251. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53521 by Richard Dawkins on July 1, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Creationists are very fond of saying "Dogs are all the same species" but it is an argument of desperation.

First, a relatively trivial point of definition. The biological definition of a species is that, under natural conditions, members of the same species freely interbreed with one another but not with members of other species. My point about dogs arose out of a hypothetical experiment in wolf breeding, so let's extend the experiment. Set up mixed populations of St Bernards and chihuahuas and allow them to associate freely under natural conditions. How many hybrids do we expect to get? I genuinely don't know the answer, but if I were an honest creationist I wouldn't bet on my own rhetoric.

Even if we accept that all dog breeds are still the same species, the less trivial point is that the huge differences among them have been achieved in a few centuries or, at most, millennia. Look at the dramatic differences among dog breeds, and then encourage your imagination to extrapolate over a geological, as opposed to merely historical or archeological timescale. At the modest end of the scale, that means multiplying the observed quantity of change by a thousand. Geological time actually allows you to multiply it by a million. Either way, the extrapolation yields a quantity of change far greater than we observe in nature among the entire range of all mammals.

Richard

252. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52879 by Richard Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:01 am

Several people have been kind enough to ask where I got the t-shirt saying "Evolution: The greatest show on earth, the only game in town." If I knew, I would say. I received it through the mail some years ago, as an anonymous gift. If the donor is, by any faint chance, reading this, thank you thank you, and sorry I couldn't thank you before but you never told me your name or address. It is fading somewhat -- started out black, now grey -- so maybe I should look into how to get a new one printed.

Richard

253. God Hates the World

Comment #51864 by Richard Dawkins on June 25, 2007 at 12:22 pm

This is so appalling (as well as being musically inept) that most people will want to switch it off after the first minute. However, it is worth persisting to the performance by the little girl at the end. More than for anything else I have written, I have been attacked for using the phrase 'child abuse' about certain aspects of religious indoctrination. But I defy any civilized person to watch this video and then deny that 'child abuser' is a completely appropriate description of the little girl's parents, or whoever persuaded her to sing this disgusting song and filmed her doing it. This video may haunt her for the rest of her life, even if she eventually manages to shake off the influence of her evil upbringing.
Richard

254. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51527 by Richard Dawkins on June 23, 2007 at 9:19 am

Don't be too hard on David Baddiel. Remember, this was never intended to be a book review, but just a light-hearted column, perhaps a bit like those 'Diary' pieces that people are sometimes asked to write. And I must say I'm particularly grateful to him for remarking that TGD is FUNNY. I don't think any actual reviewers have noticed that! So, thank you for that, Mr Baddiel.

Richard

255. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48746 by Richard Dawkins on June 9, 2007 at 1:01 am

The Chief Rabbi's article deserves to be read with respect, not because he is the Chief Rabbi but because, unlike most religious apologists, he is big enough to face up to the terrible problems religion really does cause in the world. He deserves praise for inviting his own congregation, and also Christian and Muslim ones, to stop being so smug and wake up to the dangers of faith.

But, speaking for myself, the evils done in religion's name don't provide the primary motivation for atheism. I'm an atheist, not because people do bad things in God's name but because I don't think he exists. What Sir Jonathan doesn't face up to is the scientific implausibility of God. His passing allusions to a pair of scientific books betray this.

"Selfish genes can produce selfless people. Is that miracle or mere chance?" The whole point of The Selfish Gene is precisely that selfish genes foster unselfish organisms. "Loving creator or blind watchmaker?" It is clear from the context that he is using "blind watchmaker" as a synonym for the "mere chance" of the previous sentence. And the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker is that natural selection is NOT "mere chance". Quite the contrary. Natural selection is the only workable ALTERNATIVE to mere chance as a satisfying explanation for our existence. Neither "divine creator" nor "mere chance" can be the explanation, for pretty much the same reason as each other.

Rabbi Sacks is a good, humane man. If he applied to science the same critical intelligence as he displays in his ethical writings, perhaps he would become an atheist too.

Richard

256. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #47041 by Richard Dawkins on June 2, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Our impressive Ecuadorian guides told us that Boobies eventually go blind, the consequence of years of repeated high-velocity impacts of their eyes on the water.

Unfortunately it seems that, on this occasion, our impressive Ecuadorian guides were wrong. Bryan Nelson, old Oxford colleague and world authority on the Sulidae, has written to The Observer saying that the story of the Boobies going blind is false, a myth.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2094265,00.html

I have asked Josh to remove the offending passage.

Apologies

Richard

257. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46463 by Richard Dawkins on May 31, 2007 at 11:09 am

Thank you Josh for getting it up and running again. Apologies for the time when it was not available during today.

Richard

258. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45973 by Richard Dawkins on May 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm

It's precisely because I DO 'get it' that I spend so much of my time and energy fighting to change it.

