary science. He does not mention the inconvenient views of scientists like Ken Miller or Francis Collins.

Dave Luckett · 8 August 2008

Evolution is by far the most satisfying explanation for the origin of species, because it is the only one for which actual supporting physical evidence has been presented. What on earth is so difficult to understand about this? Why is it necessary to get caught up in theological irrelevancies? Dr Dawkins and Professor Myers are certain that there is no god. PvM, Francis Collins and Ken Miller think that there is one. Me, I simply don't know. What does it matter? None of us can present conclusive evidence either way.

(Yes, yes, we *can* argue about it, but those arguments have been going on for at least several thousand years and have engaged some of humanity's sharpest minds, without a conclusion. There is no new evidence, and no way to get any. "It is a capital error to argue in advance of the evidence," said Sherlock Holmes, and it's good enough for me.)

So why take on people who think in theological terms on their own turf? The physical, verifiable, demonstrable evidence is for evolution, there's stacks of it, and there is none for any other explanation. Anything else is irrelevant.

Tremendous communicator and splendid educator as he is, I believe that Dr Dawkins is making a tactical error by being drawn into the god question.

Mike · 8 August 2008

I believe that Dr Dawkins is making a tactical error by being drawn into the god question.
They aren't being "drawn" into it, of course. My impression is that they think they're leading us to a new enlightenment. I think its empirically obvious that its not working, that the effect is just the opposite. Linking biology education to criticism, and in some cases juvenile taunting, of religion is causing real damage to how our society thinks about, and uses, science. Let's please be clear on this. Dawkins, Myers, et al. have a right to their social movement, but they aren't immune to criticism. They should not be leaving the impression that biology education is going to convert little Johnny. They could cut the rest of us some slack, but that's not the solution. The solution is that the rest of the scientific community, those who have previously left defending science to the atheists, study the issue (very important to do that first) and speak up. One way to do that is to get everyone to see what a hash the atheists have made of things, and that they do not necessarily speak for the scientific community.

ivorygirl · 8 August 2008

Dawkins approach drew this response, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article4474112.ece
Here is Dawkins answer,scroll down to comment 6 http://richarddawkins.net/article,2956,Richard-Dawkins-the-naive-professor,Libby-Purves.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 8 August 2008

Jonathan A said: However, like Torbjorn and others above I'm disappointed and irritated at his confusion of the case for evolution with the case for atheism, and at his use of the word Darwinism as if it were a cult of some sort!
To be clear, I'm not disappointed and irritated by his use of evolution (or any other observable fact) to argue for atheism. In as much as the title for his hero worship series is "The Genius of Charles Darwin" he is allowed to express his opinion as much as anyone else. If nothing else, it serves as a refreshing counterweight to the all too common religious apologetics in television.
Mike said: The solution is that the rest of the scientific community, those who have previously left defending science to the atheists, study the issue (very important to do that first) and speak up. One way to do that is to get everyone to see what a hash the atheists have made of things, and that they do not necessarily speak for the scientific community.
I see the confusion of portraying or describing science with defending it often on Panda's Thumb, for easily understood reasons. Nevertheless, it is wrong to assume that every article, presentation or movie is, or should be, focused on the latter. So we can summarily dismiss that atheists makes a 'hash of things' merely by speaking up. It is, btw, a boringly common attack, which is a major part driving atheists to speak up in the first place. That the scientific community has left defending science to atheists doesn't quite ring true either. First, by a devastating margin the scientific community consists of atheists. But most scientists are more interested in science than religion - until religious movements threaten science of course. Second, this web site is AFAIU an initiative by NCSE, which is religiously neutral, though it cooperates nationally and locally with religious organizations, as well as scientific and educational organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association." It counts scientists among its members. That doesn't seem like an atheist organization to me, yet it has defended science and science in education for quite some time now.

Science Avenger · 8 August 2008

Mike said: They aren't being "drawn" into it, of course. My impression is that they think they're leading us to a new enlightenment. I think its empirically obvious that its not working, that the effect is just the opposite. Linking biology education to criticism, and in some cases juvenile taunting, of religion is causing real damage to how our society thinks about, and uses, science.
Those of us who keep hearing this mantra chanted continue to eagerly await the first shred of evidence that this is the case. With the unprecendented popularity of atheist books, and the increasing level of social acceptability of atheism, it seems empirically obvious that it is working, as every other social movement has worked - not through playing nice and appeasing the enemy, but confronting him, his bigotry, and his ignorance head on. Idiocy flourishes when intelligent people say nothing.

John Kwok · 8 August 2008

Dear Rough Guide to Evolution: Thanks for posting the links to your blog on the Darwin documentary:
Rough Guide to Evolution said: It is an accomplished introduction for the naive viewer, but don't believe everything you see in the programme! http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-dawkins-get-it-wrong-on-darwins.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/darwinian-myths-and-cartesian-doubt.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/few-comments-from-van-wyhe-on-dawkins.html
I regret to say this, but it looks as though Dawkins got a lot of his facts wrong with respect to Darwin. For a shorthand version of what Darwin actually did and why, then I encourage fellow PT readers to take a look here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin This special exhibition devoted to Darwin was curated by eminent AMNH invertebrate paleontology curator Dr. Niles Eldredge who was assisted by Dr. David Kohn, a retired historian and philosopher of science, and Darwin descendant Randal Keynes (The exhibition itself will be at the British Museum (Natural History) during the Darwin bicentennial next year.). Dawkins also erred in referring to Dr. Craig Venter as the one solely responsible for sequencing the human genome. The actual hard work - not computer simulations - was done at MIT's Whitehead Institute by a team led by Dr. Eric Lander (whom I regard as a potential Nobel Prize laureate alumnus from our New York City high school alma mater). Appreciatively yours, John

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 8 August 2008

Jonathan A said: However science itself has nothing to say directly about the absence or existence of God, there is no peer-reviewed body of scientific findings about such a purely philosophical or theological issue, and Dawkins should not imply that there is.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with Dawkins book production (I know I'm not), but he wrote a whole book explaining why creationist gods are improbable. It is titled "The God Delusion" and is a good read. Quite right it isn't peer-reviewed, but it uses peer-reviewed facts, and to date no one has managed to make a valid response. I'm not sure what type of research magazine one would want to pass it through, it seems quite paradoxical to try to pass it off as philosophy or theology while asking for scientific review. Taking out the central hypothesis it isn't long or announcing any new or scientifically interesting result. Why would anyone want to publish that? So my conclusion is that Dawkins makes it obvious that observation constrain factual religious ideas, including existence of this and that religion's gods, but that as in so many cases of science applications it isn't within the current purview of peer review.

Science Avenger · 8 August 2008

Mike said: In the US if an evangelical minister were, in a secular classroom, to tell someone else's children what to believe about God, like Dawkins is doing here, we would all be up in arms. Why is it alright when Dawkins does it?
He didn't tell them what to believe about the gods so much as challenge their epistemology of "damn the facts, I believe my book and how I was raised". That answers the other question as well - the elephant in the room is that Dawkins is basing his views on evidence, whereas ministers base theirs on centuries old traditions of making shit up. It's remarkable to me that something so obvious needs to be said. FYI, my path to atheism was quite different from Dawkins'. I was a theistic evolutionist for the first 15 or so years of my cognative life. My atheism was prompted, ironically enough, by a challenge from a Church of Christ roommate to read the Bible.

Mike Holloway · 8 August 2008

Science Avenger said: He didn't tell them what to believe about the gods so much as challenge their epistemology
Its no ones business, certainly not your's or Dawkins, what someone else's children's epistemology is.

Mike · 8 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: First, by a devastating margin the scientific community consists of atheists.
We need to get some facts straight. Not surprisingly, the percentage of believers in the scientific community isn't too different from that of the population that raised them. Those ratios haven't changed much in a century. See, for instance: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4DB143DF930A35757C0A961958260 and http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp Only a surprising few academics take the time to study the anti-evolution movement, and then take the time to get productively involved. If not for the enormous amount of time and sacrifice by just three professors in Ohio, Steve Rissing, Jeff McKee, and Patricia Princehouse, things would be alot different in Ohio. And Ohio was lucky to have three. We are losing. Louisiana is far from alone. Most don't realize that there are now more policies and laws introducing creation science into the public school biology class than can be turned back in court. See this link And these are presumably just the ones the DI knows about and has had a hand in. They apparently don't include Kentucky's 158.177 because of its upfront creationism language. Note that Kentucky's creationism law has been unchallenged for years. Polls confirm my personal experience that there is a substantial fraction of high school biology teachers who introduce "alternatives to evolution" even if they themselves don't believe in it. Its certainly the case in AP Biology. The ACLU has limited resources, so this can't be fought in the courts alone. We are at the present time raising a generation of voters who do not understand science, or the importance of peer review in science. They're being taught that anyone's "science" is as good as anyone else's. These are the people who are going to be deciding the course of research funding. So there isn't a rising tide of atheism coming to our rescue, and we can't rely on some lawyers working pro bono to fix things for us. The hard work of persuasion and education has to be used, and poking the student in the eye isn't particularly good pedagogy. Biology education and atheistic prosyletizing have to be decoupled.

ivorygirl · 8 August 2008

But is it not a fact that there is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion (about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members)?

