Pharyngula

Posted by: Alyson Miers | January 30, 2009 4:33 PM

Blast it, I didn't hear him diss Genesis. I'm disappointed, I tell you.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 30, 2009 4:37 PM

How odd it seems to hear a television personality who makes eminent sense about science.

He addresses evolution and its critics in the only really sensible manner as well, by showing how we have answers through evolution, as well as through other gains in knowledge. Going down the path of trying to answer each stupid objection of the IDiots is a fool's errand, since they'll always find a new problem if their earlier problems are properly answered.

The one trouble with his newest series coming to America, as it must, is that like many Brits he calls evolutionary theory "Darwinism." Here, it really isn't.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: H.H. | January 30, 2009 4:37 PM

Attenborough was great, but why did the interviewer feel the need to preface his remarks by stating "Here Attenborough shares his view of Darwin's brilliant but controversial theory."

There. Is. No. Controversy. As Attenborough takes pains to point out, evolution is a fact.

Posted by: Roger Scott | January 30, 2009 4:41 PM

He's one of my heroes. A former colleague was somewhat besotted and would have loved to have been Mrs David A. And she was and is quite a catch herself. (She has one of those lovely Julie Andrews accents that makes me weak at the knees.)

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 30, 2009 4:42 PM

Attenborough confuses scientific "theory" with "truth" and does a great disservice to science.

Darwin was a great scientist and created the basis of one of the most important of scientific theories. However, he did not discover the "truth" even if Attenborough says he did. Evolutionary theory is a theory like any other and is advancing and increasing in usefulness year by year. It makes predictions some of which can be falsified and a) is therefor scientific and b) can thereby be improved

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 30, 2009 4:45 PM

Attenborough confuses scientific "theory" with "truth" and does a great disservice to science.

Darwin was a great scientist and created the basis of one of the most important of scientific theories. However, he did not discover the "truth" even if Attenborough says he did. Evolutionary theory is a theory like any other and is advancing and increasing in usefulness year by year. It makes predictions some of which can be falsified and a) is therefor scientific and b) can thereby be improved

Posted by: Jason | January 30, 2009 4:55 PM

Even though none of the words in the title of this post were actually German, something about it reminds me of the titles of posts in the inexplicable sidebar "Top 5 / Most German"

Posted by: Duncan | January 30, 2009 4:59 PM

Blinkered? I am going to start using that here at work. There are a lot of people that are blind to the obvious.

Posted by: Daemonax | January 30, 2009 5:11 PM

Carl Toein, this is unfortunately probably in every country, whether America, England, Germany or here in New Zealand, there are still stupid people that don't know what evolution is, and say that it's a lie among other things.

Schools need some decent evolution education, and critical thinking being taught to students.

Posted by: bigjohn756 | January 30, 2009 5:15 PM

David Attenborough is only 12 years older than I. I feel so absolutely, unequivocally inadequate. I have no excuse.

Posted by: Tom L | January 30, 2009 5:17 PM

+1 on the dismay over casual talk of "theory vs fact." I hate to see the IDiots getting any opportunity to chew holes in the good reputation of "theory," making it some beggar's relative of truth rather than being the best available explanation.

Posted by: Janine, Supercilious Asshole | January 30, 2009 5:24 PM

Jimminy Christmas, we are going to have to disagree. Stick with Peter Gabriel era Genesis.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Lamb Lies Down, baby.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 30, 2009 5:53 PM

Even though none of the words in the title of this post were actually German, something about it reminds me of the titles of posts in the inexplicable sidebar "Top 5 / Most German"

Please explain.

Posted by: BigBob | January 30, 2009 5:59 PM

I used to sit with my Dad and watch Sir David Attenborough's documentaries when I was a kid decades ago, and Sir David has always been around inspiring us and sharing his experiences of the natural world. In my view, he can do no wrong. BTW click on my name to see Sir David's encounter with the family of a Silverback Gorilla. A classic from BBC Worldwide.