As for the dozy title, I doubt if Martin Kettle is to blame. I have discovered over years of writing for newspapers that there is an otherwise underemployed species called Sub-Editor. Sub-Editors jealously guard their ancient right to make up titles for articles, which they may or may not have read. By long tradition, the one person who is absolutely debarred from any input into the title is the author. Indeed, if an author is really concerned that a particular title should NOT be used, his best tactic is to suggest it.

Richard

259. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45597 by Richard Dawkins on May 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

Richard, did they really invite you all the way to the Hay Festival just for that?

No, I did four things while at Hay. An on-stage interview with Rosie Boycott about The God Delusion, in front of a large audience who asked questions during the second half. An on-stage discussion with Steve Jones and Martin Rees on the theme of whether we have abandoned the Enlightenment, again with Q & A from a large audience. The Today discussion with Robert Winston. And a Podcast for The Guardian. I should imagine that all of these will eventually find their way onto our website.

Richard

260. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45219 by Richard Dawkins on May 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Professors Somerville and Dawkins have clashed before, at an exclusive conference in Oxfordshire. "We were seated at a large, oval table - me at one end, him at the other - when we got involved in this terrible battle.

"Other people there couldn't believe it. It reminded me of when I was a kid watching the Davis Cup on television. The heads going back and forth," explained Professor Somerville.

Well, maybe she saw heads going back and forth, but this exchange evidently made no impression on me: I have not the slightest recollection of Professor Somerville or of any argument with her. I remember that conference at Ditchley Park chiefly for the interactions with the brilliant chairman, Ronald Dworkin. I do not doubt her story that she and I had an exchange of views, but her account of it as a head-turning extreme argument seems to me to symbolize a recurrent problem with religious people. They are so used to getting a free ride that, on the rare occasions that they encounter even mild criticism, they hear it as extreme and -- apparently in Margaret Somerville's case -- they presume that others hear it as extreme as well.

Richard

261. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37632 by Richard Dawkins on May 5, 2007 at 11:56 am

How dare you post this photograph when it is so obviously offensive to millions of Muslims? To make matters worse, the woman is a teacher, and for all we know she may during her long career have taught girls to read and write. It is at least a relief to learn that she was wearing gloves and that she made some token attempt to cover her hair, thereby partially reducing the otherwise uncontrollable lust which would necessarily afflict all males who encountered her. But even so, printing the photograph is an act of wanton insensitivity. And don't try to defend your editorial policy on grounds of freedom of the press. Freedom may be a virtue, but it doesn't licence you to go out of your way to give offence.

262. Author of the Year Ad

Comment #37398 by Richard Dawkins on May 4, 2007 at 11:34 am

The answer to Snomann32 (Comment #3739) is that my other books were not published by Oxford University Press. Given that fact, I think it is very nice of them to pay for this advertisement.
Richard

263. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37044 by Richard Dawkins on May 3, 2007 at 8:51 am

oao made two quite separate points. He thought I should write more about Islam. That is a reasonable point, and we might have a civilized discussion about it. Also about Hinduism, Buddhism etc. But he also accused me of anti-semitism, which is not civilized and for which he needs to apologize before going any further.
Richard

264. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36833 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Congratulations to Johann Hari for exposing this monstrous injustice stemming from a fatuously stupid 'belief in belief'. It is hard to know which is the more evil, these Islamic customs themselves or the craven, cowardly and above all PATRONIZING 'respect' for them which the rest of us are expected to show.
Richard

265. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36688 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 am

I find it hard not to resent the implication of Comment 36645 by oao. I obviously refer to Christianity, by default, more than to Judaism (or Islam) because I am a cultural Chrstian, writing in a cultural Christian country (Britain) with an eye to a larger audience in another (more than merely cultural) Christian country (USA). I use the name Yahweh when I want to refer to the Abrahamic (Judaeo-Christian-Islamic) God as opposed to other gods such as Zeus or Wotan. When I specifically want to refer to the Islamic God I use "Allah", although that is just the Arabic word for God/Yahweh. If I wanted to refer to the Christian God AS OPPOSED TO the Jewish God, what name does oao suggest I use? I do not believe that such a name exists.

The accusation of anti-Jewishness is ludicrous, offensive, and one might almost say paranoid. It reminds me of an occasion when I was lecturing on a ship, and I spoke strongly against religion in general, ALL religion. I never once mentioned Jews or Judaism. Yet I heard afterwards that a Jewish member of the audience was going around accusing me of anti-Semitism behind my back. To him, the very word "religion" was apparently synonymous with Judaism, and therefore to be anti-religious was tantamount to being anti-Jewish.

I don't know enough about the recent history of Israel/Palestine to be either pro or anti-Zionist, but I do know enough to say that oao's phrase 'current general anti-semitism/anti-zionism', implying as it does that anti-zionism is equivalent to anti-semitism, is offensive to my many Jewish friends who do know a lot about the history of that unhappy region, and who are passionate anti-Zionists.