Mike · 8 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: First, by a devastating margin the scientific community consists of atheists.
We need to get some facts straight. Not surprisingly, the percentage of believers in the scientific community reflects the society they were raised in. There is no "devestating margin" of atheists in the scientific community. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4DB143DF930A35757C0A961958260 and http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp The NAS is an old boys club, and doesn't reflect the demographics of the wider scientific community in a number of ways, gender for instance.

Mike · 8 August 2008

Sorry. Perhaps the post is too long? The error message doesn't seem to be specific to whatever the problem is.

Mike · 8 August 2008

There are surprisingly few academics shouldering the burden of fighting the anti-evolution movement at state and local levels. For example, in Ohio just three biology professors did the bulk of time and professional sacrifice that kept creation science out of the state curriculum: Steve Rissing, Patricia Princehouse, and Jeff McKee. Ohio is lucky to have three. Things would also be very different in Ohio without the active partication of faith groups.

Mike · 8 August 2008

We are losing. This isn't sufficiently appreciated. Louisiana is far from alone. There are now too many policies and laws promoting the introduction of creation science in the public school biology classroom than can be turned back in the courts. See
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/information_on_louisiana_scien.html#more

Mike · 8 August 2008

And these are just the ones that the DI knows about, and presumably had a hand in. They don't include Kentucky's 158.177 because of its honest creationism language. Note that Kentucky's creationism law has been unchallenged for years. Polls show that anywhere from a quarter to a third of high school biology teachers introduce some form of "alternatives to evolution". The ACLU's resources are limited. We can count on them taking on one of these in the next few years, but that's about it.

We are presently raising a generation of voters that do not understand the nature of science, or the importance of peer review in deciding accepted science. They are being taught that one person's "science" is as good as any other, and the deciding what's the best science can't be left to the biased scientific community, which everyone knows is just made up of a bunch of atheists anyway. These are the people who are going to decide the course of research funding. Not only will they be electing officials who will directly control and interpret it, but increasingly they are also going to be directly voting on it.

Mike · 8 August 2008

So there's no rising tide of atheism that's going to save us, and a few lawyers working pro bono aren't going to be able to fix things either. That leaves the hard work of education and persuasion. Poking the student in the eye is generally considered bad pedagogy. Biology education can not be mixed with prostyletizing atheism.

PvM · 8 August 2008

Mike said: Sorry. Perhaps the post is too long? The error message doesn't seem to be specific to whatever the problem is.
No you typed, many times may I say (we do have a preview button which would save me from a lot of painful editing) <http://xxxx> which is just not valid html either use http by itself or use <a href="xxxd">link</a>

PvM · 8 August 2008

Mike said:
PvM said: Dawkins clearly is making a case for atheism or at least skepticism for religious claims here. I personally, as a Christian, enjoyed his questions to the classroom of children about why they believed in the Bible...
In the US if an evangelical minister were, in a secular classroom, to tell someone else's children what to believe about God, like Dawkins is doing here, we would all be up in arms. Why is it alright when Dawkins does it? What the hell does promoting atheism have to do with biology education?
Did Dawkins promote atheism or did he promote critical thinking here? I do not even think he mentioned atheism but I will revisit the video from 3:30 -6:00 the classroom scene "You were brought up to believe it. Is that a good reason to believe it?" Watching.. Will report back if I find other scenes of relevance As usual, Dawkins is misrepresented. Why is that? What you believe Dawkins said and what he actually said seems to be a bit different. But perhaps there are other scenes?

PvM · 8 August 2008

12:08-14:55 On the beach, nothing but encouragement

What a wonderful field trip and educational exposure to this scientific topic.

Still nothing about atheism. perhaps Mike can tell us what part he was referring to?

PvM · 8 August 2008

43:43 return to the beach

Talking about DNA and common ancestry

44:40 children respond.

Nothing

Jonathan A · 8 August 2008

Torbjorn, sorry, I haven't got the hang of "quoting" previous entries, and perhaps I've overstated your irritation at Dawkins. I do agree that he is entitled to be the passionate advocate of atheism that he is. I admire his ability to communicate scientific ideas. What I object to is his failure to make a clear enough distinction between what science can legitimately say as science, and what is simply his personal world view. There are other viewpoints, philiospohical and religious, which accept the same scientific conclusions that he does, but differ on its implications because they still recognise non-material dimensions to life. For example, I liked his challenge to the school kids with creationist beliefs to think about what it would be like to be brought up as a Hindu with a different set of holy texts. He could have pointed out that whatever the different belief systems people are brought up with, in most of them, including many varieties of Christian tradition, evolutionary science has been accommodated, not denied. Yes I've read the "God Delusion" and found it generally a rather unimpressive critique of religion. There have been plenty of valid responses, eg by Eagleton, Ruse, Mcgrath, Cornwell and others, pointing out its deficiencies, eg the very restricted range of sources it draws on when it comes to theology. Dawkins has used his deserved reputation as a scientific communicator to mnake a personal case for atheism. I think that confusion between the two does a disservice to science education, at a time when there is a genuine need to address public ignorance about evolution, and the real nature of Darwin's contribution. As Deborah Orr pointed out in her review of his TV programme, Dawkins is a literalist when it comes to religion, and not a helpful guide to the interface with science. Thankyou to Rough Guide for the link to van Whye's work, fascinating and just what is needed to challenge modern myths !

Mike · 8 August 2008

PvM said: No you typed, many times may I say (we do have a preview button which would save me from a lot of painful editing) <http://xxxx> which is just not valid html either use http by itself or use <a href="xxxd">link</a>
I'm sorry for your frustration, but imagine mine. No, the errors had nothing to do with the http entry since deleting all urls still produced an error, only with a different line noted. As you could see I spent some time trying to track the error down. You must be joking about Dawkins not prostyletizing to the students. When a student tells you that they think their religion precludes them from "believing" in evolution you don't respond, even in a recorded retrospect "A few hours in the science lab is no match for a life time of religious indoctrination." That is, if you want to be effective as a teacher and not just throw insults around. There are many possible responses that defend the validity of accepted science that don't involve being impolite or adversarial. Within the first 5 minutes of the program Dawkins makes it plain that, for him, you either "cling to the old ideas and prefer to think that God created our world", which he doesn't elaborate on, or you accept the absolute truth of science. Nothing in between. I would not want this man teaching my kids.

PvM · 8 August 2008

Mike said:
PvM said: No you typed, many times may I say (we do have a preview button which would save me from a lot of painful editing) <http://xxxx> which is just not valid html either use http by itself or use <a href="xxxd">link</a>
I'm sorry for your frustration, but imagine mine. No, the errors had nothing to do with the http entry since deleting all urls still produced an error, only with a different line noted. As you could see I spent some time trying to track the error down.
What happened is that since you only had an opening tag, it would fail to find a final closing tag and mark the final line as the one with the error. The error had all to do with the final http which was enclosed in angled brackets.
You must be joking about Dawkins not prostyletizing to the students. When a student tells you that they think their religion precludes them from "believing" in evolution you don't respond, even in a recorded retrospect "A few hours in the science lab is no match for a life time of religious indoctrination."
He never said this to the students. You seem to be confusing the voice over commentary with the actual interactions with the students. So perhaps your argument can be phrased in a better manner?
That is, if you want to be effective as a teacher and not just throw insults around. There are many possible responses that defend the validity of accepted science that don't involve being impolite or adversarial. Within the first 5 minutes of the program Dawkins makes it plain that, for him, you either "cling to the old ideas and prefer to think that God created our world", which he doesn't elaborate on, or you accept the absolute truth of science. Nothing in between. I would not want this man teaching my kids.
I find that fascinating because in all the interactions Dawkins had with the children he was polite. I would love to have my children learn from such a person, not just because of his knowledge of science but also because of how he presented it. You may want to try to separate the two voices in the video and understand that one is real time and one is a voice over, it may help appreciate what Dawkins is telling the children and what his message is to the viewers.

PvM · 8 August 2008

I find it fascinating how people come to claim things Dawkins did when watching the video clearly disagrees with their position. Dawkins seems to be much and oft maligned, and I myself have more than once fallen victim to this.

