Pharyngula

Posted by: LisaJ | August 6, 2008 5:27 PM

Can't wait to watch this! That is a very bold statement, indeed. But damn true. It's very sad that something so honest is so taboo in your country and would stop such a gem from making it to broadcast.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 5:34 PM

I think I'm going to watch this after "So You Think You Can Dance" tonight.

And tomorrow I'm finding a place without wireless access so I can actually get some writing done...unlike today.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 6, 2008 5:38 PM

Thethyme (#2):

I was actually in that Human Evolution hall just the other weekend. Most of it was fantastic, but they did waste a TV screen on a video of Francis "tripartite waterfall" Collins. Even a reconstruction of the Laetoli footprints has more "spiritual" weight than that.

Posted by: SC | August 6, 2008 5:40 PM

I think I'm going to watch this after "So You Think You Can Dance" tonight.

It's the finale! I'll be watching. I wish there were somewhere that had SYTYCD nights...

Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 6, 2008 5:45 PM

With regard to the recent PZ Myers interview - the interviewer had PZ at his disposal but just couldn't bring himself to ask the tough questions required of the situation. The Eucharist, and its desecration, was only mentioned on one occasion and the issue was summarily brushed under the rug.

This is particularly important given that if the issue had been delved into with sufficient detail the listeners would have had a better grasp of the type of character PZ is - especially when you have PZ presenting himself as the goody, goody tenured professor out to discover scientific truths as opposed to the neo/arch-Darwinist whose Machiavellian - "the ends justify the means" - approach to presenting *his* *personal* truths obscure his half-hearted protestations against framing (as seen in his unseemly spat with with Professor Nisbet). Misconceptions are perfectly acceptable provided they serve the purpose of progressing to the point where his, way, way left of field, Overton window becomes the focal point and his faith-based views are satisfied. In effect there can be no room for God - you can have your Dawkins, I'll take my Einstein.

We see much of the same problem with Dawkins. I'll leave it to someone far more eloquent than I, Deborah Orr, writing in The Independent:

In expressing the overwhelming nature of his admiration for Darwin and his genius in constructing his theory of evolution, Dawkins left the viewer with the impression that he had no reason to believe in God because Darwin was his prophet instead.

I personally find it disgraceful that unlike that farce of an interview where you at least have two separate views presented, this is being presented as a *factual* documentary on its on. How any school could knowingly allow Dawkins to have unfettered access to young minds is beyond me. But then a similar argument could be made against PZ Myers at UMM, as well it should.

____________________________________________________________
Dies Irae, Ben Stein, Dawkins

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 6, 2008 5:48 PM

It's worth considering how the Nice Hair crowd are going to respond to this, if they deign to notice it at all (last I checked, they completely ignored The Enemies of Reason). Maybe we could save them some time with a little game of Communication Experts Mad Libs:

"Richard Dawkins has once again proved himself the [RADIO TALK SHOW HOST] of science. Instead of deferring to the [SYNONYM FOR "FUZZY"] moderates or acknowledging the savvy of the [IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY] communication experts, he prefers to lend [TYPE OF AMMUNITION] to the creationist movement by exhibiting all the arrogance of [TELEVANGELIST]. He would Advance the Cause far better if he embraced proper framing techniques, as practiced by the campaign of [FAILED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE]."

Posted by: Nick | August 6, 2008 5:52 PM

As much as I dig Dawkins and find him a charismatic, eloquent voice, I really dislike his treatment of the kids in the classroom when he first encounters them. It's obvious that they have no idea what evolution is, if they think it's somehow of equal worth to religious superstitions. To object to their deeply held belief before even presenting the (unimpeachable) case for evolution is to put them on the defensive immediately, and to reduce the likelihood of their accepting the new idea. Makes for good shock TV, but doesn't produce the sort of dialogue that can change someone's mind.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 6, 2008 5:53 PM

How any school could knowingly allow Dawkins to have unfettered access to young minds is beyond me.

yes, Pete, you've made it abundantly clear the many, many things that are beyond you.

that you don't recognize this as a problem is humorous.

Your concerns are noted, and they are stupid.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 5:54 PM

NJ,

how else is Petey supposed to get sexual victims?

Posted by: Steve_C | August 6, 2008 5:56 PM

Pete sure hates facts.

A cracker is just a cracker. Evolution is the ONLY explanation for the existence of life on this planet.

Reality is a bitch.