Richard

266. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36414 by Richard Dawkins on May 1, 2007 at 4:26 am

I was very impressed indeed by Christopher Hitchens. His eloquence is formidable, helped by a voice like Richard Burton's. The discussion seemed to come alive whenever he spoke, whereas the other two, and the chairman, though articulate and fluent, simply made me impatient for more Hitchens. What disappointed me, however, was that the audience seemed noticeably less sympathetic towards Hitchens than I would have expected for the attenders of a Literary Festival in a major metropolitan area during churchgoing hours. Even manifestly ridiculous remarks -- like Jonathan Kirsch's statement that (verbal) attacks on religion are as vandalistic as the Taliban (physically) blowing up the Bamiyan statues -- seemed to be sympathetically received. I hope I am wrong, but this is not the sort of reaction I became accustomed to from the audiences I encountered on my American book tour.

Richard

267. Boxmind E-Lectures

Comment #35854 by Richard Dawkins on April 29, 2007 at 4:32 am

Alas poor Boxmind. I was on the Editorial Board, Horatio. A Board of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

I doubt if the lectures are available any more. I don't think they would be compatible with today's on-line video standards. Boxmind wrote and marketed its own software to play the lectures and to allow others to make their own lectures. The software didn't run on Macs, only on VCs.

R.I.P.

Richard

268. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32717 by Richard Dawkins on April 18, 2007 at 5:04 am

Amyers, I agree that the general issues are important and need to be discussed. But I got the impression there was some immediate urgency in the particular case of Misha. This was my only concern about the distraction.

A lawyer who is also a doctor (and leading atheist) with whom I raised the matter, has made to me a slightly cheerful point: "By the way, the reality of the matter is that if the kid really doesn't want the procedure, he needs merely to physically refuse to allow it. I doubt they'd put the kid under with general anesthesia (although a shot of ketamine could do the trick). Thus, as a practical matter, the twelve year old can avoid the circumcision."

I hope he is right, and I hope that, if it comes to it, that is exactly what the boy will do.

Richard

269. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32703 by Richard Dawkins on April 18, 2007 at 3:57 am

Like Humanist-cop, I have no wish to be judgmental. I too was circumcized as an infant (at a time when British doctors commonly did it as a matter of course) and I am not saying that I now regret it personally, on either aesthetic or medical grounds. Nor do I feel any personal resentment about the fact that it was done to me. But my personal feelings and yours are beside the point. The point is Misha's feelings. He may not be old enough to vote but he is entirely old enough to say that he doesn't want to undergo a painful, irreversible operation which has not been recommended to him on medical grounds. Moreover, his mother agrees with him. If, later, for religious, medical or aesthetic reasons, he decides to be circumcized, that is his privilege. But if he wants to become UN-circumcized, he will not have that option. Circumcision is irreversible. You don't have to be judgmental to feel that his wishes should receive more respect than the religious bigotry of his father.

Thank you Elstuarto for putting me straight on the difference between the BMA and the General Medical Council. It is the American equivalent of the GMC that we need.

Richard

270. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32671 by Richard Dawkins on April 18, 2007 at 1:30 am

Philip1978, do you think that Gunofsod may just possibly have been sarcastic in what he said?

I had a further thought after writing my post. If a doctor does perform this operation, what is the appropriate body in America that might have him struck off and deprived of his licence to practise medicine? In Britain it would be the British Medical Association (BMA). Does the American Medical Association play a similar role, or would it be some other body? Are there some American doctors among our readers who would know how to set this in motion?
Richard

271. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32650 by Richard Dawkins on April 17, 2007 at 10:35 pm

I think it a pity that this thread seems to have become distracted by a discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision in general. What we have here is a clear case of religiously-inspired child abuse. Because of a change in his father's religion (no medical change has arisen in Misha's circumstances to justify it) a particular 12-year-old boy has become threatened with an irreversible surgical procedure which he does not want, and nor does his mother. I suppose some such distraction was inevitable, given that Misha's defence has been undertaken by Doctors Opposed to Circumcision, an organization which is indeed opposed to circumcision in general. Maybe Misha would get more support if his case were taken up by civil liberties organizations, child protection organizations or the like. I don't know how to get in touch with such organizations in America, but I would like to urge people here to call Misha's case to their attention. Newspapers and politicians, too. Yesterday I was at a meeting in the European Parliament in Brussels, and I told Misha's story to the MEPs there. They were outraged, but they are European politicans, not American ones. Wouldn't it be a good idea for American citizens among our readers to write to their Congressmen or other influential people? Your own opinions, and the congressmen's opinions, on circumcision in general, should be irrelevant. The urgent need is to protect a particular individual child from the religious bigotry of his father.