Science Avenger · 8 August 2008

Mike Holloway said:
Science Avenger said: He didn't tell them what to believe about the gods so much as challenge their epistemology
Its no ones business, certainly not your's or Dawkins, what someone else's children's epistemology is.
On the contrary, that is exactly what schools are for, or at least, what they should be for: teaching children how to think. Part of the purpose of a public education is to reduce the level of ignorance parents foist on their children by getting them to think about their basic premises. The question is whether we think certain ideas should get a pass from this examination due to them being labeled "religious". Dawkins does not, and neither do I, and in the end, that is ultimately what these Dawkins battles boil down to. Chatter about his tone is just so much smoke.

Science Avenger · 8 August 2008

PvM said: I find it fascinating how people come to claim things Dawkins did when watching the video clearly disagrees with their position.
I've found that consistent of Dawkins' critics on the issue of religion. In no case does what I watch or read of him ever match their descriptions. I've seen him compared to Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, something that would seem impossible for a thinking mind to process. Dawkins is not rude, he just seems that way to some because he doesn't treat religion any differently than he would any other subject with such grandiose claims, so little evidence supporting its most basic premises, and so little real accomplishments to its credit.

Jonathan A · 9 August 2008

Science Avenger said: Dawkins is not rude, he just seems that way to some because he doesn't treat religion any differently than he would any other subject with such grandiose claims, so little evidence supporting its most basic premises, and so little real accomplishments to its credit.
Having criticised Dawkins, I am sure that at a personal level he is courteous and charming ( I haven't met him unfortunately, but a colleague who has found him so). I agree that the video evidence suggests he treated his school kids respecfully when face to face, and it seemed to me, despite his complaint about indoctrination, that he had succeeded in influencing their thinking, as a good educator should. The voice-over however will be heard by them and many others and conveyed a less tolerant tone. It admitted of no intermediate positions, either God or Darwin as it were, as Mike pointed out. That matters when you are trying to educate others, does not reflect any consensus view of evolutionary biologists, and it does not discriminate clearly between what science can genuinely claim to say, on the basis of reliable evidence, and what it cannot. I have noticed that Dawkins passionate advocacy sometimes leads him to use rather extravagant language in his writing, not just about simplistic versions of religion (which he was happy to belittle in a rather schoolboyish way in the God Delusion) but also in professional disputes. In a recent reply to, I think, Wilson and others in the New Scientist on a piece about group selection he accused them of misrepresenting his views with a "barefaced lie". That did seem a trifle rude! As for the claims of religion, ultimately they are founded on assumptions that cannot be tested in any scientific way, so will never satisfy a purely empirical approach. The benefits of religion I would say are arguable, not all on the negative side at all, but thats another debate. We all do however base our conduct and beliefs on more than the logical and material, and religion in some form has an enduring appeal for good reason (no doubt our own evolution had a part to play in this). I do though have some sympathy with Dawkins view that religious perspectives are not always challenged enough, particularly when they impinge on matters of science or social policy. While I want Dawkins to be honest about what science can really say, I am more critical about religion which is in denial about science, or worse, masquerades as science to gain access to schools.

John Kwok · 9 August 2008

Dear Jonathan,

I met Dawkins at a booksigning here in New York City years ago and found him to be quite courteous and charming. He is at his best with respect to communicating biology, especially when he has his facts straight. But I share your misgivings about his advocacy of atheism.

However, as I noted yesterday:

" regret to say this, but it looks as though Dawkins got a lot of his facts wrong with respect to Darwin. For a shorthand version of what Darwin actually did and why, then I encourage fellow PT readers to take a look here:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin

This special exhibition devoted to Darwin was curated by eminent AMNH invertebrate paleontology curator Dr. Niles Eldredge who was assisted by Dr. David Kohn, a retired historian and philosopher of science, and Darwin descendant Randal Keynes (The exhibition itself will be at the British Museum (Natural History) during the Darwin bicentennial next year.).

Dawkins also erred in referring to Dr. Craig Venter as the one solely responsible for sequencing the human genome. The actual hard work - not computer simulations - was done at MIT’s Whitehead Institute by a team led by Dr. Eric Lander..."

Regards,

John

Brian McEnnis · 9 August 2008

Mike said: Only a surprising few academics take the time to study the anti-evolution movement, and then take the time to get productively involved. If not for the enormous amount of time and sacrifice by just three professors in Ohio, Steve Rissing, Jeff McKee, and Patricia Princehouse, things would be alot different in Ohio. And Ohio was lucky to have three.
I agree with Mike's observation that few academics are productively involved in fighting the anti-evolution movement, but the picture he paints for Ohio is far too bleak. Steve, Jeff, and Patricia have been leaders in Ohio, but there are other academics involved, not just these three. I won't produce a list of all that I know, since they may not want their names published here, but I will mention two: Dick Hoppe (RBH) and me. There are also many non-academics in science-related fields in Ohio who are involved in this battle. I cite Mike himself as a prime example.

PvM · 9 August 2008

The voice-over however will be heard by them and many others and conveyed a less tolerant tone. It admitted of no intermediate positions, either God or Darwin as it were, as Mike pointed out. That matters when you are trying to educate others, does not reflect any consensus view of evolutionary biologists, and it does not discriminate clearly between what science can genuinely claim to say, on the basis of reliable evidence, and what it cannot.
I will have to listen again and while I agree that the voice over was much stronger I found some of his statements quite reasonable. For instance the statement of indoctrination is a valid one where religious beliefs form an obstacle to appreciating, understanding and accepting solid scientific findings. Time to watch the full length movie again to see what Dawkins arguments really involved as I have found out myself, the hard way, that Dawkins is often far more nuanced in his arguments than we give him credit for.

PvM · 9 August 2008

Dawkins: "In this series I want to persuade you that evolution provides a far richer and more spectacular view of life than any religious story. It's one reason why I don't believe in God. I want to show how Darwin opened our eyes to the extraordinary reality of our world."

And yet it also is one reason why many Christians believe in God and accept evolutionary science. Notice the 'why I don't believe in God', it's a statement of fact not necessarily, although perhaps implied, a call for all to reject God.

PvM · 9 August 2008

Interesting note

"I have to admit that this, and other honest statements of atheism, were thrust upon me, against my will (especially right at the beginning of Episode 1), not by the Director or the television company, but by the LAWYER! That sounds weird. It isn't strictly a legal worry, but a worry about satisfying Ofcom, the regulatory body that controls British television. I don't fully understand it, but I THINK it has something to do with the need to 'respect' creationists. The lawyer thought that Ofcom would have preferred me to present 'both sides'. Because I obviously wasn't going to do that, he thought the next best thing was to be completely up front and announce, in advance, that the reason I took the line I did was that I was an atheist. Of course, I don't like the sound of that at all. I'd prefer to say I'm an evolutionist because the evidence is so convincing. It is as though the lawyer has been infected by the 'all opinions are equally valid' viewpoint. So it's OK to promote evolution rather than creation, so long as I announce, IN ADVANCE that I am an atheist."

See Comment section on Sandwalk

Tim Hague · 9 August 2008

Rough Guide to Evolution said: It is an accomplished introduction for the naive viewer, but don't believe everything you see in the programme! http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-dawkins-get-it-wrong-on-darwins.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/darwinian-myths-and-cartesian-doubt.html http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/08/few-comments-from-van-wyhe-on-dawkins.html
You should be careful with what you read as well. If you want to know what Dawkins actually thinks about "Darwin's Delay", you can listen to him telling you all about it, in a recent interview about the series: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397568793089029326&ei=zuydSJOmLYHm2QKbtMHZBw&q=The+Genius+of+Charles+Darwin&vt=lf

William Wallace · 9 August 2008

It is one of the reasons I do not believe in God--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
Outstanding quote from the film you linked to, illustrating that he is promoting a pseudo-religion.

PvM · 9 August 2008

William Wallace said:
It is one of the reasons I do not believe in God--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
Outstanding quote from the film you linked to, illustrating that he is promoting a pseudo-religion.
We have come to expect this kind of 'foolish' response from our confused Christian friend William Wallace, however, contrary to his claim, Dawkins is neither promoting religion, nor pseudo-religion. It is a statement of fact, which as the story unfolds, was not Dawkins' choice but rather the choice of the program's lawyer. Wallace should perhaps familiarize himself more with that with which he disagrees before making his 'usual' or perhaps 'unusual' claims of 'fact'.

DaveH · 9 August 2008

PvM said: Interesting note

"I have to admit that this, and other honest statements of atheism, were thrust upon me, against my will (especially right at the beginning of Episode 1), not by the Director or the television company, but by the LAWYER! That sounds weird. It isn't strictly a legal worry, but a worry about satisfying Ofcom, the regulatory body that controls British television. I don't fully understand it, but I THINK it has something to do with the need to 'respect' creationists. The lawyer thought that Ofcom would have preferred me to present 'both sides'. Because I obviously wasn't going to do that, he thought the next best thing was to be completely up front and announce, in advance, that the reason I took the line I did was that I was an atheist. Of course, I don't like the sound of that at all. I'd prefer to say I'm an evolutionist because the evidence is so convincing. It is as though the lawyer has been infected by the 'all opinions are equally valid' viewpoint. So it's OK to promote evolution rather than creation, so long as I announce, IN ADVANCE that I am an atheist."

