Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My quick capsule review of the Dawkins talk on Monday evening: pretty boring. His speech was called The Purpose of Purpose and the basic thesis was that natural selection has provided for traits and aptitudes in human beings that can be turned into something unhealthy in the human race as a whole. For instance, feeling kinship with our relatives is undoubtedly an adaptive trait that was selected for in our evolutionary past, but it can also be turned into tribalism that leads to wars and conflicts that are clearly non-adaptive and unhealthy.
He gave lots of examples of this kind of thing, but there was nothing in the speech that didn't seem entirely obvious to me. Not once did he say something on the subject that made me think about it differently. It all seemed rather mundane and...well, obvious is the only word I can think of. Nothing innovative or unusual or intellectually challenging. But he is a very charming speaker and he was entertaining.
One little tidbit from the speech, though. He played the infamous Ray Comfort banana video near the start of his speech, because Comfort claims that the ridges on the banana were created specifically for humans to hold them and eat them. Dawkins pointed out, quite correctly, that modern bananas have in fact been artificially selected over centuries to look the way they do now; God had nothing to do with it.
He also mentioned, as the Worldnutdaily is relentlessly pimping these days, that Comfort has challenged him to a debate and offered $10,000 to him if he'll agree to a debate with him. Dawkins said that he informed Comfort that if he'll donate $100,000 to his new organization, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, he would agree to such a debate. No response so far.
By the way, I also just found out that Daniel Dennett is going to be speaking at Oakland University in Michigan on April 6th and I have tickets. That should be very interesting, I would think.
Politics
Comments
I just saw Dennett last night at UW and it was pretty interesting. Nothing mind blowing but a few interesting tidbits.
Posted by: Skip | March 3, 2009 9:35 AM
But is Dr. Dawkins going to be interviewed for Mr. Braytons' radio program?
Posted by: SLC | March 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Ed - to those of us who immerse ourselves into the study of evolution, I would agree that's ground already well-covered that students of evolution have already perused. However, to the average college student or thinking person that would attend such an event beyond ardent science students; do you think the speech was still too obvious, that it might not have opened up a new perspective?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 3, 2009 9:40 AM
No, we were not able to get a time to interview him. I would have loved that. On the bright side, I should be able to get PZ Myers, newly minted Guardian columnist, on the show in a couple weeks when he comes to Michigan to speak to the Center for Inquiry. He's giving a speech with the delightful title The Pharyngula: How Ontogeny and Phylogeny Have Been Tangled from vonBaer to Evo-Devo, with Awkward Detours to Haeckel and Creationism. For some reason, really long names for speeches like that crack me up. Can't wait to hear what he has to say.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 3, 2009 9:44 AM
Michael-
I have no way to judge that (I can't really pretend not to know what I know), but it's certainly possible. A few of us talked about that after the speech, that perhaps we just weren't really the target audience and that it's really aimed at people for whom such ideas would be surprising. That may well be the case. But Dawkins is certainly more than capable of surprising me. I can't tell you how many times I have been struck while reading his books by the novelty of an idea he offers. I guess I was expecting that sort of thing tonight and disappointed not to get it. But that may just be one of the ways in which a public talk is different from a book. It may well be that the content was appropriate for the audience; I'm just disappointed not to have heard anything particularly interesting to me. Still glad I went though, and especially glad that I got the chance to meet him and talk to him on Sunday.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 3, 2009 9:49 AM
Gee, Ed, you gave away the plot!
Hearing Dr. Dawkins mock that insufferably arrogant Comfort guy is worth the price of admission.
I'll be at his talk tomorrow night.
Posted by: kamaka | March 3, 2009 9:52 AM
I'm reminded that T.H. Huxley, when informed of Darwin's ideas, thought them entirely obvious ("How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that.") The best ideas often seem obvious, once someone has thought them up.
Posted by: Philbert | March 3, 2009 10:12 AM
That is a shame. It indicates that Dawkins has dumbed down a bit from the original synopsis of his talk. I was afraid of that when he wrote about the Banana Man challenge.
Posted by: Prometheus | March 3, 2009 10:24 AM
I would definitely say that it was a matter of the target audience. I personally found it interesting, because he put things in a perspective that is fairly simple and yet still quite eloquent. I.e. he expressed things in terms that will be easy for me to use in the future.
At the same time, his talk had a very interesting impact on my friend John, who is not at all versed in evolution. The discussion of purpose really gave him a lot of food for thought and led to a very interesting discussion on our way back to K-zoo. The explanation of purpose was pretty revolutionary to John - almost mind blowing.
My major complaint about it was the power-points. Way too distracting for my taste. He also seemed a little off, almost distracted - a couple of times he seemed to lose his place and fumbled his recovery, though just a little.
But I'm definitely glad I got to go, so overall, thanks Ed.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 3, 2009 11:29 AM
I clicked a link the other day which took me to a Ray Comfort web page. Apparently the latest weapon in the goddidit arsenal is that when called out on a monumentally stupid statement to claim that you were being satirical in order to demonstrate how hysterical "Darwinists" get when you challenge their "dogma." That was his explanation of the banana argument, and I noticed another troll doing it somewhere else on ScienceBlogs yesterday. Can't exactly remember where, unfortunately.
Posted by: Pieter B | March 3, 2009 11:44 AM
But Ed, everyone knows you hate PZ! There is no way you could interview him or *gasp* civilly listen to his speech! You guys *disagree*!