Notice, by the way, the wording adopted by D.O.C. "There is no medical necessity alleged at all by anyone. The circumcision would be purely cultural, even merely spiteful." I refer to the entiriely typical use of 'cultural' rather than 'religious'. Yet again, religion is being being granted a charmed protection, under a euphemism: 'purely cultural'.

Richard

272. Is God poison?

Comment #30823 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2007 at 2:25 am

There is much here that others will surely want, like me, to discuss. But, if I may be allowed a strictly personal response first, two remarks especially affront me.

Dawkins, in particular, seems spiritually deaf to everything from the sense of wonder to . . .

I'd like to think that anybody who thinks I am spiritually deaf to the sense of wonder has not read Unweaving the Rainbow, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale . . . or actually any of my books!

Dawkins' anti-religious beliefs are tightly grafted to his anti-Americanism. Especially his anti-Bushism: "I just can't stand the man's style," he told the Times of London, "the way he swaggers and struts and smirks and the way he looks sly and deceitful and the way Americans can't see it.")

Please please, don't ever accuse me of anti-Americanism. It is mainly because of my love of America that I, along with all my many American friends, loathe and detest Bush and the damage he has done to that great republic. I don't remember saying "Americans can't see it" but, if I did, I obviously meant some Americans can't see it – enough Americans to have elected him President (with a little help from his brother's friends in Florida and his father's friends in the Supreme Court).

Oh, and one little point for Pedants Corner. I suspect that Bethune thinks 'coruscating' means excoriating, caustic, scathing. It doesn't. It means glittering or sparkling.

Richard

273. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30425 by Richard Dawkins on April 8, 2007 at 3:13 am

Many congratulations to Professor Wilson on a richly deserved prize. I wrote the following puff for one of his books (The Diversity of Life), and I'd say the same again today. "Edward Wilson is today's towering figure in American biological literature. Not since Darwin has an author so lifted the science of ecology with insight and delightful imagery."
Richard

274. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30109 by Richard Dawkins on April 7, 2007 at 1:48 am

Charles Moore is a well-known British journalist, a former Editor of the Daily Telegraph and of The Spectator.

Mr Moore (if you should happen to find your way here) you do understand, don't you, how these websites work? There is normally no Ediitorial selection or control of the Comments that are sent in. The contributors are remarkably uninhibited, perhaps protected by the strange but widespread convention of writing under a pseudonym. But if you pick your way carefully around the insults, I think you may find that some good points are being made too.
Yours courteously
Richard Dawkins

275. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29283 by Richard Dawkins on April 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm

September, I'd be delighted to read your clear and concise definition of postmodernism, and your summary of why it deserves to be considered a coherent theory with a single name. And, by the way, since you take advantage of knowing my real name, why don't you divulge your own instead of hiding behind a pseudonym?
Richard Dawkins

276. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29270 by Richard Dawkins on April 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

You might think a definiton of 'postmodernism' would be helpful at this point, so I looked up the Oxford Dictionary:-

Postmodernism: The state, condition, or period subsequent to that which is modern; spec. in architecture, the arts, literature, politics, etc, any of various styles, concepts, or points of view involving a conscious departure from modernism, esp. when characterized by a rejection of ideology and theory in favour of a plurality of values and techniques. Also in extended use in general contexts, freq. used ironically.

Not a lot of help! So I looked elsewhere and found the following page which lists no fewer than fourteen definitions of postmodernism (none of them being the OED's).
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:postmodernism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
As far as I can judge, not one of the 14 bears any close resemblance to any other member of the 14, and I can discern little in the way of clear meaning in any of them. What meaning I can discover doesn't give confidence that postmodernism is a coherent body of theory at all. The first definition, for example says

. . . views which, for example, stress the priority of the social to the individual; which reject the universalizing tendencies of philosophy; which prize irony over knowledge; and which give the irrational equal footing with the rational in our decision procedures all fall under the postmodern umbrella.

"Falling under an umbrella" is not what you'd call a precise or usable definition. What could it possibly mean to "stress the priority of the social to the individual"? Priority in what sense? I suppose I can just about see what it might mean to reject the universalizing tendencies of philosophy, but is there any necessary connection between that and the other parts of the definition? How do you "prize" irony over knowledge, and why should you want to? As for giving "the irrational equal footing with the rational" . . . maybe that just about sums the whole thing up.

The impression conveyed by all the definitions together is that what we have here is at best vague muddle-headedness and at worst outright charlatanry. Can anybody produce a single, clear, meaningful and coherent definition to rebut this negative impression? It would be nice to discover that this particular Emperor has at least a few wisps of underwear. My impression remains what it has always been, however: the Postmodern Emperor is not only bereft of clothes. He doesn't even have a skin.

Richard

277. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29225 by Richard Dawkins on April 2, 2007 at 6:36 am

Dawkins's Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in an academic discipline expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity.

278. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29204 by Richard Dawkins on April 2, 2007 at 4:08 am

Would silves93 (Comment 29188) accept that, far from being gullible fools, Guattari, Deleuze, Lacan and Irigaray are among the recognized leading lights of postmodernism in the world? If so, would silves93 please furnish a translation into clear and meaningful English of any one of the quotations given above, plus a defence of the proposition that any one of them is 'fascinating' or 'insightful'? Fascinating? Insightful? Let's hear it, please.

I can imagine only one defence, which might go something like this. "The technical language of quantum theory, too, is extremely hard to understand. Here is a paragraph from a learned journal of quantum theory. Please furnish us with a translation into clear and meaningful English." I accept that this challenge might be impossible to meet. So, what is the difference? The difference is that quantum theory makes predictions about experimental measurements in the real world, which are verified to an accuracy equivalent (in Richard Feynman's vivid analogy) to specifying the width of North America to within one hairsbreadth. That's how quantum theory buys the right to be unintelligible to non-specialists. Could silves93 or anyone else ever make such a claim for postmodernism?

Richard

279. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29092 by Richard Dawkins on April 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm

The reason for posting this old review here is the arrival of the new article by Carolyn G Guertin, under the title "Is this another Sokal hoax?" When I first read the Guertin article, I genuinely thought it might be an All Fools' Day hoax, and I actually wrote to Alan Sokal to ask him. His reply included the following:-

How do you find these things?!? This is a real doozie! I wish I could claim that I had written it, but it is in fact far beyond my modest satirical talents. Anyway, it seems that the author really exists:
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/
and there are even photographs of her at
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/about.htm
This was her 2003 doctoral dissertation (in physics?) at the University of Alberta
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/diss.html
It is "under consideration by a major Canadian press and will be released in a Romanian translation later this year."
Her teaching philosophy is a gem, as well:
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/phil.html

The University of Toronto is a normally respectable university. Let us hope this woman is not occupying a position that might otherwise be held by a genuine scholar doing worthwhile research. It is tragic the way humanities departments have been taken over by second-rate fakes. And can you believe a 'major Canadian press' is seriously thinking of publishing this pretentious and meaningless garbage?

Richard

280. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28673 by Richard Dawkins on March 30, 2007 at 11:04 am

Look carefully at Hawking's article. As far as I can see, he doesn't actually say a single word about the universe coming from nothing. That may be what he meant but, as so often happens, the HEADLINE (presumablly written by somebody at slashdot) is the sole source of the controversy -- in this case the word 'nothing'. Unless I am mistaken, Hawking's own title was quite different.

That word 'nothing' has scared up a fair bit of puzzlement among our Commenters. But whereas most of these were honestly perplexed, one correspondent, 'Wee Flea' tried to turn it to his advantage: tried to turn it into a debating point in his favour as a religious creationist. This is not surprising, as 'Wee Flea' is really the Rev David Robertson, author of The Dawkins Letters (one of the five flea books which keep entertaining us as they are announced one after the other: http://richarddawkins.net/article,807,The-Fifth-Flea,James-A-Beverly ).

In Comment #28147 Wee Flea said, "Creation ex nihilio! Brilliant. Now where have I heard that one before?" Of course he means the book of Genesis. He totally fails to grasp the argument that I have called the Ultimate 747 argument (The God Delusion, Chapter 4). Look at it this way. The brilliant success of Darwin's idea in biology raises our consciousness to the power of scientific cranes more generally, and emphasizes, by contrast, the impotence of skyhooks such as gods. Like all cranes, evolution by natural selection progresses from small and simple beginnings to grand and complex ends. Darwin comprehensively explains life, starting at the origin of life 4 billion years ago. Before the origin of life, we need different cranes, in the domain of chemistry, then before that interstellar nuclear physics, then before that cosmology. Chemists and physicists have been brilliantly successful in pushing things back to within a small fraction of a second of the big bang. But there still remains the question of what happened during that fraction of a second, and the question of why there is something rather than nothing. These questions are deeply mysterious, but physicists are making progress towards their solution, for example with the theory of cosmic inflation which, if it is valid, is another superb crane. But we still need a crane for the very beginning of the universe itself.

Now, suppose that Stephen Hawking really could show that the universe came from nothing (perhaps by a reversal of the process whereby matter and animatter annihilate each other to make nothing). Wouldn't that be the perfect crane? Wouldn't that be an atheist's dream? Yet Wee Flea seems to think that creation from nothing could only mean creation by God.