This seems to completely contradict an actual OFCOM judgment, in the case of the mendacious "Global Warming Swindle documentary" by the same TV company (Channel 4). ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm )Although this judgment undoubtedly was published long after Dawkins' doc had finished filming, it seems to me that the OFCOM stance is; "The science is settled, so you can say what you like without contravening our code." (This is obviously barking bloody mad). If the CH4 lawyers gave this advice to Prof D ("You can only justify not giving equal time to both science and mouthbreathers if you point out upfront that you're atheist" as if fossils or alleles care who's looking at them), it reeks of a deepseated anti-rational agenda at Channel4. They did fund this documentary, I concede, but don't be surprised if they're the first terrestrial channel in Europe to show "Excreted" (oops sorry.."Expelled"); you know, "for balance"

Stanton · 9 August 2008

William Wallace said:
It is one of the reasons I do not believe in God--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
Outstanding quote from the film you linked to, illustrating that he is promoting a pseudo-religion.
By your logic, then "bald" is a pseudo-haircolor, and "I don't have a car" is a "pseudo-brand of car" Please explain.

John Kwok · 9 August 2008

Dear Stanton, I think you are hoping in vain for an explanation:
Stanton said:
William Wallace said:
It is one of the reasons I do not believe in God--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
Outstanding quote from the film you linked to, illustrating that he is promoting a pseudo-religion.
By your logic, then "bald" is a pseudo-haircolor, and "I don't have a car" is a "pseudo-brand of car" Please explain.
William Wallace is demonstrating again why he is a DI IDiot Borg drone. Regards, John

Stanton · 9 August 2008

I know I won't get a response from William The Drone: I'm well aware that the smarmier fanatics clam up when faced with the prospect of giving explanations. Of course, in doing so, they hamstring themselves.

I mean, if Creationism/Intelligent Design really was scientific in the first place, I don't see how whatever opinions or concerns atheists have would matter one way or another. But, to hear Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents wail and rail and gnash their teeth on and on and on and on about how pernicious their insidious atheistic competitors are without ever actually explaining how atheism is a threat to sunshine, cookies and puppy-dogs: they make Krusty and Bozo the Clowns look solemn in comparison.

There is only one "atheistic religion" that I know of, which is Jainism. Jainists believe that the idea of a god, or pantheon of gods, that is/are above/beyond the universe, but, still deigning to meddle with the universe and its inhabitants is a paradox, therefore, Jainists reject the worship of gods as unnecessary. I think they're akin to Buddhists, but without Arhats or Bodhisattvas. Of course, the idea that ravening Christian fanatics like William the Drone Wallace, Ann Coultor, or Pat Robertson concerning themselves over the threat and competition posed by Jainists is even more absurd than the mental image of the chieftains of the Tobacco Industry having a communal conniption fit upon hearing that the lemonade stand down the street is now serving Acai juice.

But I digress:

Yes, John, I'm well aware that no living or recently deceased Creationist or Intelligent Design proponobot will ever articulate the reasons why they rail and wail against the Theories of Evolution beyond the fact that they were told to do so, if even that.

Mike · 9 August 2008

I clearly errored in not including Brian McEnnis in the list of professors who risked their livelyhoods in defending science education in Ohio. There may have even been some other heroes I have no knowledge of. The point is that there were very few academics involved, and what they did was personally risky in large part because their collegues couldn't be bothered.
PvM said: I find it fascinating how people come to claim things Dawkins did when watching the video clearly disagrees with their position.
I think this is dramatically making the primary point I'm struggling to get across. Even if it weren't so obvious that Dawkins is prostyletizing in this video, just standing him up in front of high school class makes a statement, even if he was wheeled in and out on a dolly and didn't say a word, because of his well known views coupling evolution and atheism. It has nothing to do with his announcing in the video voice over that he's an atheist. Coupling an atheistic agenda with biology education destroys the biology education. Its poor pedagogy, poor psychology, and poor politics. You can't watch the first ten minutes of that video and dispute that Dawkins is trying to get those students to reject their religious beliefs, which Dawkins is insisting, in the video and implying in front of the students, *MUST* contradict the science he wants to teach them. Its clearly more than just the voice over, though that's bad enough. He explains there in that first ten minutes that he must teach evolution by teaching "Darwinism", not Darwinian evolution, but an "ism" which is inseparable from his anti-religion crusade. So what were those students being asked to think about in those first ten minutes, and what are we arguing about here? Evolution? No, they were talking about religion and atheism. What does he then state is the reason for why he's fired up to teaching the students about evolution? Why, to show them that their holy books are wrong, of course. Still nothing about evolution, just Dawkins driving a wedge between believers and science instruction. This is dramatically counterproductive in teaching science. The atheism prostyletizing doesn't belong there. It is causing school officials and politicians to pass policies and laws that they would normally not want to be any part of. No evidence of that you say?! So these otherwise uninvolved officials and politicians are doing this out concern for the science?! Right. Neither does an atheistic social movement need children's education. In the US there's the very good reason that its not practical. Besides that, defending science education because it disproves someone's religion is a non sequitur. No one should be denying Dawkins, Myers, et al. the right to write whatever books and blogs they want, and to speak to whomever wants to listen to them, but making defense of biology education a part of an atheism agenda isn't just poking believers in the eye, its stabbing yourself in the foot. The two do not belong together, and some leaders of the anti-creationism movement are clearly determined to link them. The rest of us have to push back.

PvM · 9 August 2008

William Wallace seems as ill informed as many other creationists. Of course that he read Ann Coulter which brought him to the 'controversy' further shows a lack of knowledge. But the final straw is his recent posting on embryology.

Has he yet to learn from the cost of foolishness on both science and religion?

Stanton · 9 August 2008

PvM said: Has (William Wallace) yet to learn from the cost of foolishness on both science and religion?
No, not any time soon.

Science Avenger · 10 August 2008

Mike said: You can't watch the first ten minutes of that video and dispute that Dawkins is trying to get those students to reject their religious beliefs...
I most certainly can. He attacks their epistemology of believing things because of what certain books say, or because they were raised a certain way. "I would hate anybody to think I was trying to make anybody to believe anything. I am asking you to look at the evidence." "I am going to show them evidence they can touch with their own hands, and see if I can get them to think again." How clear must he be? This is why I completely lose my patience with Dawkins' critics. Over and over again they simply refuse to deal with what he actually says and does and instead make shit up to turn him into an atheistic Falwell, much easier to attack then the genuine article. It's intellectually dishonest, something for which you should all feel shame. Dawkins understands, as many of us do, that the best argument against religion is simply "examine, and think". The rest tends to take care of itself. And yes, ultimately this battle is against "religion" in the sense of "I believe because this book/pastor/tradition says so". Trying to improve science education without addressing that is like weeding by pulling up the dandelion's flowers while leaving the roots behind. You are dealing with symptoms instead of the disease.
... which Dawkins is insisting, in the video and implying in front of the students, *MUST* contradict the science he wants to teach them.
Nooooo, he is noting that it does in fact contradict the science he wants to teach them. The earth is not 6,000 years old. All creatures did not come to be all at once. These are factual contradictions, and Dawkins' point is simply that these contradictions should not be treated any differently than any other contradictions. There is no "must" to it, that is just you making shit up again, just like all this "atheism prostyletizing" nonsense. I have been, and still await a criticism of Dawkins that deals honestly with what he actually says and what he actually does, and doesn't consider it sufficient to simply refer to obscure and frankly embarrasing musings by men in dresses and pointy hats pretending things like the ontological argument are anything but laughable. Courtiers all, I'm not holding my breath.

Dave Luckett · 10 August 2008

Science Avenger, you say "Dawkins understands, as many of us do, that the best argument against religion is simply “examine, and think”."

I agree that that's what Dawkins thinks. I understand that that's what you think. Perhaps you might care to explain how you reconcile this with "I would hate anybody to think I was trying to make anybody to believe anything"?

