Rosie Millard
Save 20%
Subscribe to The Times and The Sunday Times
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Sunday Times
August 3, 2008
Review interview: Richard Dawkins
The scourge of God is now turning his wrath on schools that dilute science for fear of offending faith
Well, it’s a distinction of sorts. Professor Richard Dawkins, who holds the chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford, was last week nominated as one of the country’s Groovy Old Men – a group of sexy “silver foxes” that also includes the actors Bill Nighy and Terence Stamp. There is even an ongoing poll to choose the favourite.
“Although Richard’s not really old enough to be up there with David Atten-borough, is he?” complains his third wife, the actress Lalla Ward (who was once the sidekick to another groovy older man – Tom Baker – in his incarnation as Doctor Who). At 67, Dawkins is certainly rather gorgeous. Actually, he looks somewhat like an older version of David Tennant, the Doctor Who de nos jours, with his deep green eyes and distinguished profile. He’s also a serial smiler – until he starts talking about religion, at which point he becomes glittery-eyed and red-cheeked with indignation.
In addition to overseeing our understanding of science, Dawkins is also the best-known atheist in the country, a man who considers the worship of Christ to be about as relevant as dancing around a totem pole or deifying the Giant Spaghetti Monster. His fans will know all about this from his books, notably The God Delusion – a bestseller that picks apart the inconsistencies in religion with scalpel-like logic.
Dawkins is about to chew up religion again now, in a television series about his hero, Charles Darwin, which holds up to ridicule those who refuse to accept the theory of evolution. Astounding though it may seem, 150 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, there are many people who don’t believe its findings, he says.
Some of these are evangelicals in far-off countries who think that God created everything in six days and that rainy days began with Noah’s Flood. Others, however, are a bit closer to home. British secondary-school science teachers, for example.
“Science is being threatened in our class-rooms,” says Dawkins, citing examples such as the schools funded by the evangelical car dealer Peter Vardy and the private Blue Coat school in Liverpool that employs a creationist science teacher called Nick Cowan. When Dawkins himself met Cowan, he was confidently assured that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (rather than 4.5 billion). Cowan also apparently solved the chicken-and-egg conundrum by explaining: “God created the chicken, and the chicken laid the egg.”
“Nick Cowan is a scandal,” fumes Dawkins. “To have him teaching science at a respectable school is about equivalent to having a flat-Earther teaching geography.”
More seriously, Dawkins believes that many science teachers who do believe in evolution are selling our children short by kowtowing to political correctness. At the moment, he points out, Darwinian evolution is taught in British schools at key stages 3 and 4, but under the national curriculum, alternative theories such as “intelligent design” (part of the creationist credo) “could be discussed in schools . . . in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution”, according to a government education minister.
“It’s fine to teach children about scientific controversies,” Dawkins says. “What is not fine is to say, ‘There are these two theories. One is called evolution, the other is called Genesis.’ If you are going to say that, then you should talk about the Nigerian tribe who believe the world was created from the excrement of ants.”
Cowardice is at the root of the problem, he feels. When it comes to presenting the truth of science against the “mythology” of religion, science teachers duck the issue for fear of reprimand. And not only from evangelical Christians. In his view, devout Muslims are a large part of the problem.
“Islam is importing creationism into this country,” he says. “Most devout Muslims are creationists – so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.”
In his TV series, Dawkins faces a class of 15-year-olds at Park High secondary school in London. A few of the pupils readily tell him they don’t believe in evolution because it runs counter to their religious beliefs. It’s only after he bundles them into a coach and shows them fossils at the seaside that one or two admit there might be something in this evolution gig after all.
“I was shocked by how some put up barriers to understanding,” says Dawkins. “I showed them the evidence, and they just said, ‘This is what it says in my holy book.’ And so I asked, ‘If your holy book says one thing, but the evidence says something else, you then go with your holy book?’ And they said, ‘Yes.’ And I said, ‘Why?’ And they said, ‘It’s the way we’ve been brought up’.”
Even worse, from his point of view, their science teachers are extremely unwilling to oppose anything that smacks of a faith-held belief. And the same applies to their head teachers and the government – even when a belief is contradicted by scientific truth. This infuriates Dawkins.