And this is where the Ultimate 747 comes in. If you allow yourself to postulate a big, intelligent, creative God at the beginning . . . Oh, for goodness' sake, I can't bear to spell it out yet again, it is all in Chapter 4 of The God Delusion. I just wanted to call attention here to the irony. When I first saw the headline above the Hawking lecture. "Stephen Hawking says Universe Created from Nothing" I immediately thought, "Great, how exciting, we are finally getting close to a completely godless explanation of everything." Wee Flea apparently leapt to the opposite conclusion. As it happens, both of us may have leapt unnecessarily, because the headline doesn't seem to represent what Hawking actually said. Whether Hawking meant it or not, I am hoping that one of these days he, or somebody like him, really will show that the universe flared into existence from nothing, or at least from something exceedingly simple, and inflated and evolved into what we see today, by wholly explicable and comprehensible processes.

Richard

281. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27710 by Richard Dawkins on March 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

When you reach two thirds of a century, you are not supposed to cry like a baby, especially if you are a stiff-upper-lipped child of Empire. But who would not weep with emotion and joy at such a truly fantastic, amazing, splendid gesture as you have put together? Thank you Josh, thank you to all your loyal helpers, thank you to the more than 3000 who wrote messages, made videos, made audios, made pictures, and who, amazingly, kept the whole thing a complete secret from me during the whole time that it took to plan and organize (and any fool can see what a huge amount of planning and organization must have gone into it). Thank you, all of you. Your encouragement has given me a new lease of life. You make it all worthwhile. Thank you all very very much indeed.
Richard

282. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25519 by Richard Dawkins on March 14, 2007 at 1:34 am

I am quite relieved to learn that there was a tape change in my speech. When I listened to the recording, I seriously wondered whether I was suffering from false memory syndrome (which is a very real phenomenon as Elizabeth Loftus has shown). I have a very clear memory that, during my speech, Edgar Andrews made MANY REPEATED attempts to persuade the President to stop me reading from his book. His book embarrassed him because its naive Young Earth Creationism gave the lie to such philosophical and scientific sophistication as he pretended to in his own speech. Yet, according to this recording, he made only one attempt to stop me and one additional interruption. I now suspect that the repeated appeals to the President must have occurred during the time it took to change the tape.
I suppose it is too much to hope that there is another recording out there? Or else somebody else who was present at the debate and can provide an independent memory to mine?
Richard

283. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25463 by Richard Dawkins on March 13, 2007 at 10:44 am

24. Comment #25429 by George Dickeson on March 13, 2007 at 4:15 am "I thought that Dawkins' referring to the supporting side's other publishings was not really in the spirit of debate. Particularly when he mentions the fact that Edgar Andrews is a young-earth creationist. Doing so was nothing more than an ad hominem, since Andrews makes no reference to such a position in his speech."

It is precisely BECAUSE Andrews avoided mentioning his young earth creationism that it was necessary for me to do so. He was doing a typically duplicitous thing, cleaning up his act for a sophisticated (actually not so sophisticated as it turned out) Oxford audience. If he had changed his mind since writing the Young Earth book, that would be different. But he had not changed his mind. He was dishonestly pretending to be less of a wingnut than he really was.

Later that evening, at the drinks after the debate, Maynard Smith had a blazing row with Edgar Andrews, because of his dishonesty. It was the only time I ever saw that beloved man go positively RED with anger, and it was a splendid sight.

Richard

284. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25120 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 8:43 am

27. Comment #25118 by fenrisulven on March 10, 2007 at 8:33 am
"Why not just pick up the phone and talk to the guy? Talking via a newspaper seems like a detour."

Fenrisulven. It is not clear who think should pick up the phone, nor which guy he should be talking to. As far as I am concerned, the whole affair is now closed, and there is no need to talk about it any further to anyone. See my letter to kkant above. I have gone out of my way to tell the full story here, in an effort to dampen the fire down to cold embers, not blow it up into flames again. Please, let's all now let the matter drop. I really would be very grateful

Many thanks
Richard

285. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25115 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 7:58 am

Dear kkant.
Please don't write to the Guardian. Although I was very upset yesterday (actually more upset by the Daily Mail than by the Guardian) I think things are now settling down and with luck the whole business will be forgotten soon. I would hate it to be stirred up again. As I explained, it was not Jeevan Vasagar's fault that he was unable to speak to me to check his story. That was my responsibility for not having good procedures in place in my office. And the 'hired goons' were not employed by any particular newspaper. They were a publicity company hired by the Book Prize organization, who issued a Press Release which was then picked up by The Guardian. The publicity company were certainly over-zealous in their efforts to raise the profile of the Book Prize, but they have apologized to me very fulsomely, I have apologized to Peter Kay, and I think it really is now time to let it rest. I really would be sincerely and personally grateful if you would let things lie now.
Thank you
Richard

286. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25091 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 4:40 am

"Note the 'Peter Kay was unavailable for comment' bit. So, Jeevan - what did Richard Dawkins say when you phoned to put your planned story to him?"