Jonathan A · 10 August 2008

PvM said: I will have to listen again and while I agree that the voice over was much stronger I found some of his statements quite reasonable. For instance the statement of indoctrination is a valid one where religious beliefs form an obstacle to appreciating, understanding and accepting solid scientific findings. Time to watch the full length movie again to see what Dawkins arguments really involved as I have found out myself, the hard way, that Dawkins is often far more nuanced in his arguments than we give him credit for.
PvM, I took your point and also listened again to what Dawkins actually said in the first episode of 'The Genius of CD'. He declares that evolution provides a much better explanation than religious accounts of creation at the outset and again a few minutes in. He does not explicitly say to the children "Evolution or God", but does not challenge that dualism when they offer it, although he does challenge them in other ways (what if you were Hindu / look at the evidence). He makes his point about indoctrination (no doubt some were) He then takes them/us through some of the evidence, contrasting Darwin's emerging view with the largely religiously-based views of his time, and making much of the suffering predators inflict on prey. When we get to Darwin's publication of his work, he says that Darwin made it possible not to have to believe in the supernatural. we hear nothing about the many religious thinkers who took Darwin on board. Back on the beach with the children, after he summarises the value of DNA, we hear their responses. Some clearly feeling better informed, but those who feel that it must conflict with their religion are again given no encouragement to think otherwise, so three stay with religion and just one says he accepts evolution but will continue to pray. Finally, we hear him read the famous last passage from Origins (but not of course the version which refers to the Creator) and hear Dawkins say that Darwin showed that life could be seen as wonderful without a God. In a letter to the Times on Aug 9, responding to Libby Purves review of this episode, Dawkins angrily rejects her description of him as a preacher shouting "Evolution or God" every few minutes and demanding instant atheism over an ammonite on the beach. That was journalistic exaggeration (if amusing). But as he admits, it is a choice he asks us to make in the God Delusion, and the dualism is implicit in this episode. It is a false choice, in my view, and not helpful to the real task of getting evolutionary science accepted by people, like some of the children in the programme, who believe it conflicts with their religion. Thankyou for the interesting quote from RD about the making of the series. I wonder if, say, Steve Jones or Niles Edridge had made been asked by Channel 4 to make this programme whether they would have been asked to declare their religious orientation. I doubt it, but then they wouldnt be controversial enough to be used. No doubt you are right to see this as a harbinger of the dreadful Exposed on the same channel !

Jonathan A · 10 August 2008

John Kwok said: Dear Jonathan, I met Dawkins at a booksigning here in New York City years ago and found him to be quite courteous and charming. He is at his best with respect to communicating biology, especially when he has his facts straight. But I share your misgivings about his advocacy of atheism. However, as I noted yesterday: " regret to say this, but it looks as though Dawkins got a lot of his facts wrong with respect to Darwin. For a shorthand version of what Darwin actually did and why, then I encourage fellow PT readers to take a look here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin
Thanks for that John. I look forward to seeing the Eldredge curated exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London. i live not far from Shrewsbury, birthplace of Darwin. PT readers may also like to know about the annual celebrations there around his birthday, leading up to 2009, see http://www.darwinshrewsbury.org Do visit !

PvM · 10 August 2008

Jonathan A said:
PvM said: I will have to listen again and while I agree that the voice over was much stronger I found some of his statements quite reasonable. For instance the statement of indoctrination is a valid one where religious beliefs form an obstacle to appreciating, understanding and accepting solid scientific findings. Time to watch the full length movie again to see what Dawkins arguments really involved as I have found out myself, the hard way, that Dawkins is often far more nuanced in his arguments than we give him credit for.
PvM, I took your point and also listened again to what Dawkins actually said in the first episode of 'The Genius of CD'. He declares that evolution provides a much better explanation than religious accounts of creation at the outset and again a few minutes in.
I doubt that few would disagree with this. Whether it be the Christian creation story or the Native American stories, they lack in details, are full of allegories. Many Christians would not have a problem with this statement as they manage to reconcile the facts of science with their faith.
He does not explicitly say to the children "Evolution or God", but does not challenge that dualism when they offer it, although he does challenge them in other ways (what if you were Hindu / look at the evidence).
For good reasons because science or God seems to be a false choice. Evolution and God. In fact, he neither argues Science or God or Science and God but rather asks some very pertinent questions about priority of knowledge and how Hindu children have the same logical foundation to believe in something quite different if the logic of some of the students is applied consistently. A powerful argument.
He makes his point about indoctrination (no doubt some were) He then takes them/us through some of the evidence, contrasting Darwin's emerging view with the largely religiously-based views of his time, and making much of the suffering predators inflict on prey.
Indoctrination refers to the beliefs which are so strongly held based on for instance first exposure, that new ideas are rejected out of hand. Those who insist for instance that the earth has to be young are indeed indoctrinated, and exposure to the facts of science, can cause some interesting crisis of faith. I am not sure if there is much 'suffering', it depends on ones definition of suffering. In many cases death can be quick and prey and predators continue to evolve to outsmart each other. I will have to revisit this part to see how he presents the concept of selection.
When we get to Darwin's publication of his work, he says that Darwin made it possible not to have to believe in the supernatural. we hear nothing about the many religious thinkers who took Darwin on board.
I will have to listen to how Dawkins phrases it but this seems to be a valid statement of fact. Before Darwin, atheists and agnostics had a hard time dealing with 'creation', however Darwin showed how natural processes of variation and selection could explain much of the observed facts. This removed the requirement of a 'Creator' without making the Creator non-existent.
Back on the beach with the children, after he summarises the value of DNA, we hear their responses. Some clearly feeling better informed, but those who feel that it must conflict with their religion are again given no encouragement to think otherwise, so three stay with religion and just one says he accepts evolution but will continue to pray. Finally, we hear him read the famous last passage from Origins (but not of course the version which refers to the Creator) and hear Dawkins say that Darwin showed that life could be seen as wonderful without a God.
So far we seem to agree that Dawkins did little to influence the Children other than by some general questions. In fact, he seems quite intent on children being able to think critically. I am not sure why you object to life being wonderful without the need for a God?
In a letter to the Times on Aug 9, responding to Libby Purves review of this episode, Dawkins angrily rejects her description of him as a preacher shouting "Evolution or God" every few minutes and demanding instant atheism over an ammonite on the beach. That was journalistic exaggeration (if amusing). But as he admits, it is a choice he asks us to make in the God Delusion, and the dualism is implicit in this episode.
For some perhaps who are familiar with the God Delusion, it is tempting to see Dawkins in the most unfavorable light. Purves' comments, if meant to be 'exaggerating' indeed managed to meet this standard as she made claims Dawkins clearly did not make.
It is a false choice, in my view, and not helpful to the real task of getting evolutionary science accepted by people, like some of the children in the programme, who believe it conflicts with their religion. Thankyou for the interesting quote from RD about the making of the series. I wonder if, say, Steve Jones or Niles Edridge had made been asked by Channel 4 to make this programme whether they would have been asked to declare their religious orientation. I doubt it, but then they wouldnt be controversial enough to be used. No doubt you are right to see this as a harbinger of the dreadful Exposed on the same channel !
I think it important for us to distinguish between Dawkins the scientist and Dawkins the atheist. In the God Delusion Dawkins makes a strong argument in favor of atheism and while we may hear this spectre anytime Dawkins speaks, one has to be careful to not read 'between the lines' here. From my listening to what Dawkins told the students he was very respectful of their claims. As to Purves, I am appalled by her claims which are indeed quite exaggerated and unnecessary. Dawkins' anger is well warranted.

That is unjust, to the point of outright mendacity, and an insult to any professional educator. It was the creation-indoctrinated children themselves who made the leap: "Evolution = atheism". I was scrupulously careful not to make that connection in the presence of the children, although I have made it elsewhere, spelling out the nuanced argument in The God Delusion.

— Dawkins

Mike · 11 August 2008

It was the creation-indoctrinated children themselves who made the leap: "Evolution = atheism". I was scrupulously careful not to make that connection in the presence of the children, although I have made it elsewhere, spelling out the nuanced argument in The God Delusion.

— Dawkins
Interesting. So it was the children who produced, directed, and edited the video. It was big of Dawkins to let himself be used like that by children who had no knowledge of his work. Now, where have I heard "critical analysis" being used in reference to evolution education before?

Kenneth · 11 August 2008

A couple of comments:

1 - I have read that in Great Britain 'darwinist' is used to refer in a non-negative way to one who accepts evolution;

2 - I am surprised that commenters are saying that Richard talked about atheism in the episode. Did I miss something? What I saw was a challenge to inherited beliefs in the light of the evidence. Looked like good education to me; and,

3 - The above posts seem to me to reflect a different issue, namely the way to go about social change and the role of scientists in said process. Challengers like Richard and PZ are taking on a difficult but absolutely necessary task. I can't think of any significant social shift without controversy. Polarization eventually moves the middle ground.

