I’m currently reading Richard Dawkins’ latest book “The Greatest Show on Earth“. The premise of the book is simple. Dawkins presents the case for evolution in the face of those who fervently believe that is it isn’t so. His thesis uses the metaphor of a crime scene to tie together all the clues, and Dawkins comprehensively shows that there is only one suspect in town – evolution.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, with numerous sources such as comparative anatomy, molecular biology, fossil evidence and continental drift, all pointing to evolution through natural selection as the only reasonable explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Evolution has even been witnessed in numerous laboratory experiments. Dawkins leaves no stone unturned in presenting the case for evolution. It’s delivered with the enthusiasm of a child, the simplicity of a teacher and the forcefulness of a barrister who knows he has an open-and-shut case on his hands.
I can’t praise Dawkins’ book highly enough. It’s full of fascinating digressions and factoids and it takes the reader on a rollercoaster trip through space and time as it presents the evidence, often in considerable detail. I don’t personally believe it will matter a jot to the beliefs of ardent creationists, but to the interested layman it will help to explain how intellectually bankrupt their beliefs are.
It was with this frame of mind that I read the transcripts of the Richard Dawkins interview on the Late Late Show (a top chat show on Irish television). I was astounded. As most people know, Dawkins authored a best-selling book on religion in 2006 called The God Delusion. It was a full frontal attack on religion, calling out the nonsense within and attempting to put religion under the microscope and into the sphere of public debate. Ryan Tubridy, the Late Late Show host, interviewed Dawkins a few times about it on radio and it always lead to some lively back-and-forth battles between Dawkins and his detractors. That was in 2006 and 2007. Now in 2009, Dawkins has published a new book on an altogether different subject, yet Tubridy could not resist the temptation to bring the discourse back to his atheism, and to inject sensationalism wherever possible – (“So what is the Vatican then? Toy Town?”, “Do you see God as believable as the Easter Bunny?”, etc.). None of these issues are discussed in Dawkins’ latest book, leading me to the conclusion that Ryan Tubridy didn’t even bother to read it.
Personally, I loved Dawkins’ clear, no nonsense answers but I couldn’t help feeling that, on Tubridy’s part, it was an opportunity missed. Is Richard Dawkins so one-dimensional that the only issue worth talking to him about is his atheism? Dawkins has much to say on the subject of evolution and why it is so important that we understand it. He is deeply passionate about science education, about the philosophy of science, about the promotion of science, about legal challenges to science, about critical thinking. In brief, we could have learned something but instead we were treated to a charade, deliberately intended to scandalise the Irish churchgoing public. This is a huge pity. By conflating Dawkins’ views on evolution with his atheism in this way, Ryan Tubridy may have muddied the waters concerning evolution, a topic that is critical to understand as we rehabilitate science and technology within the Irish education system.
“The Greatest Show on Earth” is only controversial if you are a creationist who has been vaccinated from reality. For the rest of us, it’s a rollicking good read on a vitally relevant subject.
“Is Richard Dawkins so one-dimensional that the only issue worth talking to him about is his atheism? Dawkins has much to say on the subject of evolution”
Absolutely not. He’s coming to the end of his third marriage so at the very least, he’s an expert on relationships.
What amuses me is how Dawkins thinks that micro evolution (there has yet to be produced a shred of evidence for macro evolution) eliminates the need for a Creator for both the universe and for life itself.
I haven’t read this latest book so I don’t know if he’s gotten past this priceless little bit of nonsense. “Once the vital ingredient – some kind of genetic molecule – is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”
Well, yes, of course. So let’s not worry ourselves with how the “vital ingredient” came into being. It’s only the single most important step in all of biology. We’ll just pretend that life coming from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules is perfectly logical and that will be that.
makarios, can you explain, with adequate reference to the theory of evolution, why it’s important for us to explain the origin of life before we explain the origin of species? I’m assuming you know the science behind it all (I would never dare to presume that you might be spouting off about something you’re ignorant of!) – I’m just curious about your particular interpretation of the issues involved. Feel free to chime in with some contemporary issues from the philosophy of science, too. That would be awesome.
“We’ll just pretend that life coming from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules is perfectly logical and that will be that.”
Can you explain why such a thing is “illogical?” All life IS made up of molecules, after all, simply arranged in a particular manner.
And Dawkins and others DO worry themselves about the matter of how that vital ingredient came into being. It’s just that it’s generally regarded as a different field of study, separate from biological evolution.
One of the biggest roadblocks to understanding how life began is simply the lack of specific historical evidence with which to narrow down precisely what might have happened (that’s why there are many different theories about how it might have happened, but we can’t really be sure which is most likely to have been THE one). But even still, this field of study has made steady progress and amassed lots of new knowledge about early life without any hint that what it’s looking for is “illogical” or impossible.
Micro- and macro-evolution?
So…do you think it’s possible to believe in centimeters but not in miles?
Good one. Gonna have to remember that analogy.
I thought this book was coming out tomorrow. How’d you get an advance copy?
I bought my copy in the UK two weeks ago. It’s been on sale over there for a while.
I just started reading my copy yesterday. I have to hide it from my wife, who will become quite agitated at the fact that I bought another book. The last trick I tried when I bought a book was buying one for her too. I think that actually bought me some slack.
Re: “All life IS made up of molecules, after all, simply arranged in a particular manner.”
Simply, you just made my day 😉
I just saw the interview on YouTube and I agree with your comments on Tubridy. Nice guy, probably, but a *bit* of a cock and it’s to his embarrassment that he couldn’t get an “interesting” interview out of evolution.