Posted by: Mena | January 30, 2009 6:23 PM

Well, they were better in the 80's and 90's, right after Peter Gabriel left.
;^D

Posted by: Luke | January 30, 2009 6:32 PM

@ E.V. (#15):

I like David Cross's version of that story:

The man asks "Jesus, sometimes there was only one set of footprints in the sand. Where where you then?"
Jesus replies "That was when I was taking care of one of the other SIX BILLION PEOPLE, you selfish asshole."

Posted by: Carlie | January 30, 2009 6:36 PM

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who sees the "Most German" posts in the sidebar! I still can't figure out if Seed thinks my IP is European half the time or what.

Posted by: John Morales | January 30, 2009 6:50 PM

Carlie, I too get the "TOP FIVE / MOST GERMAN" stuff* - it happens when I follow a link from this blog to another Pharyngula entry in the English top five. It doesn't happen when I follow a link for one of the recent comments, though. I think it's a bug.

* Lotto als ein "Geschicklichkeitsspiel"? [Geograffitico] is the top one ATM.

Posted by: Horrabin | January 30, 2009 7:07 PM

Hey, there was a promo on that video for "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life". Didn't they see that magazine cover that said DARWIN WAS WRONG about the tree of life?

As for that footprints in the sand thing, my favorite version is still Bullshit, Jesus, Those Are Obviously My Footprints

Posted by: valdemar squelch | January 30, 2009 7:25 PM

Now I can stop apologising for bloody Bryan Appleyard. Sir David Attenborough is a true national treasure, and as a Brit I am proud that we can still punch above our weight in science. Unfortunately, our government's imbecilic education policies mean this won't be true for much longer.

Posted by: black wolf | January 30, 2009 7:28 PM

correction, now I get Most German too.

Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | January 30, 2009 7:58 PM

Felicia Gilljam,

Re #27 - No way. That's way too Irwin. Attenborough needs a more dignified end.

<run direction="away" speed="fast">

...if not, at least he'll be good company when we all end up in Hell with him :-)

Posted by: Jeeves | January 30, 2009 8:06 PM

Some of these comments remind me of the Jimmy Carr joke.

"Some people take the word of Genesis literally. I don't even think Phil Collins is a very good drummer."

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 30, 2009 8:14 PM

Yes, a national treasure, all right.
But Hey, there was a most interesting programme the other night, and I'd love to know what biologists thought of it, What Darwin Didn't Know presented by Armand Leroi:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6sbt/What_Darwin_Didnt_Know/
Lots of evo/devo ,and stuff like that. Anyone here seen it, and could comment?

Posted by: rubberband | January 30, 2009 8:34 PM

It's easier to shift a continent than to change the opinion of a willfully ignorant person.

I suppose Attenborough is aware of this, but sometimes I guess we have to make the effort.

By the way, am I the only one who nearly got a tear in my eye from this geezer's enthusiasm over a blue whale?

Posted by: rubberband | January 30, 2009 8:50 PM

apologies for double, er triple post.

Posted by: Quidam | January 30, 2009 11:48 PM

I am proud to have appeared on BBC with David Attenborough in 1978. He presented the film we made of our Speleological Expedition to Turkey.

Back then if anyone had told me that large numbers of educated people would seriously doubt evolution or thought the world was a few thousand years old, I wouldn't have believed it. I can't believe how far backwards we've gone in thirty years.

Posted by: uncle frogy | January 31, 2009 2:05 AM

the facts of evolution and the all the facts that support it are overwhelming and it is just not creditable that everyone does not understand it but they don't!
I think that he put his finger on the biggest obstacle for the fundamentalists from ever accepting it.
It is the "statement" the man was given by god dominion over nature. which Darwin in describing evolution completely displaces from the "purpose" of life and the universe. We just are one of many things, just one of many events in time.
I was listening to a discussion on the radio about global warming while I was working the other day and the "religious" guy was insistent that what ever solution we came up with it should have man as the most important.
I had forgotten about that kind of thinking as it is clearly wrong the universe has no vested interest in us what so ever that is clear!!
great post
(http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090129is_the_fight_against/media_player_archives?action=listen)

Posted by: Samphire | January 31, 2009 5:11 AM

Tom Gray | January 30, 2009 4:42 PM

Attenborough confuses scientific "theory" with "truth" and does a great disservice to science.