Jonathan A · 11 August 2008

Thanks PvM for your deconstruction of my comments ! I agree with much of what you say, but there are some key points of emphasis for me:
Many Christians would not have a problem with this statement as they manage to reconcile the facts of science with their faith.
Absolutely, but this was not acknowledged by Dawkins anywhere in the film and is generally treated dismissively by him elsewhere.
For good reasons because science or God seems to be a false choice. Evolution and God. In fact, he neither argues Science or God or Science and God but rather asks some very pertinent questions about priority of knowledge and how Hindu children have the same logical foundation to believe in something quite different if the logic of some of the students is applied consistently. A powerful argument.
Yes it is a false choice. But not I think to Dawkins. It is really key to his atheism, so he didn't challenge it when voiced by the children. I agree the questions he asked were good ones, and that he encouraged critical thinking, it was what he omitted to say that matters.
This removed the requirement of a 'Creator' without making the Creator non-existent.
Right on ! So Christians had to see the creation story and its relationship with God in a different light. Darwin had a huge impact on their thinking but his science did not necessarily require that the Creator did not exist, rather that he wasn't constantly creating new species by divine fiat. A natural, and for Christians God-created, process could be put in the place of literal interpretation of Genesis. For atheists, naturally enough, Darwin has different implications. Either way, there are limits to what science can say with authority. It sets constraints on belief, but cannot rule God out.
I am not sure why you object to life being wonderful without the need for a God?
I don't. It is wonderful and I am agnostic on God. Agnostic that is in an enquiring sense. I am sympathetic to the religious impulse, but critical of most doctrinal responses. But Darwin doesnt show that, as you've already said, he removes the need for divine tinkering, not divine existence, a distinction that Dawkins isn't interested in.
For some perhaps who are familiar with the God Delusion, it is tempting to see Dawkins in the most unfavorable light.
Fair point, but Dawkins does rather invite that. It his authorship of the patchy but passionate GD, rather than say the brilliant Ancestors Tale, that got him this series in the first place. He was asked in a Radio 4 interview about his role as "Darwins' Rottweiler". From his reply it seemed that it was not just a question of style of communication. He sees promoting atheism in the face of militant fundamentalism as more important than simply correcting views about the science of evolution. (I better check this or you'll rightly ask "what did he actually say?"). The GD is the reason for his recent fame and he is a man with a mission!
I think it important for us to distinguish between Dawkins the scientist and Dawkins the atheist.
Well yes indeed, and I wish Dawkins would do the same with greater clarity, particularly when communicating with a partly creationist audience, which he beieves is bigger than we generally realise. You don't help people to accept scientific findings by implying (or insisting in the case of the GD) that it contradicts all their beliefs, when it ain't necessarily so.
As to Purves, I am appalled by her claims which are indeed quite exaggerated and unnecessary. Dawkins' anger is well warranted.
Lots of people were affronted by some of the language used in the GD, but Dawkins now says in effect "lighten up, its really rather funny" (and anyway its only religious people who really objected and they don't matter). Yes, some of the GD is comic, and some is naive. Well this is a case of the biter bit, Purves has put her finger on Dawkins bi-polar attitude to Darwin in a rather humorous way, but has been a bit unfair to his approach to the episode filmed in the process. It was more subtle than she suggested, and if he hadn't written the GD, her piece would have been completely off-beam. But read the whole piece for the context, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article4474112.ece like many of us she is clearly a fan of Dawkins the scientist.

John Kwok · 11 August 2008

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your invitation. I'll try. As for Niles Eldredge, I believe he will be speaking at the British Museum when the Darwin exhibition arrives there. If he is, I most certainly recommend attending his talk and historian of science David Kohn's too.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Mike · 11 August 2008

Funny. Other people seem to have seen the same stuff I did in the video.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/09/nosplit/bvtvpile09.xml

PvM · 11 August 2008

Mike said:

It was the creation-indoctrinated children themselves who made the leap: "Evolution = atheism". I was scrupulously careful not to make that connection in the presence of the children, although I have made it elsewhere, spelling out the nuanced argument in The God Delusion.

— Dawkins
Interesting. So it was the children who produced, directed, and edited the video. It was big of Dawkins to let himself be used like that by children who had no knowledge of his work. Now, where have I heard "critical analysis" being used in reference to evolution education before?
That's a silly argument. But I guess, desperate times may ask for desperate measures. That's too bad

PvM · 11 August 2008

Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Mike said: Funny. Other people seem to have seen the same stuff I did in the video. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/09/nosplit/bvtvpile09.xml

PvM · 11 August 2008

Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Mike said: Funny. Other people seem to have seen the same stuff I did in the video. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/09/nosplit/bvtvpile09.xml

PvM · 11 August 2008

Yes, you are correct, ignorance knows no bounds. How does this make your claims any more relevant? Especially given the actual evidence which can be viewed on line?
Mike said: Funny. Other people seem to have seen the same stuff I did in the video. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/09/nosplit/bvtvpile09.xml

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 August 2008

Um, I see that there are some responses here that I should attend to. Hopefully later.

Mike · 11 August 2008

Kenneth said: Polarization eventually moves the middle ground.
That would be a good strategy, if you were polarizing on either side of the center, that is the atheistic extreme and the religious fundamentalist extreme, but that isn't what Dawkins is doing. He's attacking the center. All believers lumped into the same basket. Doing that will generally send the center fleeing to the other side.

PvM · 11 August 2008

One has to be careful when making such claims about Dawkins without at least attempting to provide some relevant quotes and references. I believe that in this series Dawkins is actually quite reasonable in his comments. Any particular examples which you believe support your assertion that "He's attacking the center. All believers lumped into the same basket. "
Mike said:
Kenneth said: Polarization eventually moves the middle ground.
That would be a good strategy, if you were polarizing on either side of the center, that is the atheistic extreme and the religious fundamentalist extreme, but that isn't what Dawkins is doing. He's attacking the center. All believers lumped into the same basket. Doing that will generally send the center fleeing to the other side.

Mike · 12 August 2008

Ok. Some Dawkins quotes below. Don't want to be a pest, but I'm curious as to why you're misrepresenting Dawkins actions. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on your shoulders PVM to show that

- Dawkins doesn't condemn equally all religious belief from Islamic jihadists to the most progressive Unitarian,

- Dawkins' style of anti-religion crusade isn't damaging to science education, at least in the US,

- and that Dawkins has a right to instruct high school students that their religious beliefs conflict with science (which seems unlikely given that they're in England), and are therefore somehow worse than wrong.

The video was produced, shot, and edited for, and/or by, Dawkins. This isn't a live "day in the life", and it isn't presented as one. It shows exactly what he wanted to show, as you would expect of any well made program. If Dawkins didn't get what he wanted in one classroom he would presumably have gone to another, and maybe he did. Doesn't matter. Its his show, showing what he wants to show, to make the points he wants to make, the very same points he's been making for years. The inclusion of a couple corporate mandated words at the beginning changes nothing in the video. It is Dawkins, and no one else, who has made a program in which religion is portrayed as ignorant and in conflict with biological science in a society in which religious belief is much less evangelic and fundamentalist than in the US.

The points Dawkins makes in the video, both the implied and the carefully enunciated, are consistant with his own widely publicized words, a few of which are copied below. He condemns all of faith in a very simplestic and insulting fashion. Whether you agree with him, or not, isn't my concern. My concern is pedagogy for the nation, because ultimately the population can't be forced against their will to accept something by the courts. The burden of proof is on you to show how science can be effectively taught in the US by attacking religious belief.

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

"It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "

Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "

"1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith.' "

"Nevertheless, it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions. Instructions to genuflect, to bow towards Mecca, to nod one's head rhythmically towards the wall, to shake like a maniac, to ``speak in tongues'' --- the list of such arbitrary and pointless motor patterns offered by religion alone is extensive"

"With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns."

"I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"

"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."

PvM · 12 August 2008

If you expect me to do your homework then at least let me know. Why should I have to show supporting evidence for your claims? Really...
Mike said: Ok. Some Dawkins quotes below. Don't want to be a pest, but I'm curious as to why you're misrepresenting Dawkins actions. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on your shoulders PVM to show that

PvM · 12 August 2008

It is Dawkins, and no one else, who has made a program in which religion is portrayed as ignorant and in conflict with biological science in a society in which religious belief is much less evangelic and fundamentalist than in the US.

Nice introduction, but I was asking for evidence. And why should Dawkins apologize for religion looking bad because they preferred a religious explanation over a scientific explanation? In case of Darwin, religion was mostly in conflict with the biological science. As a Christian, I have to accept these facts. But does this support your claims about Dawkins? We shall see.. More later

PvM · 12 August 2008

The points Dawkins makes in the video, both the implied and the carefully enunciated, are consistant with his own widely publicized words, a few of which are copied below. He condemns all of faith in a very simplestic and insulting fashion. Whether you agree with him, or not, isn’t my concern. My concern is pedagogy for the nation, because ultimately the population can’t be forced against their will to accept something by the courts. The burden of proof is on you to show how science can be effectively taught in the US by attacking religious belief.