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Oh how interesting Peter! (snickers)
You, know, you have a good point there! (chokes back a guffaw)
Yes Dawkins and PZ are evil, eeeeeeviiiiiillllll, I'll tell you! (stifling laughter, tears streaming down cheeks).
By Jove, I think you are on to something, Peter! You are the voice of reason! I never realized how astute you are! Someone give this man a cookie!!!(laughs hysterically and falls down)

Posted by: Luis Dias | August 6, 2008 6:11 PM

"Life, Darwin and Everything..."

ROFLMAO!!

The guy is a Douglas Adams fan forever.

Heck I can't blame him. So am I!!

Posted by: Joe Z. | August 6, 2008 6:17 PM

I noticed nobody had yet pointed out the "Life, Darwin, and Everything" subtitle, so I thought I had an opportunity to be the first. Then my Internet connection was cut off and Luis beat me to it. Curse you, Verizon!

Posted by: Jim Harrison | August 6, 2008 6:21 PM

I wish Dawkins wouldn't misrepresent the history of geology in order to make his story simpler and more dramatic. You'd have to look very hard to find a reputable geologist in 1800 who was unaware of the great antiquity of the Earth. Then as now, biblical, young-earth geologists were cranks and recognized as such. Lots of geologists, especially English geologists, were Anglican clerics; but they one and all were careful to distinguish what we now call science from religion. Since the emergence of historical geology has now been exhaustively documented by Martin S. Rudwick in a wonderful series of books, there is no excuse for retailing the old warfare of science and theology bit. It's hogwash.

Posted by: JoJo | August 6, 2008 6:23 PM

I found the documentary to be interesting and well done. I particularly liked how Dawkins showed that natural selection occurs in humans with the example of the prostitutes and HIV.

Posted by: nemo | August 6, 2008 6:26 PM

Evul Dawkins made the little children cry :P

Posted by: geru | August 6, 2008 6:29 PM

Seems a bit like Dawkins is struggling with the questions of the students, and he's being a bit defensive. Well, I hope it gets better from here on.

Posted by: El Herring | August 6, 2008 6:36 PM

Nick #13:

To object to their deeply held belief before even presenting the (unimpeachable) case for evolution is to put them on the defensive immediately, and to reduce the likelihood of their accepting the new idea.

Shame isn't it. I just think it's just a pity he didn't get a chance to un-indoctrinate them sooner in life.

Posted by: Hap | August 6, 2008 6:41 PM

Unfortunately, Mr. Rooke keeps detailing (at length) the things that are beyond him - logic, reason, and honesty being three of them. No references to mini-skirts of human skin or rape fantasies, though, so I guess I should be grateful.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2008 6:47 PM

Physicalist #32 wrote:

Sure is heavy handed with the science vs. religion theme. I wouldn't be opposed to that in general, but it doesn't sit too well with me in the context of a piece specifically on Darwin and his genius.

I don't think the documentary is supposed to be a neutral science piece -- it's also dealing with science vs. religion. There have been other documentaries on evolution and Darwin which left out the atheism angle. The producers, or Dawkins, or both, obviously wanted to include it.

I suspect an evolution documentary hosted by Ken Miller or Francis Collins would be certain to include sections on how it harmonizes with religious views. That's one of their special themes, just as the opposite tack is Dawkins'.

It makes more sense I think to criticize it as Jim Harrison is doing -- or as we do with theistic evolution -- on points, rather than on content per se.

Posted by: El Herring | August 6, 2008 6:51 PM

6EQUJ5: Good point about the giraffes. Natural selection is more complex than we generally give it credit for. We humans tend to think linearly, but I reckon NS has probably more of a multi-faceted, fractal way of working, in all sorts of directions we tend to miss.

(p.s. Like the username, but then I'm into astronomy too! Wonder how many other posters here know what it refers to?)

Posted by: donpakka | August 6, 2008 7:04 PM

I didn't think it was heavy handed at all, considering the bunk most kids are forced to swallow in their first fifteen years. Heavy handed is being forced to listen to a raving loon every Sunday telling you that you will certainly burn for eternity if you don't confess and repent.

The parents are the problem. Luckily, my children have open minds. They've heard all the religious side has to say. And have decided it's quite silly. We have a standard catholic issue statue of Mary that they've placed in the corner, because they think she was a bad girl.

Posted by: Luis Dias | August 6, 2008 7:07 PM

No way, you mean that evolution theory with all its subtleties and simple mechanisms is vastly superior to "GODIDIT"?

How could that be?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 6, 2008 7:10 PM

EV # 28
As pinatas, nothing will come out as they are all empty shells. Absolutely nothing of substance in any of them.