Posted by: KeithB | March 3, 2009 11:45 AM
Is this a typo, or did Dawkins really demand 10 times the amount that Comfort offered? If the latter, it seems a bit unreasonable.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 3, 2009 12:04 PM
I agree the 100K figure seems unreasonable, Steve, but then I also think it appropriate given that it is Ray Comfort we are talking about. It would take a lot of encouragement to get one to debate that loon.
Posted by: BruceH | March 3, 2009 12:21 PM
Here is Dawkins rationale for the figure.
Posted by: Alan B. | March 3, 2009 12:23 PM
Steve Reuland said:
That may be unreasonable, Steve, but not as much as Ray "Banana Man" Comfort challenging Richard Dawkins to debate him in the first place. Personally I think Dawkins' response was perfect since Comfort probably only issued the challenge as a PR stunt. Comfort probably didn't expect (and likely didn't want) a response so he could claim Dawkins was scared of him. Instead, Dawkins has now turned the tables around on Comfort and made him put up or shut up.
Hey Ed, I think Comfort has responded with an offer of $20,000 now. Can't remember where I saw it though.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | March 3, 2009 12:31 PM
I would imagine that going to hear Dawkins or Dennett speak at any point over the past few years would be pretty mundane for those of us who have paid attention to their recent writings. They write a book, and then seem to repeat salient points from that book at each speaking engagement-- which is to be expected, but it also means that if you see them once there's no point in seeing them again.
Be sure to let us know if he talks about the lancet fluke, asks the audience how many of them think the most important thing in life is to have grandchildren, and talks about how smart sheep were to cultivate shepherds. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | March 3, 2009 12:53 PM
@Gretchen--
I saw him on Darwin Day--the lancet fluke got passing mention in the question session, the grandchildren question was not asked, and the sheep were a throwaway line.
But yeah, I had heard most of it before, and thought it was weak at points.
Posted by: Anon | March 3, 2009 1:11 PM
Konrad Lorenz said much the same thing 40 years ago - Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins was the title of his book.
Posted by: fusilier | March 3, 2009 1:25 PM
Re:Dawkins asking for $100k.
Frankly, considering that Comfort seemingly doesn't care too much whether he wins or loses debates, as it still gives him publicity, asking for a $100k fee, which then goes to a charity, isn't asking too much. The fact the charity is one set up by Dawkins to promote science and reason just adds lulz to the situation.
Posted by: Smidgy | March 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Hah hah, I was going to say the same thing. Was November of '06 really that long ago?
Posted by: Brandon | March 3, 2009 4:13 PM
Oh, man, you ruined it for me! Going to his talk in Minneapolis tomorrow).
Well at least I get to see the banana movie on the big screen.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 3, 2009 4:32 PM
Comfort did make a counter-offer of $20,000.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90131
I think Dawkins has a great approach though in demanding $100k. Nothing less.
Brian
Posted by: Brian63 | March 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Comfort did make a counter-offer of $20,000.
Although it's not relevant, I can't help but think of Churchill's alleged quip: "We've established what kind of lady you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
Posted by: Grumpy | March 3, 2009 11:36 PM
While I would not have used the word "boring," I, too, came away with a slight feeling of disappointment, until I realized that a speech designed (so to speak!) for an audience of 2000+ members of the general public was going to have to aim for different goalposts; and that what I'd probably most love to see Dawkins at would be something like a graduate seminar. While his talk was not surprising to any of us who take a special interest in the issues he's known for, and esp. those who frequent certain areas of SB, we have to remember that he's a marquee name who's going to attract lots of people that the sites we're used to never will. Not everyone has seen the Comfort nanner vid a zillion times...
Personally, I was most disappointed with the Q & A, because I was expecting the energy level to pick up a bit here; unfortunately this section was greatly diluted in passion by having all Q's filtered through a moderator...
FWIW, my 17-year-old daughter was suitably impressed.
Posted by: Diane G | March 4, 2009 12:44 AM
For instance, feeling kinship with our relatives is undoubtedly an adaptive trait that was selected for in our evolutionary past, but it can also be turned into tribalism that leads to wars and conflicts that are clearly non-adaptive and unhealthy.
How are conflicts and wars non-adaptive and unhealthy, as far as natural selection is concerned? In animals, conflicts over mating rights is clearly adaptive and healthy for the species. Territorial disputes are also adaptive and healthy for the species.
Maybe in humans, one could argue, wars kill so indiscriminately that it has the chance to kill off highly "fit" individuals, but the "fittest" are the ones who survive the battle.
Posted by: wank | March 4, 2009 9:02 AM
I was at the event in question on Monday night at Michigan State and to say I was disappointed was an understatement. Not necessarily because of the subject matter, but because I had nosebleed seats and frankly with his somewhat softspoken UK drawl, I couldn't hear a word he was saying most of the time, and his Q and A at the end was very brief.
Posted by: Bill Bouwman | March 4, 2009 9:43 AM
To follow up with one more thing, despite the fact that there were several thousand people packed into the venue, at all times the crowd was so focused, you could hear a pin drop, which was a testament to the devotion of those who attended.
Posted by: Bill Bouwman | March 4, 2009 9:46 AM
Beginning here, and then continuing in linked parts, you can see video of a Dawkins talk at UVA followed by a very long Q&A that includes lots of questions asked by students from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. It's a great watch if you haven't seen it.
Posted by: Andrew @ EC | March 4, 2009 3:31 PM
Dawkins makes a case for evolution. Since I have no problem with evolution and consider myself a scientific person, I am not interested. I am more interested in the progress of biology, and the latest research, such as what we learnt about the Miller-Urey experimental sample residues etc.
Posted by: rimpal | March 5, 2009 9:10 AM