“Teachers are bending over backwards to ‘respect’ home prejudices that children have been brought up with,” he says . “The government could do more, but it doesn’t want to because it is fanatical about multi-culturalism and the need to ‘respect’ the different ‘traditions’ from which these children come. The government – particularly under Tony Blair – thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing.”
Dawkins shakes his head with dismay. His large, light Oxford house is filled with books, of which his most precious is a first edition of On the Origin of Species, an imprint that ran to only 1,250 copies and sold out immediately. The book has never been out of print since.
Clearly, the weedy way in which the momentous findings of Darwin’s masterpiece are being taught in some schools pains him. “I would like to see evolution taught a lot earlier. There should be no problem teaching it to eight-year-olds.” What if parents don’t want their children included in the lesson? “For parents to deprive their children of an educational opportunity because of a traditional bigotry is unfair on the child.”
And science teachers, people who should be Darwin’s flag-wavers, are simply looking the other way. “It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist,” says Dawkins. “It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.”
His inquiry into how Darwin’s theory of evolution continues to be watered down, and how our fear of giving religious offence encourages this, eventually led to a meeting with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Who wasn’t that much help, since Williams’s line is that evolution is all well and good, but that God was responsible for it.
“Oh, Rowan Williams – what a sweet man,” says Dawkins, a smile breaking over his face. “I have a lot of time for the Church of England.” What? But you’re the most famous atheist in the country. “I feel rather sorry for them in a way. Compared to the alternatives, it is a thoroughly decent organisation. And if all Christians were like Rowan, there wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve met him socially, and he is delightful.”
Not only that, but Dawkins is very happy with school nativity plays and church bells. “I’m a human being who interacts with people socially,” he pleads.
“When I go to dinner with a bishop, I find them very often – extremely often – very convivial, nice people. Why ever not?” Indeed. Dawkins wants to be liked, and perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect him to thrust The God Delusion over the dinner table at anyone sporting a dog collar.
His view is that most of the Anglican top brass know the Virgin birth and other such “myths” are mumbo-jumbo anyway. “Often, when you talk to bishops, it appears they don’t believe in very much.”
Even the archbishop? “It would appear he does believe in it [the Virgin birth],” says Dawkins. “But he doesn’t thrust it down people’s throats. His kind of Anglicanism is benign and pretty harmless.”
Critics would say that the woolliness of the Church of England has allowed rabid creationists to start checking into local Alpha group meetings, and bringing pamphlets – such as Truth in Science, a manifesto for evolution via “intelligent design” – into schools. “I do think that’s a serious point,” says Dawkins. “Because we are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge.”
Is that what’s happened in schools? “Yes. I think we have all been brought up to give too much respect to religion, as opposed to any other kind of opinion.”
He may be Darwin’s most ardent fan, (and the BBC must be kicking itself that Channel 4 has snapped him up a whole year before the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth in 2009), but Dawkins does not believe we should subscribe to the dogma of “survival of the fittest” when it comes to our own lives.
“We need to rise above our Darwinian heritage,” he says. In what way? “Well, we devote our lives to writing books, composing music, creating poetry – all higher functions of the brain. If we were following Darwinian dictates, we males would be spending all our time fighting other males to get females, and screwing them all over the place in order to have lots of children and grandchildren. I’m very glad we have risen above all of that.”
The Genius of Charles Darwin begins on Channel 4 tomorrow at 8pm
In societies that have obtained higher degrees of civilisation, religion is no longer necessary to maintain morality. However, we must accept that without religion, morality is unlikely to have evolved in the first place (according to research on primates published by New Scientist).
Irina Kandinskaya, London, UK
Each of us is a vehicle for genes whose effects combine, we learn through experience, and we're products of our society with all its existing experience and rules. Society itself is constructed by rough consensus. There's a lot to inform our reason there! An consistent 'a priori' system? Hardly.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Non-rational things like emotion inform our reason. Our notion of 'conscience' is non-rational at its core, too. It's part of our moral 'driver'. Memory and experience are other things that inform our reason. Morality in the real world is patently not an 'a priori' system, hence the differences.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Eating is not always a rational response to hunger. We're not dogs, ruled by our stomachs.