Er, well, actually he did phone my office, but he didn't get to speak to me personally. My PA is delightfully loyal and protective. Most people love her cheery and friendly telephone manner but it can occasionally be a little, shall we say, in-your-face, especially when she encounters a pushy journalist. I wouldn't have her any other way (and it would be unfair to blame her for not realising the peculiarly delicate circumstances of this case) but it does mean that Jeevan Vasagar is not entirely to blame for his failure to speak to me. I think we won't see a repetition of this mistake.

Richard

287. Happy 50th Birthday to PZ Myers!

Comment #25086 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 3:25 am

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #24794 by cheshirecat: "William Mcgonagall lives again in the body of Richard Dawkins."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William Topaz McGonagall (1825-1902) was a Scottish poet, whose most famous poem, the Tay Bridge Disaster, begins as follows (read it in a cultivated Scottish accent):

Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.

And here are some lines from later in the poem
(http://www.taynet.co.uk/users/mcgon/disaster.htm)

As soon as the catastrophe came to be known
The alarm from mouth to mouth was blown,
And the cry rang out all o'er the town,
Good Heavens! the Tay Bridge is blown down,
And a passenger train from Edinburgh,
Which fill'd all the people's hearts with sorrow . . .

Look at my own humble verse, and you'll see that I can't hold a candle to McGonagall. Some poets don't know how to rhyme; some poets don't know how to scan. McGonagall, with effortless mastery, doesn't know how to do either. My lines, I must reluctantly admit, both rhyme and scan. To make matters worse, my little effort includes literary conceits of which McGonagall would have been magnificently unaware. There's alliteration ("All around the World Wide Web, the wingnuts . . ."). The rhythm of the lines onomatopoeically evokes a horse's hooves drumming as it gallops in with the good news of PZ's birthday (reinforced by the use of the word 'drubbing'). The effect is enhanced, to my shame, by gratuitous little internal rhymes which McGonagall would have disdained to waste in this way (Pharyngula/singular, about/redoubt). In addition, the choice of the word 'redoubt' for PZ's castle subliminally recalls the 'sceptical' of the previous line. There's a frivolous joke on the pronunciation of Pepys, deliberately held over until the second line, so that that last word of the first line will appear temporarily mysterious, thereby enhancing the effect of the rhyme when all is finally revealed. The same mis-spelling device is echoed in the last two lines, building up to the increasingly anticipated climax of the honoree's name. It is hard to imagine any of these cheap literary tricks flowing from the insouciant pen of William McGonagall.

In short, Cheshirecat is too kind to me. He does McGonagall an injustice in suggesting that there is any resemblance between his verse and mine.

Richard Topaz Dawkins

288. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25056 by Richard Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 12:13 am

It is very clear that he has not read any books by Sam or by me. I suspect that he is confusing TGD with the documentary Root of All Evil. Most probably he has not seen ROAE itself, but read a review of it. 'Picks on the worst of religion' was the commonest criticism of ROAE, and it frequently went with something like 'How would you like it if people judged science by picking on the worst examples of science?' I don't think anybody said that ROAE picked out the best examples of science, because it wasn't, after all, about science. But it would be easy for this idiot to misread the 'How would you like it if . . .' line in the way that he apparently has, assume that the film did that very thing, and then muddle the film with the book.


He is an American (real name Mark Hanson) who converted to Islam and took a fake Islamic name. Sounds more impressive doesn't it, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, than Mark Hanson? Does any psychologist or sociologist know if it is a standard thing people do, if they are too inadequate to make a success of themselves in their own culture -- change your identity and re-invent yourself, to see if people take you more seriously? It is very believable that somebody as palpably stupid as this would not make a name for himself as an ordinary American called Mark Hanson. But as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, The Guardian describes him as "arguably the west's most influential Islamic scholar" and he is said to advise Bush on Islamic matters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,564960,00.html

289. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24863 by Richard Dawkins on March 9, 2007 at 12:14 am

35. Comment #24811 by atheisticism on March 8: "You publish articles far too frequently with what seems to be the sole purpose of . . ."
Atheisticism's remarks are addressed to me personally, so I should reply. He (or she) accuses me personally of publishing on this site articles that encourage sycophancy toward me.

I am distressed that you should think this, and I'd love to try and clear it up with you. Regulars know, I hope, that I don't publish anything here. I don't even know how to publish an article on this site. Publishing decisions are entirely out of my hands, but I am proud to notice that, far from encouraging sycophancy, this site conspicuously gives exposure to, for example, extremely hostile reviews of The God Delusion. Many people have remarked on how unusual this is. How often do you find a Christian website that publishes articles hostile to its aims? How many right wing political websites publish left wing articles in full? Or vice versa? I'd say this site gives more of a warts-and-all picture. Thanks, yet again, Josh.
Richard

290. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22736 by Richard Dawkins on February 21, 2007 at 2:39 pm

"(So I admit it seems a bit mean of me to quibble about him using the Peppered Moth, when the research on it has been discredited.)"

