[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hurray for rationality! > Think Tank Transcript: Evolution/Richard Dawkins > > > > MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. Most Americans believe that > Charles Darwin basically had it right, that human beings evolved from the > so-called primordial soup. But most Americans are also religious and likely > believe that God created the soup. > > We will explore these ideas and others with an outstanding scientist and one > of the world's leading scientific popularizers. The topic before this house: > Richard Dawkins on evolution and religion. This week on 'Think Tank.' > > MR. WATTENBERG: Richard Dawkins is a professor at Oxford University, where > he holds the Charles Simone chair of public understanding of science. > Dawkins has written many books on the topic of evolution, including 'The > Selfish Gene,' 'River Out of Eden,' 'The Blind Watchmaker,' and most > recently, 'Climbing Mount Improbable.' > > Dawkins' writings champion one man -- Charles Darwin. In 1831,Darwin set out > on a five-year journey around the world on the H.M.S.Beagle. His travels > took him to the Galapagos Islands off the coastof Ecuador, where he > catalogued a startling variety of plant and animal life. Darwin saw in such > diversity the key to the origins of all life on earth. > > Today naturalists estimate that there are 30 million species of plants and > animals. According to Darwin's theory, all creatures large and small are the > end result of millions of years of natural selection. > > The reaction to Darwin's theory was explosive. Critics declared that Darwin > had replaced Adam with an ape. Atheists applauded. Benjamin Disraeli, the > prime minister of England, summed up the debate at the time. He said, 'The > question is, is man an ape or an angel? Many laugh. Now I am on the side of > the angels.' > > Today the controversy persists. Evolution is generally accepted, religion > endures, begging the question, is there a conflict? > > Professor Dawkins, welcome. Perhaps we could begin with that fascinating > title, 'Climbing Mount Improbable.' What are you talking about? > > MR. DAWKINS: Living organisms are supremely improbable. They look as if they > have been designed. They are very, very complicated. They are very good at > doing whatever it is they do, whether it's flying or digging or swimming. > This is not the kind of thing that matter just spontaneously does. It > doesn't fall into position where it's good at doing anything. So the fact > that living things are demands an explanation, the fact that it's improbable > demands an explanation. > > Mount Improbable is a metaphorical mountain. The height of that mountain > stands for that very improbability. So on the top of the mountain, you can > imagine perched the most complicated organ you can think of. It might be the > human eye. And one side of the mountain has a steep cliff, a steep vertical > precipice. And you stand at the foot of the mountain and you gaze up at this > complicated thing at the heights, and you say, that couldn't have come about > by chance, that's too improbable. And that's what is the meaning of the > vertical slope. You could no more get that by sheer chance than you could > leap from the bottom of the cliff to the top of the cliff in one fell swoop. > > But if you go around the other side of the mountain, you find that there's > not a steep cliff at all. There's a slow, gentle gradient, a slow, gentle > slope, and getting from the bottom of the mountain to the top is an easy > walk. You just saunter up it putting one step in front of the other, one > foot in front of the other. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Provided you have a billion years to do it. > > MR. DAWKINS: You've got to have a long time. That, of course,corresponds to > Darwinian natural selection. There is an element of chance in it, but it's > not mostly chance. There's a whole series of small chance steps. Each eye > along the slope is a little bit better than the one before, but it's not so > much that it's unbelievable that it could have come about by chance. But at > the end of a long period of non-random natural selection, you've accumulated > lots and lots of these steps, and the end product is far too improbable to > have come about in a single step of chance. > > MR. WATTENBERG: One of your earlier books, a very well known book, is 'The > Selfish Gene.' What does that mean? You call human beings 'selfish gene > machines.' Is that -- > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. It's a way of trying to explain why individual organisms > like human beings are actually not selfish. So I'm saying that selfishness > resides at the level of the gene. Genes that work for their own short-term > survival, genes that have effects upon the world which lead to their own > short-term survival are the genes that survive, the genes that come through > the generations. The world is full of genes that look after their own > selfish interest. > > MR. WATTENBERG: And the prime aspect of that is reproduction? > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. > > MR. WATTENBERG: And so that's what drives all organisms,including human > beings, is the drive to reproduce their own genetic makeup? > > MR. DAWKINS: That's pretty standard Darwinism. > > Mr. WATTENBERG: Right. > > MR. DAWKINS: We are -- in any era, the organisms that live contain the genes > of an unbroken line of successful ancestors. It has to be true. Plenty of > the ancestors' competitors were not successful. They all died. But not a > single one of your ancestors died young, or not a single one of your > ancestors failed to copulate,not a single one of your ancestors failed to > rear at least one child. > > MR. WATTENBERG: By definition. > > MR. DAWKINS: By definition. And so -- but what's not by definition, which is > genuinely interesting, is that you have therefore inherited the genes which > are a non-random sample of the genes in every generation, non-random in the > direction of being good at surviving. > > MR. WATTENBERG: What is motivating great musicians, greatwriters, great > political leaders, great scientists? I mean, what are you doing now? You're > obviously passionate about what you write and what you think and what you're > doing. That is absorbing your life. That does not involve, I don't think, > the replication of your genetic makeup. > > MR. DAWKINS: That's certainly right, and because we are humans, we tend to > be rather obsessed with humans. There are 30 million other species of animal > where that question wouldn't have occurred to you. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but most of our viewers are humans. Now, how does that > work out for --are humans different? > > MR. DAWKINS: Humans, like any other species of animal, have been programmed > -- have evolved by genetic selection. And we have the bodies and the brains > that are good for passing on our genes. That's step one. So that's where we > get our brains from. That's why they're big. > > But once you get a big brain, then the big brain can be used for other > things, in the same sort of way as computers were originally designed as > calculating machines, and then without any change, without any alteration of > that general structure, it turns out that they're good -- they can be used > as word processors as well. So there's something about human brains which > makes them more versatile than they were originally intended for. > > Now, you talked about the fact that I'm passionate about what I do and that > I work hard at writing my books and so on. Now, the way I would interpret > that as a Darwinian is to say certainly writing books doesn't increase your > Darwinian fitness. Writing books --there are no genes for writing books, and > certainly I don't pass on any of my genes as a consequence of writing a > book. > > But there are mechanisms, such as persistence, perseverance,setting up goals > which you then work hard to achieve, driving yourself to achieve those goals > by whatever means are available. > > MR. WATTENBERG: And you believe that is in our genetic makeup? > > MR. DAWKINS: That's what I believe is indicated. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Some people have more of it, some people have less of it. > > MR. DAWKINS: That's right. Now, in the modern world, which is now so > different from the world in which our ancestors lived, what we actually > strive for, the goals we set up, are very different. The goal-seeking > mechanisms in our brains were originally put there to try to achieve goals > such as finding a herd of bison to hunt. And we would have set out to find a > herd of bison, and we'd have used all sorts of flexible goal-seeking > mechanisms and we'd have persisted and we'd have gone on and on and on for > days and days and days trying to achieve that goal. > > Natural selection favored persistence in seeking goals. Nowadays we no > longer hunt bisons. Nowadays we hunt money or a nice new house or we try to > finish a novel or whatever it is that we do. > > MR. WATTENBERG: In this town, political victory. > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes, right. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Why is this so important? I mean, you obviously feel that > this idea of evolution is of primary importance. I mean, this is what makes > the world goes round. Is it, in your view at least, the mother science? > > MR. DAWKINS: Well, what could be more important than an understanding of why > you're here, why you're the shape you are, why you have the brain that you > do, why your body is the way it is? > Not just you, but all the other 30 million species of living thing, each of > which carries with it this superb illusion of having been designed to do > something supremely well. A swift flies supremely well. A mole digs > supremely well. A shark or a dolphin swims supremely well. And a human > thinks supremely well. > > What could be a more fascinating, tantalizing question than why all that has > come about? And we have the answer. Since the middle of the 19th century, we > have known in principle the answer to that question, and we're still working > out the details. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Well, I read that, and a long time ago I read some of > Darwin. Darwin doesn't really answer the question why we are here. He > answers the question of how we are here. I mean, why in a-- when you > normally say, well, why are we here, you expect a theological answer or a > religious answer. Does Darwin really talk about why we are here in that > sense? > > MR. DAWKINS: Darwin, if I may say so, had better things to do than talk > about why we are here in that sense. It's not a sensible sense in which to > ask the question. There is no reason why, just because it's possible to ask > the question, it's necessarily a sensible question to ask. > > MR. WATTENBERG: But you had mentioned, you said that Darwin after all these > years has told us why we're here. > > MR. DAWKINS: I was using 'why' in another sense. I was using'why' in the > sense of the explanation, and that's the only sense which I think is > actually a legitimate one. I don't think the question of ultimate purpose, > the question of what is the fundamental purpose for which the universe came > into existence -- I believe there isn't one. If you asked me what -- > > MR. WATTENBERG: You believe there is not one? > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. On the other hand, if you ask me, what is the purpose of a > bird's wing, then I'm quite happy to say, well, in the special Darwinian > sense, the purpose of a bird's wing is to help it fly, therefore to survive > and therefore to reproduce the genes that gave it those wings that make it > fly. > > Now, I'm happy with that meaning of the word 'why'. > > MR. WATTENBERG: I see. > > MR. DAWKINS: But the ultimate meaning of the word 'why' I do not regard as a > legitimate question. And the mere fact that it's possible to ask the > question doesn't make it legitimate. There are plenty of questions I could > imagine somebody asking me and I wouldn't attempt to answer it. I would just > say, That's a silly question,don't ask it. > > MR. WATTENBERG: So you are not only saying that religious people are coming > to a wrong conclusion. You are saying they'reasking a silly question. > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. > > MR. WATTENBERG: There is a scientist in the United States named Michael > Beahy -- I'm sure you're involved in this argument --who is making the case > -- he is not a creationist, he is not a creation scientist, or at least he > says he's -- > > MR. DAWKINS: Well, I'm sorry, he is a creationist. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Well, he says he's not. > > MR. DAWKINS: He says he's not, but he is. > > MR. WATTENBERG: He says he's not. But his theory is that of a hidden > designer, that there is something driving this process. And could you > explain how you and he differ on this? > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. Like I said, he's a creationist. 'A hidden designer,' > that's a creator. > > MR. WATTENBERG: You say he's a hidden creationist. > > MR. DAWKINS: Well, he's not even hidden. He's a straightforward creationist. > What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th > century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are > certain organs,certain systems in which all the bits have to be there > together or the whole system won't work. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Like the eye. > > MR. DAWKINS: Like the eye, right. The whole thing collapses if they're not > all there. > > Now, Darwin considered that argument for the eye and he dismissed it, > correctly, by showing that actually the eye could have evolved by gradual > stages. Bits of an eye -- half an eye is better than no eye, a quarter of an > eye is better than no eye, half an eye is better than a quarter of an eye. > > MR. WATTENBERG: I mean if it has some sight, but if you just created the > windshield wiper, it doesn't -- > > MR. DAWKINS: Exactly. So I mean, there are things which you could imagine > which are irreducibly complex, but the eye is not one of them. > > Now, Beahy is saying, well, maybe the eye isn't one of them,but at the > molecular level, there are certain things which he says are. Now, he takes > certain molecular examples. For example,bacteria have a flagellum, which is > a little kind of whip-like tailby which they swim. And the flagellum is a > remarkable thing because,uniquely in all the living kingdoms, it's a true > wheel. It actually rotates freely in a bearing; it has an axle which freely > rotates. That's a remarkable thing and is well understood and well known > about. > > And Beahy asserts: this is irreducibly complex, therefore God made it. Now > -- > > MR. WATTENBERG: Therefore there was a design to it. I don't think -- > > MR. DAWKINS: What's the difference? Okay. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Whoa. > > MR. DAWKINS: Therefore there was a design to it. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Right. > > MR. DAWKINS: Now -- (audio gap) -- too complex. The eye is reducibly > complex, therefore God made it. Darwin answered them point by point, piece > by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have > said is, well, maybe you can't think of --maybe you're too thick to think of > a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you > should go away and think a bit harder. > > Now, I've done it for the eye; I've done it for various other things. I > haven't yet done it for the bacterial flagellum. I've only just read Beahy's > book. It's an interesting point. I'd like to think about it. > > But I'm not the best person equipped to think about it because I'm not a > biochemist. You've got to have the equivalent biochemical knowledge to the > knowledge that Darwin had about lenses and bits of eyes. Now, I don't have > that biochemical knowledge. Beahy has. > > Beahy should stop being lazy and should get up and think for himself about > how the flagellum evolved instead of this cowardly,lazy copping out by > simply saying, oh, I can't think of how it came about, therefore it must > have been designed. > > MR. WATTENBERG: You have written that being an atheist allows you to become > intellectually fulfilled. > > MR. DAWKINS: No, I haven't quite written that. What I have written is that > before Darwin, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist > and that Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually -- and it's more. > It's more. If you wanted to be an atheist, it would have been hard to be an > atheist before Darwin came along. But once Darwin came along, the argument > from design, which has always been to me the only powerful argument --even > that isn't a very powerful argument, but I used to think it was the only > powerful argument for the existence of a creator. > > Darwin destroyed the argument from design, at least as far as biology is > concerned, which has always been the happiest hunting ground for argument > from design. Thereafter -- whereas before Darwin came along, you could have > been an atheist, but you'd have been a bit worried, after Darwin you can be > an intellectually fulfilled atheist. You can feel, really, now I understand > how living things have acquired the illusion of design, I understand why > they look as though they've been designed, whereas before Darwin came along, > you'd have said, well, I can see that the theory of a divine creator isn't a > good theory, but I'm damned if I can think of a better one. After Darwin, > you can think of a better one. > > MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, isn't the standard rebuttal to that that God created > Darwin and He could have created this whole evolutionary illusion that you > are talking about? And I mean,getting back to first causes that you sort of > -- > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes. Yeah. Not that God created Darwin, but you mean God > created the conditions in which evolution happened. > > MR. WATTENBERG: And Darwin. > > MR. DAWKINS: Well, ultimately Darwin, too. > > MR. WATTENBERG: I mean ultimately. > > MR. DAWKINS: Yes, it's not a very satisfying explanation. It's a very > unparsimonious, very uneconomical explanation. The beauty of the Darwinian > explanation itself is that it's exceedingly powerful. It's a very simple > principle, and using this one simple principle, you can bootstrap your way > up from essentially nothing to the world of complexity and diversity we have > today. Now, that's a powerful explanation. > > MR. WATTENBERG: It's not any simpler. In fact, it's more complex than the -- > than Genesis. I mean, 'And God created the heavens and the earth.' That -- > > MR. DAWKINS: You have to be joking. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Well, I mean, 'God created the heavens and the earth' -- I > can say that pretty quickly. I mean -- > > MR. DAWKINS: You can say it, but think what lies behind it. What lies behind > it is a complicated, intelligent being -- God, who must have come from > somewhere. You have simply smuggled in at the beginning of your book the > very thing that we're trying to explain. What we're trying to explain is > where organized complexity and intelligence came from. We have now got an > explanation. You start from nothing and you work up gradually in easily > explainable steps. > > MR. WATTENBERG: But then I can ask you the same question:where does the > nothing come from? I mean, this is a -- I mean, I don't want this to > degenerate into a sophomore beer brawl, but I mean, you know, that is -- > isn't that the ultimate -- > > MR. DAWKINS: You can ask that. That's the ultimate question. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Right. > > MR. DAWKINS: That's the important question. But all I would say to that is > that it's a helluva lot easier to say where nothing came from than it is to > say where 30 million species of highly complicated organisms plus a > superintelligent God came from, and that's the alternative. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Well, now, you wrote in 'The Selfish Gene'this. 'Living > organisms had existed on earth without ever knowing why for 3,000 million > years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles > Darwin.' > > That sounds to me like a religious statement. That is a --that is near > messianic language. And you are making the case that these other people have > this virus of the mind. That tonality says,I found my God. > > MR. DAWKINS: You can call it that if you like. It's not religious in any > sense in which I would recognize the term. Certainly I look up to Charles > Darwin. I would look up to any body who had the insight that he did. But I > wasn't really meaning to make a particularly messianic statement about > Darwin. > > I was rather saying that not just Darwin, but this species,homo sapiens -- > or for the -- the time that has elapsed between the origin of humanity and > Darwin is negligible compared to the time that elapsed from the origin of > life and the origin of humanity. And so let's modify that statement and make > it a bit more universal and say,life has been going on this planet for 3,000 > million years without any animals knowing why they were there until the > truth finally dawned upon homo sapiens. It's just happened to be Charles > Darwin,it could have been somebody else. > > Our species is unique. We are all members of a unique species which is > privileged to understand for the first time in that 3,000-million-year > history why we are here. > > MR. WATTENBERG: I see. There was a study recently reported, I believe, in > that great scientific journal 'USA Today,' but it's one that had a certain > resonance with me and I think other people. It said that people who are > religious live longer and healthier lives. And it seems to me on its face, > perhaps to you as well, that that makes some sense. I mean, people who do > have a firm belief system and don't worry about a whole lot of things are > healthier. We've seen this in all the mind-body sorts of explorations that > have been going on. > > But does that perhaps put a Darwinian bonus on believing in religion? > > MR. DAWKINS: It could well do, yes. It's perfectly plausible to me. I've > read the same study and I think it might well be true. It could be analogous > to the placebo effect, you know, that many diseases -- obviously they're > cured by real medicines even better,but nevertheless if you give people a > pill which doesn't contain anything medicinal at all, but the patient > believes it does, then the patient gets better, for some diseases. > > Well, I suppose that religious belief can be one big placebo and it could > indeed have highly beneficial effects upon health,particularly where > stress-related diseases are concerned. > > MR. WATTENBERG: So if I want to advise my viewers, I could say, for example, > what Professor Dawkins says is true, but harmful; I would like you to > believe something that's false, and healthy. > > MR. DAWKINS: Yeah, you could say that. I mean, it depends whether you value > health or truth better, more. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Which would you value? > > MR. DAWKINS: For myself, I would rather live a little bit less long and know > the truth about why I live rather than live a few -- it probably isn't very > much longer, actually, which is -- let's be very-- > > MR. WATTENBERG: Suppose it was substantially longer and we were talking > about your children rather than you. > > MR. DAWKINS: Yeah, okay. I mean, these are fascinating hypothetical > questions and I suppose there would come a trade-off point. I mean, there'd > probably come a point when -- but I do think it's important, since this is a > very academic discussion we're having, I think it would be positively > irresponsible to let listeners to this program go away with the idea that > this is a major effect. If it's an effect at all, it's an elusive > statistical effect. > > MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, thank you very much, Professor Richard Dawkins. > > MR. DAWKINS: Thank you. > > MR. WATTENBERG: For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. > > A note of interest to our viewers. Pope John Paul II recently made headlines > on the subject of evolution. On October 24, 1996, the Pontiff declared that > evolutionary theory and faith in God are not at odds. He decreed that even > if humans are the product of evolution,their spiritual soul is created by > God. > > We enjoy hearing from our viewers very much. Please send us comments and > questions. Tell us what kind of programs and guests you want to see. You can > reach us at: New River Media, 1150 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. > 20036; or via e-mail directly at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or check us out on the > Web at www.pbs.org. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/LRMolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