"Non-rational things like emotion inform our reason"
INFORM not RULE. Lots of things inform our reason..big deal. But gene propagation is clearly not our only driving force. Morality needs more profound axioms
John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Non-rational things like emotion inform our reason. Our notion of 'conscience' is non-rational at its core, too. It's part of our moral 'driver'. Memory and experience are other things that inform our reason. Morality in the real world is patently not an 'a priori' system, hence the differences.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
DJ,
Emotional behaviour is labelled 'irrational' not 'non-rational'. Yes rationality trumps biological imperatives in the moral quest. That's why dawkins blinkered explanation is inadequte. That's my point. What's yours? Bait & switch? We are more than the other animals, evidently.
john McD, San francisco, ca, USA
Of course, biological imperatives are non-rational not irrational. They're different things. For instance, choosing to eat when one feels hungry is a rational response to a non-rational impetus. If one feels good helping others without reciprocation then choosing such behaviour may be rational.
David Jones, Loughborough, Uk
"Dawkins doesn't want to question this too much." The source for that assertion?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Greg McD
So co-operation is irrational? according to who? on what evidence? This is a ridulous statement.
James M, Bolton, UK
of course a degree of 'altruism' and cooperation can result from biological imperatives.
But not only are these by definition irrational, they are evidently overridable by mankind.
Dawkins doesn't want to question this too much. The source of man's reason is beyond his narrow scope.
See earlier.
john McD, San francisco, ca, USA
That was a good second episode as Dawkins touched on the subject of morality, altruism and the evolution of niceness, suggesting why natural selection might select for these attributes. As it's a contested area, it's a pity he hasn't got more air time to devote to it as it's crucial in the debate.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Kate"Are you not freer when you can question? "
You are freer when you know the truth: a question may be answered, ie a Dogma. The one who genuinely has the truth can't be narrow minded or biased. Faith as OED:"Belief without knowledge" is bogus: God reveals Himself to each if asked sincerely.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
James from Devon,
Freedom to believe? Are you not freer when you can question? Apart from that, you get more options by removing the concept of 'God', but most people need prefabricated theories to believe in. Also, dogmatism is not about being a believer or an atheist, but about narrow-mindedness.
Kate, London, UK
The problem is his " scalpel-like logic"
is more like eye surgery performed with spatulas.
Messy, painful and potentially blinding.
Those with an open mind and a willingness to read round the subject soon discover his "surgical technique" is pre-Med and his anatomy pre-school.
Nathan, Cambridge, UK
A Christian is quite at liberty to believe in either Creation or Evolution as the method by which God chose to act. An Atheist must reject Creation or his position is lost . Who is therefore the more dogmatic of the two? Evolution is after all only Atheism's Spontaneous Generation in a fancy suit.
James, Devon, UK
Richard D is great and inspirational.
Religion is a control mechanism which we all have adapted to live with and understand, over many thousands of years. It doesn't necessarily mean it is truth. Some aspects are good and give "moral" guidelines, but you don't need religion to be good !
Rodger, Beijing,
John Rawls was a man among other political thinkers. In Christ we meet God who became Man, who says, "For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, a stranger and you welcomed Me, naked and you clothed Me." No greater "theory" of justice. No greater justice than that
Laurence England, Brighton, United Kingdom
Laurence: "If there is no Moral Law, then the 'moral law' is open to interpretation to each individual." Morals are related to values, which come from society and our nature. We're a reasoning, self-aware, empathic, gregarious species. Try John Rawls for an example of, say. a theory of justice.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The curious doublethink that allows quite learned people to flatly disregard scientific method on this, and only this, issue is quite fascinating. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I think we should give up trying to convince them and concentrate on stopping them governing us.
avodaith, Leeds,
Greg-How do I know its not a fact? There are crack pots all over the place that think they speak to god. This god that picks and chooses who he helps and lets innocents suffer, you only need to read the bible to see what an evil being this god is.Even if he did exist i cant see why you'd worship him
jamie t, aberdeen, scotland
what makes me laugh about creatonists is they'll ignore the massive amounts of evidence i favour of evolution (name one credible scientist who questions it) but jump on any point some psuedoscientist comes up with in favour of 'god' (until its disproven, then they'll jump onto the next one)
jamie t, aberdeen, scotland
The fossil record shows a huge so called Cambrian explosion where all the phyla seem to appear, with no significant intermediate forms. This categorically refutes gradualistic evolution. Punctuated equilibrium/saltation is an even more fanciful theory [with no evidence]. Evolution fails every time!