Please always be cautious before repeating creationist propaganda. The worst you can say about Bernard Kettlewell's study is that he was working at a time when statistical methods were (universally) somewhat less rigorous than they are today. But 'discredited' is just a creationist slander, like the lie that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. The leading authority on industrial melanism today is Michael Majerus. See his book on the subject.

Richard

291. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22718 by Richard Dawkins on February 21, 2007 at 6:14 am

44. Comment #22691 by Beth on February 20, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Has anyone the URL for the Rod Liddle review of Harris' book? DerrickB mentions that it is in the Sunday Times - but I've no luck located it.


Beth: Thanks for pointing out that we were never told the url of Liddle's review of Harris. For what it is worth (not a lot) you can see the review at
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_reviews/article1382617.ece
It is a joint review of Letter to a Christian Nation and Chris Hedges' book American Fascists. The heading of the review is The Blind Leading the Blind
Richard

292. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22310 by Richard Dawkins on February 14, 2007 at 3:53 am

In response to eggplantbren from Australia (Comment #22304) I must apologize. I think I should not have called it the "British Edition". It is my understanding that the edition for which I have written the Foreword is intended for the Rest of the English-speaking World (i.e. apart from America). If I am right, it should be on sale in Australia, New Zealand, the Indian sub-continent and Anglophone Africa. Notice that Sam has amended the sentence I quoted:- "It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if London, Sydney, or New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire . . ." The original American edition just had "New York."
Richard

293. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22000 by Richard Dawkins on February 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

Comment by Kristian Z
'Also, he claims that Dawkins's inclusion on the "top intellectuals list" was featured prominently in his book. Is it even mentioned at all? I can't remember reading it, and I can't find it when looking for it now. In any case, it cannot be very prominently featured.'

No it is most certainly NOT mentioned anywhere in the book. It is mentioned by the publisher, but that is nothing to do with the author, as McGrath himself obviously knows. Yet his clear intention in mentioning it must have been to imply that I had written it in the book itself. And the fact that the audience laughed indicated that they took exactly that implication. This is typical of McGrath's deceitful smear tactics.
Richard

294. The God Delusion

Comment #21904 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Dan Dennett has given us permission to post on this website a letter, which he has sent to H Allen Orr, in response to Orr's letter in the NYRB, reproduced now as a separate entry on this website (I have removed it from this thread).

295. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21776 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2007 at 4:17 am

The following wonderful Comment is posted at
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1361840.ece
It is by John Flemming, of Scunthorpe, and I just had to share it.
Richard

"What is life all about?"
It's not that no-one can find an answer, it's more that it isn't a valid question. Life isn't 'about' anything. It just is. It's a Monty Python sketch, without a punch-line. Enjoy it while it lasts.
John Flemming, Scunthorpe, UK

296. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21766 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2007 at 3:15 am

I drafted a Letter to the Editor, replying to McGrath, and sent it to The Times yesterday. I have just heard that it will be published tomorrow, Monday 12th Feb, although with inevitable shortenings. I don't know whether they are running any other letters on the subject. Presumably the Letters page will be clickable somewhere on the Times website, which is www.timesonline.co.uk/

Richard

297. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21628 by Richard Dawkins on February 10, 2007 at 7:57 am

I wrote to Johann Hari to congratulate him warmly on the above article. In his reply, he told me a nice story. As follows:-

"I have been meaning to get in touch because I was out in Jerusalem in December (my worst place on earth) for work and sitting by the wailing wall I saw a young guy in Orthodox Jewish robes sitting with all the other, wailing, shaking types, and I noticed over his shoulder that he was reading... The God Delusion!

I took him for a coffee and he said he was "having doubts" and the book was having a huge impact on him. I have forwarded him your e-mail address, I hope you don't mind.

Another mind rescued!

Best wishes
Johann"

298. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21307 by Richard Dawkins on February 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Clever?

What's clever about it?

Even the accent sounds more like Peter Atkins than me, although I admit it is at least better than the one they used on South Park

Richard

299. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21268 by Richard Dawkins on February 8, 2007 at 10:55 am

I just learned that CNN's plan for this evening has changed. My 20 minute interview will be edited down to about 4 minutes, and it will be followed by a panel discussion involving Christopher Hitchens (representing atheists) and two religious spokesmen.
Richard

300. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21238 by Richard Dawkins on February 8, 2007 at 7:21 am

Various people on Pharyngula have made the point that it would have been better to have had American voices rather than my English one on CNN tonight. The same thought occurred to me yesterday, and I suggested some names, including Michael Newdow who was actually slandered by one of the morons on the previous program. Unfortunately, however, CNN were adamant that they wanted a one-on-one between me and Paula Zahn. So I'll just have to do the best I can, with apologies to those who could surely have done a better job. I think it is possible that CNN don't want to concentrate on American attitudes to atheists this time, so much as on atheism more generaly (I was told that Paula Zahn is reading The God Delusion).
Richard