My disagreement with you lies exactly here: While Dawkins does attack religious beliefs in some of his books, I find him to be quite reasonable when discussing issues of science. So I disagree with your portrayal of Dawkins. In fact you would have to show 'the points Dawkins makes' in the video in question and show not only that they are consistent with his other writings (after all consistency seems a strength not a weakness) but also that he, in this video, condemns all of faith. I do understand now why you want me to do your homework, as I expected the video in question does not support your original claims. I have run afoul of this in the past as well so I appreciate the position you have now to defend or abandon.

Mike · 13 August 2008

Its fascinating that Dawkins would deny prostyletizing under the guise of teaching biology when he is so clearly doing just that. PVM, I'd love to be able to copy and paste from a transcript of the program for you (doing your homework for you?), and parse and debate every word and interpretation of what he "really" said, but since a transcript doesn't exist, and I'm not making one, the copy and pasting of Dawkins' quotes I've already done will have to do. He sticks to the same themes, and the same straw men, in the program. Every review of the program I can google finds the same irony I do, and I really don't think we're hearing voices. I honestly don't see where the obfuscation you're throwing out is helping anyone.

Dawkins' defensive reaction, which he had awhile to prepare since this thing's been in the can for awhile, seems to be drawing a distinction between the "critical analysis" he directs the students in between biology and the straw man of theology he presents them, which the kids aren't knowledgable enough to object to - a distinction between that and ... something. I don't know. Maybe a talking head video where he doesn't mention biology much, treats the Bible as though it was supposed to be a science/history text, laughs at all the things that don't make sense, and commands us that we must not believe in God? He doesn't really say.

This is important. Look at this. Its the antithesis of how we should be working to have biology taught. He's using the same propaganda tactics used by the anti-evolution movement.

Insist that there is only one truth, without admitting any nuances to what "truth" is? Check.

Present a straw man of the thing you're trying to discredit? Check.

Present arguments against the thing you're trying to discredit to school children who don't have the knowledge and experience to evaluate them? Check.

Ask leading questions that presume the answer and guide the discussion? Check.

Present an attitude of barely controlled disdain for the thing you're discrediting? Check.

Have a paper trail of published work that can be read by the interested student in case they weren't certain of the subtext? Check.

Vehemently deny trying to twist the minds of the little dears and insist you're just trying to get them to think? Check.

Insist that the apple must fight the orange with no prisoners taken? Check.

I can see where this program of Dawkins will be used as defense against criticism of the "evidence against evolution/critical analysis" compromise in biology instruction that is sweeping the US right now, continuing Dawkins apparent campaign to help the anti-evolution movement. Please, for the love of ... whatever, please do not emulate this in the US. Science instruction can not be effectively defended by attacking religion, even if only by "critical analysis".

PvM · 13 August 2008

Mike said: Its fascinating that Dawkins would deny prostyletizing under the guise of teaching biology when he is so clearly doing just that.
And yet, when asked you refuse/are unable to 'cut and paste' from his own words and instead quote mine statements from other sources. This is not obfuscation but rather challenging those who tend to 'read between the lines' to actually attempt to listen to what Dawkins is saying. So far you and others who accuse Dawkins in this instance have been noticably unable to support these claims with actual quotes from the series. At best one can point to Dawkins' statement that Darwin's work provided scientific support for Dawkins position of atheism, but that may be at best be a personal statement not a universal truth. Yes, Dawkins, in some of his arguments about the existence of a God has made stronger claims but we should be careful not to mix and match these when listening to this episode.

PvM · 13 August 2008

Vehemently deny trying to twist the minds of the little dears and insist you’re just trying to get them to think? Check.

That claim is just foolish, and if you get this from Dawkins then you may be driven more by preconception than by facts and reason

Mike · 13 August 2008

You've apparently forgotten this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2956,Richard-Dawkins-the-naive-professor,Libby-Purves#225765

PvM · 13 August 2008

On the contrary, I posted both my response and Dawkins' response to this foolish statement. If you now want to blame a third party for your foolish claims then fine. I prefer to defend my own ideas and assertions.
Mike said: You've apparently forgotten this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2956,Richard-Dawkins-the-naive-professor,Libby-Purves#225765

PvM · 15 August 2008

In the mean time on UcD Denyse continues to embarrass herself with her mindless claims. If ID is winning then Denyse surely seems desperate to show it vacuity. Of course, the simple fact is that per DI Senior Fellow (soon to be another embarrassment to ID) Michael Medved, ID is not really a theory.

Nuff said.

Stanton · 15 August 2008

PvM said: In the mean time on UcD Denyse continues to embarrass herself with her mindless claims. If ID is winning then Denyse surely seems desperate to show it vacuity. Of course, the simple fact is that per DI Senior Fellow (soon to be another embarrassment to ID) Michael Medved, ID is not really a theory. Nuff said.
Denyse reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, now.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 15 August 2008

Life intervened, but finally and FWIW returning to old threads:
Mike said: Not surprisingly, the percentage of believers in the scientific community isn't too different from that of the population that raised them.
That wasn't my claim. As the surveys establish, the majority of scientists are atheists.
Mike said: Biology education and atheistic prosyletizing have to be decoupled.
To add to the confusion of portraying or describing science with defending it, we can now add a confusion between discussing and promoting atheism, which is in evidence, with un-evidenced 'proselytizing'. [Yay! The spell checker claims my preferred spelling was correct.] As regards "a rising tide of atheism coming to our rescue", I refer to my previous comment elaborating on the actual interests and actions of scientists.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 15 August 2008

ivorygirl said: But is it not a fact that there is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion (about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members)?
Yes, IIRC you can derive that as well from these surveys. There is a migration with theists to desist, deists to agnostics, and agnostics to atheists, as the facts of the world makes themselves clear.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 15 August 2008

Jonathan A said: Torbjorn, sorry, I haven't got the hang of "quoting" previous entries, and perhaps I've overstated your irritation at Dawkins.
It's quite all right. Tip: quoting is generated by clicking "Reply".
Jonathan A said: What I object to is his failure to make a clear enough distinction between what science can legitimately say as science, and what is simply his personal world view.
But as it is a readily verified argument, it can be seen as an application of science, along with similar ad hoc models. We can analyze a hammer to understand (and perfect) its construction and mechanism, but it isn't science. The same goes for analyzing ideas of creator agents.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 15 August 2008

Jonathan A said: As for the claims of religion, ultimately they are founded on assumptions that cannot be tested in any scientific way, so will never satisfy a purely empirical approach.
Again, I refer to TGD and its empirical and testable approach as regards creator agents.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 15 August 2008

Science Avenger said: I have been, and still await a criticism of Dawkins that deals honestly with what he actually says and what he actually does, and doesn't consider it sufficient to simply refer to obscure and frankly embarrasing musings by men in dresses and pointy hats pretending things like the ontological argument are anything but laughable. Courtiers all, I'm not holding my breath.
Delicious!

PvM · 15 August 2008

"It's just a flesh wound"
Stanton said:
PvM said: In the mean time on UcD Denyse continues to embarrass herself with her mindless claims. If ID is winning then Denyse surely seems desperate to show it vacuity. Of course, the simple fact is that per DI Senior Fellow (soon to be another embarrassment to ID) Michael Medved, ID is not really a theory. Nuff said.
Denyse reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, now.

hugh milan · 24 January 2009

Anyone who "believes" (what ever that means) in religion is dumb or scared. How can Dawkins hope to convince people with a weak sense of reason to his reasonable views. Impossible. These people believe in books that advocate the beating of woman and the stoning of children or worse. If any other books made these claims they would be relegated to mein kampf stature, but not good ol' dumb religion.

Dave Luckett · 24 January 2009

hugh milan said: Anyone who "believes" (what ever that means) in religion is dumb or scared. How can Dawkins hope to convince people with a weak sense of reason to his reasonable views. Impossible. These people believe in books that advocate the beating of woman and the stoning of children or worse. If any other books made these claims they would be relegated to mein kampf stature, but not good ol' dumb religion.
I take "these people" who "believe in books that advocate the beating of women..." to mean the same people referred to in the first and second sentences, ie, 'anyone who "believes" in religion'. I take saying they "believe in books that advocate" beating and stoning to mean that they accept those teachings. I take the books to mean the Bible, or perhaps the Torah, or the Qu'ran, or other religious texts. If these interpretations are correct, then the statement is palpably false. If they are not correct, I suggest that more precise language is needed. Because the overwhelming majority of religious people don't believe in the beating of women or the stoning of children, and don't believe that their religion condones such things. In fact, I've never known one who did believe that. No doubt there are some. Possibly you mean to say that an extreme fringe of religious fanatics believes such things. I wouldn't quarrel with that. But as it stands, your brush is far too broad. This is, on the face of it, a category error that leads to a false conclusion.