No he doesn't. Attenborough elsewhere makes the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory, the mechanisms by which all living things evolve.

Posted by: Peter Mc | January 31, 2009 6:46 AM

Valdemar Squalch: "Unfortunately, our government's imbecilic education policies mean this won't be true for much longer."

And the BBC's imbecilic commissioning policies mean that post-Attenborough the natural history output is going downhill like a fat bloke in a shopping trolley. If you want to provoke a bout of self-harming, watch The Blue Planet (Attenborough, the Natural History UNit in its pomp), then find a clip (do NOT spend any money on it) of their most recent gob of broadcast vomit Oceans. They do co-productions with the Open University and they are are teachy, preachy and politically correct at a T. And shit.

Posted by: Svetogorsk | January 31, 2009 8:13 AM

There's a lovely interview with Attenborough in today's Guardian - the twist being that the interviewer is a five-year-old girl.

And what's great about it is that Attenborough answers her questions entirely appropriately, in language that she'd understand, without once talking down to her.

Posted by: Marc Abian | January 31, 2009 9:11 AM

If I was interested in getting an Attenborough series, which one should I get?

Posted by: Bootlegger | January 31, 2009 9:55 AM

I checked BBC America's website and found no info on when this show might air in the US. I'd love to show it to my son.

He came home from school the other day (2nd grade) with the revelation that their were "big holes" in the fossil record. They were studying fossils that week. Later in the week a substitute told them all about the cool animatronic dinosaurs at the Creation Museum. She didn't explain that humans would be in the display, just lots of "really cool dinosaur stuff". The kid loves nature shows and listens intently to my explanations so any help is welcomed.

Posted by: Carlie | January 31, 2009 10:48 AM

Don't forget Trials of Life. Although it's a bit more sensationalistic than many of the others, it also addresses evolution a little more directly.

Posted by: mh | January 31, 2009 1:50 PM

I too am finding that interview in The Guardian adorable. Especially the bit where he wonders when it is children learn to read. I'm sure I could read at the age of five... when do kids learn to read these days? I'm only 25, has it changed that much?

Posted by: Svetogorsk | January 31, 2009 4:12 PM

I'm sure I could read at the age of five... when do kids learn to read these days?

My son's five, and he can read quite well - he's known his way around the alphabet for at least the past year. My daughter's three, and she gets the idea of reading, but I don't think she's progressed beyond numbers.

Sir David Attenborough is the best thing that has ever happened to UK television.

In all seriousness, I think David Attenborough is a major reason why Britain isn't anything like as hung up about the whole evolution/creationism thing. Everyone under 50 will have grown up with his work being screened on a regular basis (broadcast in peak hours to massive ratings). I don't think it's exaggerating too much to say that more people in Britain genuinely worship David Attenborough than worship an imaginary deity - he really is that popular, as demonstrated by the fact that the news about him getting hate mail became a major story in the ultra-populist Sun newspaper.

Posted by: Sondra | January 31, 2009 8:51 PM

Speaking of Genesis; about the plague of locusts...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/science/03obswarm.html?_r=1
Serotonin May Be Key to Controlling Locusts