David, Bournemouth, UK
Of course the theory looks robust when all the evidence is always interpreted to support the theory.
That's hardly good science.
Martin, Skye,
"The holes in the THEORY of evolution are as big as the holes in the fossil record."
The holes in the fossil record are explainable. When the evidence contradicts the theory then the theory will be modified to take account of it if it can or discarded. It's pretty robust as it is now.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The holes in the THEORY of evolution are as big as the holes in the fossil record.
Phil, Surrey, UK
David:"The Christian god hypothesis, for example, is so detailed without evidence that it's almost certainly not true"
I'm not making the connection? Could you elaborate?
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Andrew: " it is a little rash to pronounce on God's existence."
Practical atheists consider specific god hypotheses, not whether something god-like could exist. The Christian god hypothesis, for example, is so detailed without evidence that it's almost certainly not true. Hence, no belief.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Paul,
A mistake is to think that all concepts are human inventions.
The perfect circle&1+1=2 are examples of concepts that have most definitely been discovered/given to mankind. Time is now becoming known as an idealized concept in academia,as its physical reality cannot coexist with spacial reality
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Paul,
oh you meant Evolutionary Theory!...thought you were talking about little green men.
In any case dawinism is an unproven theory, likely to be superceded at some point in the future. It should not be taught as a dogma. Most of the Dawkins followers don't full understand darwinism anyway.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Paul actually there isn't any evidence of ET so far..that will probably remain a philosophical question forever.
Since cosmologists are aware of the conceptual mystery surrounding our own existence, most would put the chances of aliens existing at around 0.5 and not closer to 1.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
What amuses me about Dawkins is his conviction that he has set himself up as a brand new figure of atheistic genius, bursting like radiant sunshine on to the world, the original secular prophet of something new and unheard of - as if Bertrand Russell had never existed a generation ago. What a bore!
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
We could make anything up that's unprovable and say that it is so. The concept of a God is a human creation, but I understand why people have faith and follow religions, and I don't necessarily believe that's a bad thing.
Personally, I want the truth, and ET has evidence on it's side.
Paul, London,
JAmie:"Greg, that isnt a fact at all."
How do you know that? Do you actually know that a God doesn't exist? Even Dawkins acknowledges that that is unprovable.
You are presuming. A god could hypothetically prove His own existence. Your position is irrational, mine is hypothetically just fine.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Matt:"If god and religion were linked, there would only be one! "
Why is that? Assuming free will, and so the capacity for error, it seems likely that there might be many faiths, in disagreement.
But most faiths believe in a personal God of love, justice, mercy, heaven and hell: the same God.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Lisa:"Greg are you for real?[Science does not offer facts]"
I did give a reference: follow it up. There is also a philosophical problem: you can not know that you are not mad. Consequently you don't know that anything is real.
Only an almighty God could give objective knowledge.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg, that isnt a fact at all. You are deluded, if you professed to be 'speaking to' anyone else other than god you'd be taken away by the men in white coats. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but you're not going to heaven, you'll be wormfood like the rest of us.
Jamie T, aberdeen, scotland
David:"Greg:"Science doesn't offer facts." To most intents and purposes it does."
Only in a pragmatic sense. I might be insane and strapped up, but it makes no difference to me: I'm still going to make a cup of tea from my hallucinatory tea pot. But I still can't know anything for sure but self.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Richard:"by who?[Greg:God is considered the infinite masculine] "
Both Christians and in philosophy. I'm actually quoting CS Lewis.
"Is that not a sexist attitude to take?"
Its just the relation between giver/reciever, creator/created etc. Consider the nature of sex.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
To all you atheists out there... given that we probably know only 1% of all there is to know about the natural world and universe beyond, it is a little rash to pronounce on God's existence. Come back to us when you have the other 99% sorted. Cheers.