Hugh Milan · 26 January 2009

My statement was simple.

1. That people who believe in religious dogma are dumb or scared.
2. That no matter how much rational sense Richard Dawkins makes scared or dumb people won't listen.
3. They are dumb because they cherry pick books that are full of hideous occurrences.
See http://www.evilbible.com/ or http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html.

So to simplify...

Richard Dawkins won't be able to teach people who are dumb because they believe nice things about hideous bronze age fables probably because they are scared of life or death.

Dave Luckett · 26 January 2009

Hugh Milan said: My statement was simple. 1. That people who believe in religious dogma are dumb or scared. 2. That no matter how much rational sense Richard Dawkins makes scared or dumb people won't listen. 3. They are dumb because they cherry pick books that are full of hideous occurrences. See http://www.evilbible.com/ or http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html. So to simplify... Richard Dawkins won't be able to teach people who are dumb because they believe nice things about hideous bronze age fables probably because they are scared of life or death.
I'm sorry, and your clarification is appreciated, but it still doesn't follow. Saying "people who believe in religious dogma are dumb or scared" is a bit different from saying "they believe nice things about hideous bronze age fables probably because they are scared of life or death". The first is a blanket statement that implies all of them are dumb or scared. The second, by use of the word "probably", concedes that not all of them are scared, at least. Also, the first statement uses the expression "religious dogma", but the summation uses "hideous bronze age fables". Either you are conflating these two, or else the summation doesn't follow. In any case, the ability to select "nice things about these hideous bronze age fables" seems to imply that at least some religious people are not so dumb either - at least not so dumb as to believe that the fables give them licence to do hideous things, no matter if the original writers of the fables seem to approve of such actions. That is, believers may be and often are endowed with critical sense and judgement, they may and often do understand fictional narrative and limited narrators, and they may and often do have a moral sense independent of the "fables" themselves. That's not so dumb. The second statement is also interesting. It states that Richard Dawkins (and I suppose, his fellow-atheists) make "rational sense", but implies that there are no counter-arguments to put. I'm not so sure of the last. At least it seems to me to be somewhat more complex than a simple matter of reason versus ignorance and superstition. In any case, there is, to my mind, a large difference between saying that the arguments for the existence of God fail, there is no evidence for God, and no point in belief in Him, and saying "people who believe in religious dogma are dumb or scared". I'm not sure what you mean by "they are dumb because they cherry pick books that are full of hideous occurrances". You seem to be saying that only happy cheerful stories can be of ethical value. You surely can't mean that? But of course you are right to be offended by unthinking dogmatic attitudes.

Hugh Milan · 28 January 2009

I am agnostic about deism. You can call nature god if you want to, though I don't see the point. So god's not the issue. Though all these tedious discussions about religion would cease if ONLY he'd show up occasionally. Then we wouldn't need people like Dawkins and Hitchens to remind us that he never does.

In my explanation I did not mention god once, yet you go on about god. Or God if your hand happens to slip on the caps.

I only mention the two foul books of the desert, which pollute our minds with rape and wife beating and genocide etc etc. Please read the links I supplied. I just can't see how beating your wife, as the quran suggests, has ethical value just because it's not "happy and cheerful". Beating your wife is cowardice plain and simple.

Richard Dawkins teaches science which is ONLY concerned with counter-arguments.

The books of the desert should be relegated to the stack next to, as I said before, hateful books like mien kampf.

Dave Luckett · 28 January 2009

I didn't call nature god. I didn't call anything but God, god.

My hand doesn't slip when I write "God", in the singular. It is conventional to capitalise the word. I regret that this convention appears to offend you.

You didn't write "god". You wrote "anyone who believes in religion", and later "religious dogma". People who believe in religion and its dogmas necessarily believe in God or gods, but they are not necessarily stupid or scared, nor prone to beat their wives or stone their children, which was the point at issue. To say flatly that they are is to state, um, dogma.

Science is certainly not concerned only with counter-arguments - to anything. Creationism is concerned only with counter-argument, (not that any of its arguments are valid) since it puts no testable theories of its own.

What science is concerned with is observable evidence that can be repeatedly confirmed. Dawkins thinks that's all there is, or at least all that matters. He may be right. But his opinion on that subject is not necessarily the only rational one, and in any case he has no more expertise on it than anyone else.

I understand that you can see no good in the Bible or the Qu'ran at all. (Yes, it is also conventional to capitalise those words. Sorry about that.) Personally, I would be reluctant to part with, say, the story of Ruth. Or the rather beautiful, if metaphorical, tale of the Creation (whoops, there's another one). Or the Sermon on the Mount (dang!), or the blessing of the children, or the words of Ecclesiastes, or the nunc dimittis, or most of the Psalms (and another). And that's just off the top of my head.

But if you reckon it's all nothing but horrid bronze age fables on a moral par with "Mein Kampf", who am I to contradict you?

Hugh Milan · 28 January 2009

I threw the deist thing in to find out which god you believe in. So now I assume you are a christian er Christian.

As I never speak to christians may I ask you a question?

You are obviously well educated by the way you write. And you have read the bible.

My question is how can you believe in this book? I was bought up by atheists so I have no bias. To me this book is unintellectual cods wallop, to a degree that is staggering. I have had an interest in theology at times in my life so I have read quite a bit about it. The gospels for instance are contradicting and unintelligible. Jesus just keeps doing miracles and the disciples just keep saying "you can't do that". The loaves and fishes thing Jesus did twice and the disciples completely forgot about the first one. And in the end doubted this "superman" could rise from the dead. It's just a really REALLY dumb book. But again I have no bias. No parental propaganda.

I know this is a personal question and I apologise if it is a bit rude to ask.

Dave Luckett · 28 January 2009

Your assumption is incorrent. I am not a Christian. I am agnostic, and I came to much the same conclusions about the Gospels as you have thirty years ago. I was raised Christian, though. My father was a Presbyterian minister, and I spent my childhood and young adulthood going to a church school and to church services twice every Sunday. I have read the Bible, cover to cover, several times. I'd want it retained simply because it is great literature. Yes, it's often dark and bloody. So's Homer. So's Shakespeare.

The reasons why I distrust the factual basis of the Gospels are completely different to yours. I actually find your correct observation of the disciples' inability to accept the miracles of Jesus oddly corroborative - but I think that's exactly why it's there: to convince. It is saying that the disciples were skeptics, but were convinced by the acts of Jesus. So (it implies) we should all be. Put that way, it's not unintelligible. It actually lends support to the view that the Gospels were written as something between apologia and propaganda.

But this is a view, right? It's not certain. Even the most dismissive accounts of the Gospels take it for granted that they are redactions of earlier writings, now lost. Most - not all - scholars think that they relate events that have some real historical basis, and that's a view, too. But it's tenable on the evidence.

But more than that, anyone who can read the Sermon on the Mount and not know that they are in the presence of great poetry has no ear. Anyone who can read the parables of Jesus and not know that this is a great storyteller, cannot recognise the power of narrative. And, for me, anyone who can read of him saying to his followers, "Inasmuch as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me", and not be moved, has no feeling for greatness. It is genuinely great.

And whatever else may be said about the man, he had no time for dogma, ritual purity, lies, hypocrisy or deceit. He would have found the Discovery Institute intolerable. He'd have been in there, hacking their website, overturning their donations box, calling them hypocrites and liars and belittlers of God, for exactly the same reasons as he went into the Temple one fine morning and drove out the moneychangers with a flail. I admire him. More, I think he was among the greatest, and perhaps the greatest of all the great teachers. I just don't think he was God. I don't know if God exists at all.

I do know that I live in an unthinkably vast Universe that is filled with wonders. I know that I know almost nothing about it, and that nobody knows very much at all. Study as you will, take whatever direction you like, and within a few years you will come hard up against the limits of human knowledge. We know so little - surely not enough to make doctrinaire statements about what we cannot know for sure. The great Chinese teacher Lao Tze was once asked whether there was an afterlife. He replied "I don't know life. How can I know death?" Good answer.

You say you know little about Christians, or, I suppose, any religious people. You took me for one, despite my saying earlier that Dawkins may be right. Could it possibly be that you don't know enough religious people to say with personal certainty that they are all scared or stupid, or all violent towards women and children?

You say you were raised by atheists, and that this means you have no bias. Think about that statement, if you will. Does it follow?

And with that, I fear that I have trespassed too much on the tolerance of this blog.

hugh Milan · 30 January 2009

Thankyou

I really appreciate you taking the time trying to correct the ways of a religio bigot Nazi like myself.

Good luck and take care.

Maybe I've been watching too much Christoper Hitchens. Or maybe I'm right and religious people are a pain in the arse.

Whatever the case I agree with you nobody knows what the f..k going on.

Peace.