Spreading the word: Dawkins, looking youthful for his 67 years, is pictured with a copy of his book The God Delusion.
Credit: AFP
Richard Dawkins is sitting on a cheap, beige sofa waiting for his make-up. Dressed – with typical elegance – in a grey suit, blue shirt and a tie covered with images of eagles, gorillas and other wildlife, the scourge of creationism is preparing for his appearance on Richard & Judy, a daytime TV chat show in which husband-and-wife team Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan interview some of Britain's more intriguing celebrities.
Tonight, model Jodie Marsh is scheduled to defend girls who have 'boob jobs', while sports journalist Des Lynam will reminisce about his career as a TV commentator. In between, Dawkins is set to inform viewers about the intricacies of evolutionary theory.
It's an odd TV line-up to say the least – though Dawkins seems unperturbed about the company he's keeping. This precisely spoken, uncompromising academic will do anything to promote the cause of Darwinism, after all. Indeed, he would probably try to sell it at a rap competition given half a chance.
On this occasion, however, his brief is precise. He is promoting his latest three-part TV series on evolution – The Genius of Charles Darwin – which has just been shown in Britain and is scheduled for screening around the world, including in Australia and New Zealand, to celebrate the forthcoming 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species.
It's a busy time for Dawkins, who is now 67 (though he could easily pass for a man in his early 50s). Hence our dressing-room meeting: an opportunity for a quiet, uninterrupted interview during a hectic schedule.
"I wanted to do more than just describe how Darwin came to natural selection, but to explore what it means to people today," he says. "The theory was, and remains, the most powerful, revolutionary idea ever put forward by an individual."
The end result is typical Dawkins: an eloquent presentation of how Darwin developed his theory; an uncompromising description of its operation in the wild; and a few barbed anti-religious jibes for good measure.
We see lions hunting down zebras and polar bears slaughtering seals, he says. The weak are killed off, leaving only animals best suited to their environment to pass on their genes to future generations. Slowly these genes accumulate until a new species emerges. This is natural selection – though it is scarcely a pleasant business.
"The total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation," Dawkins insists. "For most animals, reality is a business of struggle, suffering and sudden death."
Nevertheless, this is how species appear and die out, a process that drives evolution not just on Earth but throughout the galaxy, Dawkins argues.
"I would put my shirt on betting that if there is life anywhere else in the universe – and it may be weird, weird, weird – that it will be Darwinian in origin," he says.
It's an intriguing argument. But couldn't life evolve in non-Darwinian ways on other planets, I ask? For instance, couldn't creatures on another world change in ways so that characteristics acquired during their lifetimes – powerful muscles, long necks, or thick skins – would be passed on directly to future generations, thus driving evolution?
After all, the inheritance of acquired characteristics was an idea (originally outlined in the early 19th century by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck but later disproved as an influence on life on Earth) that Darwin thought, briefly, might have had some impact on evolution here.
But Dawkins is emphatic: "The idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is too crude to produce detailed adaptations like the eye or the human brain."
The key point about natural selection, he argues, is that if there is a change in the wiring of a creature's nerves, or in its biochemistry, or its anatomy, and this alteration produces an improvement in its survival, then that change will be passed on automatically.
But most characteristics acquired by a creature during its lifetime are actually harmful – broken bones, lost limbs – and if these were passed on, as Lamarck argued, species would be wiped out almost as soon as they got started. "That is why I am sure natural selection is not confined to this planet. It is a universal, cosmic force," adds Dawkins.
second go
Odd I was just at the end of my comment when it just disappeared, so maybe I will start where I was ending. There is no sensible reason for believing in god, I put forward fear as the greatest reason why someone wants to believe an ancient, illogical idea, living is difficult, imagining a heaven helps get many through this life. So why can many people even after having religion thrust at them for most of their lives say no don't be so ridiculous and others, many university educated, say I believe?
So is it all in our genes - has anyone looked at it? Nature or nuture, no not nuture if it was we would still be sheltering in caves, not moving forward.
I do believe that there might be more to existance than we can "see" right now, but I'll leave all that to sci-fi for the present, no doubt I'll be long gone before we find other dimensions full of strange species, if we get that far of course?
This is a better comment I wonder where my first one got to?
Why so much fear?
"There is no sensible reason for believing in god, I put forward *fear* as the greatest reason why someone wants to believe an ancient, illogical idea..."
I find it intriguing that the anti-religious here seem so much in agreement that fear is what motivates religious belief. I submit that this is because evolutionary theory emphasizes an exceptionally negative and frightening view of nature (Dawkins points out in this article his belief that life in nature is a nasty, brutish, short--and painful--struggle), a view that I don't believe is supported by the facts. I submit instead that most members of most species at most times throughout history (note I said "most," not "all") have survived naturally as part of the ongoing balance of nature, without such a nasty struggle, just as humans do. Most humans have time aside from their basic survival concerns to do other things. Animals do too: has Dawkins ever seen otters at play? Or any member of the animal kingdom, for that matter? Evolutionists seem unusually willing to ignore evidence, provided by nature itself, that life isn't always such a painful struggle. They sift the evidence that nature provides them in order to make it fit their theories (and their negative outlook), it seems.
The motivations for religious belief include awe, amazement, wonder, and love, among others. Although if you're an evolutionary theorist and you want to dismiss religion, reducing the issue to fear is certainly the easiest route to take. As for what is sensible, I believe even Dawkins in his book does not rule out entirely the possibility of god: isn't one of his chapter titles "Why God *Almost Certainly* Does Not Exist" or something like that? Admitting it can't be ruled out entirely: a nice, sensible approach, I think.