Andrew Brown, derby, UK
"He's not saying it's a revealed image but a state of mind."
I appreciate that but if he means he had a dream, heard a voice, or whetever, then spit it out? It is the persistent, deliberate lack of clarity (mumbo jumbo) which I attack. Is it unfair to ask for clarity. Seeking the truth?
Richard, Jersey,
Greg: "Science doesn't offer facts." To most intents and purposes it does. Compare the value of the worldviews: an explanatory framework which is improved over time and validated by our experience versus an explanatory framework which is conceptually self-validating whatever our experience.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Science doesn't offer facts -
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg are you for real? I have read your prior posts & thought you to be one of the more evolved religious types but this statement is ridiculous!
I am an atheist due to the fact the science DOES offer undoubtable facts and truths!
Lisa C, London,
Greg,
For once can you please understand the difference between religion and god. Dawkins is against religion and openly admits god can neither be proved or disproved.
If god and religion were linked, there would only be one!
Stick to defending religion if you you think it defensable.
Matt, Antibes, france
Adrian:" why should we deny children the right to know the facts?"
The fact is that God exists, and proves Himself to the genuine truth seeker, which an atheist by definition cannot be.
Science doesn't offer facts. Read up on Karl Popper, pre-eminent science philosopher.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Adrian,
if you think that science is conceptually complete and the only source of what we know to be factual, then you don't understand the what the philosophy of science is. If we didn't put weight in purely conceptual things then we wouldn't have had any technological progress.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Religion simply fills the gaps that cannot be explained by scientific research and fact. As time goes on, science becomes more prevalent.
Although they may be attracted to happy religious stories designed to brainwash them, why should we deny children the right to know the facts?
Adrian, London,
Materialist atheists claim not to buy into the notion of ideals being as real as physical reality (sometimes more so). Despite the fact that they still use technology resulting from such a notion . Time & space cannot be reconciled without the ideal. The God ideal is evidence of its own existence.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
If you take God out it there's no reason I can't nick your wallet and sleep with your wife. If I do so, you'll say, "That's not fair." I can say, "Well I think its fair." If there is no Moral Law, then the 'moral law' is open to interpretation to each individual.
Laurence England, Brighton, United Kingdom
Richard, as a practical atheist I obviously doubt that revelation takes place but you're not being fair here. He's not saying it's a revealed image but a state of mind as far as I can tell. That said, I've met one or two Christians who claim they have two-way conversations with god as with a person.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Come now, YOU claim your masculine but non male god directly revealed HIMself to you. If you are not lying/deluded you will be able to answer the questions easily. Clearly Leatherhead is not just your hometown.
I await a full description. I wouldn't want to confuse him with Frank Gallager.
Richard, Jersey,
"As the instigator/creator God is considered the infinite masculine (but not male). "
Why? And considered by who?
Is that not a sexist attitude to take?
Richard, Jersey,
Richard:"you are confirming that god is definately male."
As the instigator/creator God is considered the infinite masculine (but not male).
"Tell us more Greg. What did he look like? Did he have long hair, a beard?"
Since God's nonexistence is unprovable your mockery is misdirected.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"By directly revealing himself." Lorriman.
OK, lets get this straight, you are confirming that god is definately male.
Tell us more Greg. What did he look like? Did he have long hair, a beard? What colour was he? White, black, Asian? What was he wearing? How tall? Moles or birthmarks?
Richard, Jersey,
I never said they choose to evolve. Just asking an open question.
Stu, London, UK
Laurence: "We're the only species who cry out, "Oh God!".
Primarily that's because other species don't speak English, Laurence.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Greg, how can you say atheists aren’t truth seekers. We clearly are, it is the religious that are happy to believe what they are told and not ask any questions. Athiests have the sense to realise that ‘god’ doesn’t answer any questions, it poses the bigger one of who or what created this god?
Jamie T, aberdeen, scotland
A man walks home and finds his wife in bed with another man, her lover flees. Alone they row until in a fit of rage he kills her. Afterwards he realises the crime he has committed and cries out in a loud voice, "God! Oh God! What have I done!?" We're the only species who cry out, "Oh God!".