Posted by: Ted Powell | August 6, 2008 7:13 PM

Pete Rooke #9:

This is particularly important given that if the issue had been delved into with sufficient detail the listeners would have had a better grasp of the type of character PZ is -

Although one can appreciate the temptation to do this sort of thing _{^{(no evidence)}}, this is, after all, a science blog.

Posted by: David Utidjian | August 6, 2008 7:14 PM

If there is one thing I can thank my parents for it is that I was not brought up as a god bothering twit. I listened to those kids and I suppose I felt much the way they did at that age but I just can't remember hanging on to any sort of religion as tenuously as they. The striking part was the use of the term "made to believe." Fortunately for me I never really had to get over the hump of religious indoctrination. PZ, Dawkins, and other parents like them have very lucky kids.

-DU-

Posted by: Dave UH | August 6, 2008 7:19 PM

Oh my gosh, what kind of school was that. Those kids needed that good dose of reality. The sad thing is I doubt that Prof. Dawkins had to go far to find children who held those views.

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2008 7:22 PM

As pinatas, nothing will come out as they are all empty shells. Absolutely nothing of substance in any of them.

Posted by: Matthew | August 6, 2008 7:26 PM

I personally find it disgraceful that unlike that farce of an interview where you at least have two separate views presented, this is being presented as a *factual* documentary on its on. How any school could knowingly allow Dawkins to have unfettered access to young minds is beyond me. But then a similar argument could be made against PZ Myers at UMM, as well it should.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. There simply IS NO factual alternative to evolution. ID says "man, the earth is like so complicated n' stuff - God did it". Creationism says, "God did it".

Evolution is not up for debate any more. It's true, it's a fact, it's accepted. (except for the religious nut jobs that require no evidence for their beliefs).

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 6, 2008 7:29 PM

6EQUJ5? Wow!

Posted by: El Herring | August 6, 2008 7:37 PM

Some fundy on a hunting trip gets a load of buckshot in his guts from his moonshine-fueled cousin and he's begging for help from the same 'science' he's been telling his kids isn't capable of explaining how life came about.

Beats me how any of them can bring themselves to use computers to spew their hatred of anything scientific. Talk about hypocritical. I actually read one rather nauseating example from one them making the excuse that computers were "technology" and therefore nothing to do with science. Do they think computers are delivered directly from heaven or something? Honestly, I despair for the human race sometimes. "We're not gonna make it."

Posted by: sjburnt | August 6, 2008 7:43 PM

This needs to be in US public schools. I cannot wait to see the next installment. We are fortunate for many things, but access to honest information is really a treat.

Posted by: Wes | August 6, 2008 7:47 PM

When talking about the theory of evolution, or when tearing apart religious claims, Dawkins is excellent.

But unfortunately, on the history of science, he's way, way, way off. I had to stop watching when Dawkins said Darwin was one of the first scientists to realize that fossils were long dead species. That's nonsense. This fact was well-known in geology and biology even before Darwin was born.

It's true that a lot of folk stories about fossils involved them being the bones of sinners from the flood or ornaments put in the ground by God or bullshit like that, but these views were primarily among the common folk. They held little or no sway in the scientific community even by the late 1700s.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 6, 2008 7:55 PM

Does anyone what museum Dawkins is walking around in during the opening minutes? The one with all the "stuffed animals".

I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure it's the Natural History Museum in London.

Posted by: JJ | August 6, 2008 8:01 PM

Well, I wish Dawkins would have spoken in my high school science class, way back when I was in high school. I think they did a good job with the first epsiode. I look forward to viewing episode 2 next week. There is never enough time when Dawkins speaks.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2008 8:09 PM

Ray Mills #60 wrote:

Would it be a bad thing if people like Richard Dawkins or our own PZ went down to the local high school to teach a class on their own specialist subject? I think not.

I think it might depend. Teach evolution? Certainly. Teach public high school students that evolution makes positing the existence of God unnecessary, and is one of the factors which lead to their atheism? No. Despite the fact that I agree with them, in the United States, at least, it would not be appropriate at that level. Certainly not if it's the theme of their lecture (and not just in response to a personal question.)

Separation of church and state. If it would be wrong for a religious biologist to come in and specifically teach public school children that the study of evolution strengthened and supported his belief in God -- and makes the existence of God more likely (twisting into metaphysical pretzels) -- then it's wrong the other way. Either teacher can of course point out the factual controversy, and that some religions have a problem, and some do not, but I don't think either side can then go on to make their case on way or the other. Not at the high school level, in schools funded by taxpayers of all faiths, and none.