The motivations for athiest belief
The motivations for atheist belief include awe, amazement, wonder, and love, among others.
where it all began
i certainly believe there to be more than several planets able to create and sustain life; be it similar to our own ecosystem or seemingly uninhabitable. darwin's pond of life; at least one of them; i have myself believe; sits in the north east dem rep of congo; lake kivu could very well have all the necessary ingredients; brewing the soup of life; as where the ocean would normally kill off anything leaving the safety of any thermal vent; here we have fresh water; and pressure pushing this 'soup' of single cell organisms living on a tiny bit of energy - into surrounding fertile forests; so happened life as we know it; but clearly never understood our only function; evolution of the species - transporting a conscience energy; to be released as a living entity; Jesus simply taught us how to care for that energy; how to make sure you survive the separation from the transport; how to leave the chicken without breaking your egg; and he proved evolution of the species to a spiritual entity to be very possible; He was a genius; no more natural selection - you can save yourself! -- :) HGB
where it all began - continued
_It may have seemed blasphemous, that was not the intent. it was written with a youthful enthusiasm; perhaps more a personal enthusiasm than scientifically creationist, if it could be said in such manner. evolution is an interesting and debatable subject and Darwin certainly must have been a kind and generous, open minded intellectual. perhaps true that even Darwin was attacked by creationists in his time, but as with them, have Dawkins not been rowing that same boat in the opposite direction; his attack on religion is brutish and unnecessary. we live in a modern world where we speak of tolerance and peace; we have real issues to deal with; many aspects of it regarding the destruction of resource on a planetary scale; without which, the only evolution would be that of a renewed creation. this earth is a live entity, as are every star and many planets; we should as humans come to accept just how tiny we really are; is Godly conscience unproven? intelligent we may well be; but dumb we can surely be. the function of religious text goes far beyond that of the life hereafter. religion is a blessing to those who embrace the personal developmental aspects of it. but again as before; this is a comment and my current understanding of things considered; i am poetically artistic and secretly religious; i tolerate most people i meet daily, even though i do not always agree with what they do, or their influence on my person or the person i strive to evolve to; by the leading hand of Jesus Christ i have come to know truth. this planet is a deadly place, the better we pray those with influence be granted some wisdom. (..tiny bit of 'atom'ic energy; fluid atmosphere a living transport and matter the building blocks?) is Dawkins not merely discussing Darwins findings on the evolution of a Lego set; but they both fail to mention that Meccano is on its way. Conscience Energy. H.
EVOLUTION AND THE PUBLIC
The vast majority of us, including many with college degrees,are for all practical purposes scientifically illiterate.That's why we see so much foolishness about running cars on hydrogen,for instance.Of course it is technically possible,but it takes so much energy to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water, compress it, ship it,etc, that it is rather unlikely that the process will ever be practical unless someone comes up with a new safe cheap source of huge quantities of energy which may happen,hopefully, someday.Every body who has finished one course in chemistry understands this reasoning perfectly and quickly,and if he or she bothers to keep up with the news on the energy front, knows that such any energy source is at best several decades away fron producing enough energy to enable us to free ourselves from oil and coal.Cheap hydrogen will not be available until we have energy to waste producing it.Therefore you will not be driving a hydrogen fueled car for at least the next tweny or thirty years,but the public's lack of understanding of these facts has not stopped us from encouraging our governments from spending billions on hydrogen fuel research and development.
I could go on for days giving examples of such boondoogles.Perhaps we should just sum it all up by repeating the old saw about nobody ever going broke overestimating the gullibility of the public.
Religion is one of the most finely honed branches, and the original branch, of the study of the mind and the manipulation thereof.Not for nothing is the priesthood known as one of the two oldest professions.
Rage of reason
I've read several of Professor Dawkins books and seen documentaries in which he explains Natural Selection. He is totally compelling and understands his subject to the most minute detail.
The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is as profound as the Theory of Relativity as a detailed explanation of our existence. It is a scientific theory that is 150 years old.
A scientific theory is not a guess, it is an explanation with many chains of evidence, it is peer reviewed and it is required to make testable predictions. Evolution does this easily with an elegance that Professor Dawkins clearly conveys to his readers, viewers or listeners.
In this day and age I really don't understand anyone who can defend any type of faith based worldview, and I'm glad there are people like Professor Dawkins who can rebut the ridiculous statements they make with such ease.
Dawkins: less than he thinks he knows
Richard Dawkins is one of the best examples of the maxim that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Our scientific progress has made him confident that scientists know everything, despite the fact that what we don't know still dwarfs what we do know; and despite the fact that he does not know enough about climatology or other sciences to debate on those topics, he is still willing to claim that Darwin's ideas were the greatest to ever occur to any human being. Really? Greater than quantum physics, the idea that allows us to peer into the deepest layers of reality itself, and to understand our perceptions of it?
While physicists, after centuries of progress in their field, are still discovering that even some of Einstein's ideas were wrong and that the physical universe is more complex and strange than they ever imagined, we are asked to believe that somehow, one person, Charles Darwin, had one simple idea that could explain everything in the biological world once and for all. How likely is that, really? Isn't it just possible that Darwin's ideas, like those of Einstein or any physicist before him, could still be shown to be limited or undergo radical revision? Why is it that figures such as Dawkins cannot apply their skepticism to science itself, in order to maintain a healthy awareness of its limitations?
Dawkins
This is utter nonsense. Yes, Dawkins says science does a much better job than religion in providing explanations about the universe, but he has always been the first to admit that science doesn't know everything.
Everything Mr Dawkins says
Everything Mr Dawkins says seems so self-evident, how can a reasonably intelligent and independent-minded person possibly disagree with him? The problem is most otherwise reasonably intelligent people are not independent-minded, they abnegate their intelligence. So that Mr Dawkin's only failure perhaps is not explaining which gene makes a person pervasively lie to himself, why and what evolutionary end this might serve. Anthony Steyning