Now this is pretty damn cool. Peter McGrath of the Beagle Project Blog liveblogged the airing of the 2nd episode of Richard Dawkins' The Genius of Charles Darwin (I posted a few thoughts last week here). Michael Barton and Richard Carter show up, too, and it's definitely some interesting commentary on the documentary.
I still have to liveblog my 2nd viewing of the first episode (and I hope to do the same for the other two parts), but after watching the first half of the 2nd episode last night I have to say that I'm not very impressed by this series. I can see now why many critics of Dawkins say that he oversimplifies science in his attempt to popularize it, and there are a number of things that I think he gets wrong (either directly or by his desire to hold Darwin up in the highest esteem). Perhaps it is more of an unintentional flub than an error but I did find it amusing that Dawkins kept saying that ancient hominids were evolving "toward" our species but then he immediately denies that evolution has a goal or is teleological. The hypothetical chimp-like female who gave birth to two offspring, one giving rise to our lineage and the other to that of chimpanzees, is likewise a poor choice, as if we could actually trace both lineages back to one single ape Eve.
Alone such little mistakes are not very important, but from what I've seen it seems like the episodes are pockmarked with mediocre examples, poor word choice, and generally do not make a good argument for evolution (I wouldn't show it to someone to introduce them to the concept, that's for sure). Maybe my opinion will be less harsh when I review it again but in general, despite the good production values, the content of the installments don't make that strong and entirely accurate case for evolution.
- Log in to post comments
I'm reluctant to say anything until the whole series is available, and I should probably re-watch the second episode (maybe we can coordinate a synchronized liveblogging shindig of some kind). I've found stuff to like: Dawkins having a civil chat with the primatologist who disliked the "selfish gene" business, for example. I also think some pieces play out differently to the "generally interested public" and to people who have been immersed in technical arguments for a while. For example, Dawkins goes and interviews Steven Pinker, but what they talk about isn't so controversial — it certainly isn't the lunatic "let's invent just-so stories to turn every Western gender stereotype into an evolutionary adaptation!" current of evo-psych.
Maybe this is just a function of my own biased sample of biology knowledge, but I had fewer winces in the second episode than the first.
That did give me pause. Again, though, the most galling aspect of all is how easily it could have been done right.
Some might call your review pedantic but Richard Dawkins really aught to know better. FYI, Peter also liveblogged the first episode.
Karen; I have not yet begun to review (or be pedantic). :)
There are things to nitpick in almost any documentary, but Dawkins is just making it so easy with this new series. If there was just one little error or slip here and there, I probably wouldn't say much, but this series has me wincing more than it ought to. It's not enough to try to teach people about evolution; it has to be done right. Unfortunately for Dawkins I don't think he's doing a very good job of it, in this case, but that is certainly debatable. Thanks for the link, too! I shall try to pop in for the next liveblogging session for the final installment.
I just watched the third episode (torrented from here, although other options are probably available). To my eye, it was the best of the three; so, if I go back and look at the earlier ones, particularly the first, I'll probably be wincing all the harder.