Which, unfortunately, means that this wonderful documentary not only wouldn't -- but probably shouldn't -- be shown to the American analogs of the nice British teens.

Posted by: Logicel | August 6, 2008 8:17 PM

Dawkins' relating to the high school kids was masterful--respectfully distant but at the same time honest and direct. His focusing on that no one should be made to believe anything was much needed. His encouraging them to ask questions and to seek evidence is the perfect antidote to what ails many a school kid. Evidence speaks for itself.

Recently noticed that our comments are now preceded by our IDs. Joy for joy, I now can avoid getting slimed by reading Rooke's shit by just skipping ever so lightly and happily over his disgusting, disjointed, dishonest detritus. My hot water bill will be much improved, as I will no longer have to shower after reading Rooke's stinking garbage.

Posted by: Luis Dias | August 6, 2008 8:19 PM

Sastra, #71

Dawkins said that thing about atheism and evolution in the video alright, but did he say it really to the students? All I remember is hearing him questioning his students if they should accept knowledge from hearsay or from order of hearsay.

Posted by: Ollybeth | August 6, 2008 8:23 PM

Good old Lyme Regis! Though I can't help feeling a little bitter about having wandered around there for a whole afternoon when I was younger without finding a single fossil.

I liked the documentary, but I don't know that it would convince anyone of anything; to me it seemed he sort of skated over lots of different points and didn't really delve into any of them. And maybe this was just the way it was edited, but when he was with the kids he seemed to be stating an awful lot but never really presenting them with the evidence. Still, it's good to see TV shows really encouraging kids to think about things.

As far as basic explanations go I still prefer David Attenborough's very succinct summing-up in Life On Earth - watching that as a kid really helped me understand evolution and the progress of life. (And I cannot wait to see the other series he's planning.)

Posted by: Andrew JS | August 6, 2008 8:25 PM

This does look really good, from the first two minutes I saw. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until I'm back on campus with real internet before I can watch it. I'm sure you guys don't understand the pain of being STUCK with dial-up with no other practical options.

Posted by: Wowbagger | August 6, 2008 8:32 PM

To be fair to Pete Rooke (I never thought I'd see myself write that), he has, at least, abandoned his perverted misogynistic and violent fantasies-as-analogies approach and resorted to pathetic ad hominem attacks.

The lying about Einstein, of course, is about as low and disingenuous as you can get. So he's still a scumbag of epic proportions - but at least he's taking his meds this week.

Posted by: raven | August 6, 2008 8:43 PM

Peter Rooke is here. Time for your daily dose of dead bodies with torture-rape fantasies.

He is BTW, really a priest. However, it is a priest of the Count Dracula Church of Really Fresh Sacraments. Part of the Vatican's multicultural outreach efforts. Hey, the Undead needed a place for the Vampires, Zombies, and Ghouls.

Not sure where they get their Really FreshTM meat and blood. But I have a feeling that sales of silver bullets, garlic, and wooden stakes in the neighborhood just went up.

Posted by: Physicalist | August 6, 2008 9:14 PM

@ Sastra (#39):

Well it's fair enough for Dawkins and the producers to take whichever slant they prefer with this. And I'm not really complaining; what I've seen of it so far is quite good.

It just does seem to me that it's being billed as an account of Darwin & his theory:

As the 150th anniversary of the scientist's magnum opus On the Origin of Species approaches [along with his 200th birthday!], Richard Dawkins presents a guide to the life and work of Charles Darwin and explains what he sees as the continuing significance of his theory of evolution by natural selection

I still haven't read Janet Browne's biography of Darwin (it's on my shelf, and on my list), but I strongly doubt that Darwin actually underwent a radical transformation from young-Earth creationism to old-Earth naturalism, but it seems that the program is trying to imply that such a transformation took place. (Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but that's what I took away.) But isn't it the case that naturalists were already pretty comfortable with a pretty old Earth that contradicted Genesis, and with a form of evolution (specifically Lamarkian)?

But, that said, I am inclined to think that the religious origin of the current resistance to Darwin (as evidenced nicely by the students that Dawkins is teaching) does do quite a bit to justify tackling the religion vs. science theme head on. And the show does a good job of it.

Posted by: mandydax | August 6, 2008 9:31 PM

That was simply brilliant. Every time Richard puts forward the comparison of the ToE's power to explain to that which does the explaining. It's really a very simple idea, but its implications are immense. I look forward to the the next program and hope that you'll post them here, too. Thanks, PZ!

Posted by: sohbet odaları | August 6, 2008 9:41 PM

Thanks a lot