By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: January 29, 2009
Serotonin is at it again.
The ubiquitous neurotransmitter, which moderates all kinds of behaviors in all kinds of animals (including humans), has now been shown to be responsible for turning desert locusts from stand-offish loners into super-gregarious pests.
The discovery, published today in the journal Science, may lead to methods to block the formation of locust swarms. These infestations, which can cover hundreds of square miles and involve billions of vegetation-munching insects, can devastate agriculture and cost tens of millions of dollars to control.
As dwindling supplies of food force locusts to crowd together, the insects shift in just a few hours from a mutual repulsion phase, in which they avoid other locusts, to a mutual attraction phase, in which they start banding together in ever-large groups. Earlier research discovered the sensory stimuli behind this shift: the sight and smell of other locusts, and movement of the hind legs as the insects jostle each other. (In addition to the behavioral shift, the locust’s appearance also changes.)
The new research, by Michael L. Anstey of the University of Oxford, Stephen M. Rogers, now of the University of Cambridge, and colleagues, shows the chemical basis for the change in behavior.
The researchers discovered that the time frame for the behavioral change correlated well with an increase in serotonin in the thoracic ganglia, part of the central nervous system. They then showed that if the production or action of serotonin was blocked in solitary locusts, those insects would never undergo a behavioral shift.
“To us this really was the Eureka! moment,” Dr. Anstey said in a telephone news conference announcing the finding. Scientists had struggled to understand swarming behavior for decades, he said, “and now all of a sudden we understand the process enough to stop it from happening.”
Dr. Rogers said the discovery opens a line of research into ways of blocking specific serotonin receptors, “something that would allow us to break apart these swarms before they develop.”

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 31, 2009 11:33 PM

Why does it matter who speaks? Does UVM withhold your degree if you don't attend commencement? My university didn't.

It's a ritual, no more or less meangingful than any of the rituals the old charlatans at the local church put you through. The real accomplishment was getting the 120 hours of study done - the rest is pomp and circumstance, empty of any real substance.

Let Stein talk - spend your time doing something more important than listening to him. Like clipping your nose hair...

manufactroversy.

There isn't a controversy among the people in the field about the fact of evolution. Only about the some of mechanisms.

Posted by: marko | February 1, 2009 5:51 AM

rubberband:

"By the way, am I the only one who nearly got a tear in my eye from this geezer's enthusiasm over a blue whale?"

Raises hand — but then, blue whales aren't the biggest creatures in the world. I've read on one of those top-ten lists and heard in a science podcast that trees, in fact a whole forest of interconnected trees somewhere in the U.S. constitutes the biggest creature.

But enough nitpicking. Sir Attenborough's elation in that scene is really contagious.

Posted by: Si-ence | February 1, 2009 10:34 AM

marko:

If you're going to nitpick you should really take the time to note that "creature" is a term used to describe a living organism characterised by voluntary movement. Trees move, but not voluntarily.

Posted by: AdamRutherford | February 1, 2009 5:04 PM

H.H. and others, Hi, I was the interviewer, and it's me doing the v/o at the beginning. Perhaps it isn't clear the way I worded it, apologies. But you can't deny that ToE has *caused* controversy. PZ's blog would be mainly admin for undergrads otherwise.

Hey! Joke!

Posted by: AndyD | February 2, 2009 9:35 AM

Regarding evolution and controversy - of course the theory is controversial, just not among those who actually matter.

In a case like this, those that know there's no controversy because evolution is a fact, don't matter. Those who know there's no controversy because evolution is a lie, don't matter.

The people "who actually matter" are those who don't know much about the "evolution debate" but who are being told there is a controversy. Parents and teenagers are surely the target audience for something like this and if Attenborough can't pull them to our side, no one can.

I hope we get this in Oz soon. Anyone know if it's due?

Posted by: BigBob | February 2, 2009 5:09 PM

Bootlegger #68

My kids and I sympathise. 'Educator' will remain a primary role in both our lives for the forseeable future. Visit youtube from time to time for good science material, you can always search on Attenborough there and of course any of his titles as discussed above. Never let a creationist 'teacher' get a shot past you. Not even one.

Posted by: Zachary | March 19, 2009 11:01 PM

Unfortunately for those hopeful of an increase in a scientific understanding of our origin, there has, if anything, been a recent religious resurgence in the world DESPITE the discovery of DNA, carbon-dating and continental drift.

Why is it acceptable to teach faith to children before their minds are fully developed? At least let them reach rationality. At least give them a chance.

Another great series aired on the BBC recently is 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. Not a critique, as it sounds, but a history of both the 'idea' and the consequences (eg eugenics). Off the topic of Sir David, I've just realised, but it's typed now and a good recommendation.

And actually, Sir David only started dissing Genesis when Tony Banks sported a fake moustache for the 'Illegal Alien' video. He loved this, for example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_L-S-0Gc4I