Laurence England, Brighton, United Kingdom
"Still curious to know how God proved His existence to Greg . And why he hasn't visited the rest of us!"
By directly revealing Himself, as he does for all genuine truth-seekers. Atheists, by presuming the non-existence of God despite being unprovable, are evidently not genuine truth-seekers.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Richard Dawkins is a skilled self publicist and user of the media but a good scientist he isnt.
His assertions are based on faith not science. No other scientific theory stands with so many gaps and contradictions.
It's also interesting that so many people can quote the bible without studying it
Peter Southerden, Swindon, UK
Whatever anyone thinks about Dawkins as a person, it can only be a good thing to be trying to get people interested in Science and Learning.
Paul, Ireland,
Oh dear, why are people taking notice of Mr Dawkins, a writer of a fundamdentalist book that has done Athiesm no favours. Badly written and thought out it has to be a fifth column effect by the Church to destroy Atheism.
By the way I am an Atheist by choice and reason, is Mr Dawkins?
Howard , Basildon, England
Stu,
Sorry but you need to read up a bit on evolution. No organism 'chooses' to evolve. When you have please feel free to join the debate.
James Morgan, Bolton, Lancs
If everything evolved from single cell organisms, and those organisms are still on the planet, then why would they have bothered to evolve in the first place?
Stu, London, UK
I was a member of various evangelical churches in the UK for over 20 years. In all that time I never heard creationism preached, and I never met a creationist, or at least anyone who said they were or talked about. It was a complete non-issue, and that's going back to the late 70s.
John, Edinburgh,
This Dawkins bashing beggars belief, the man is simply trying to educate our oh so ignorant population. The needs to be more Dawkins of this world, people who are proud to stand as Atheists and fight the regilious corruption of our education system. The man is a god send ! Lol !
Lisa Crundwell, London,
Think u will find, when reading Darwin, that his theory is based on micro evolution. Macro evolution, the evolution of one animal to another ie rat to bird, has never come close to being proved. Also, the slight problem with evolution... Where did life start? It cannot come from no life.
Colin Wilson, Milton Keynes,
Still curious to know how God proved His existence to Gregg Lorriman. And why he hasn't visited the rest of us!
Kaz, London,
J McD is at it again.
It would be hard to find a better argument for Atheism than his rude, misleading, disingenuous and overwheeningly arrogant posturing.
Keep it up.
Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK
It seems the religous think they are incapable of morals without super natural guidance. Thanks to a book written 2000 years ago and deities, they avoid amoral oblivion and their inclination to plunder, murder, rape and pillage. Without this safety net, they would cleary be psychopaths. Piffle!
Sam, Aylesbury, UK
Travis:"Evolution..should be taught as hard fact "
Did someone invent a time machine? I like evolution, but it plainly cannot be a fact.
You dogmatists should stop trying to force your beliefs on others. Even Christianity is voluntary: but not, it would seem, Dawkinsanity.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
If god exists, and is omniscient and omnipotent (which he must necessarily be), then why would he let me 'get away' with not believing in him, which leads me on the path to hell? why no miraculous conversion for me? it seems rather unfair. he is either malevolent, oblivious or non-existent. Hmm.
James, London, UK
All this Dawkins bashing its going too far, the man is purely trying to educate the ignorant people of this planet.
There needs to be more public figures who are not wary of standing proud as an atheist and evolutionary beleiver.
Lisa Crundwell, London,
Given the impossibility of debating science over dogma, as shown here, you can understand why Dawkins refuses to debate this matter openly with Creationists.An understanding of cognitive dissonance will explain why they are reluctant to give up their beliefs, despite all the evidence to the contrary
simon, richmond, uk
John seems to think a 'satisfactory' moral framework must be internally consistent and an 'a priori' system in the Kantian sense with the external axiom for 'completeness', as it's then a formal system covered by Godel's theorems, being in the province of god. See any weaknesses there? I see lots.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Judging by the volume of middle-ages thought going on here, we need Mr Dawkins more than ever. I find it incredibly scary that so many clearly educated people believe in creationism. Evolution is not a theory, it's not flawed and should be taught as hard fact without presenting dumb alternatives.
Travis, Barcelona, Spain
John
What "standard of Christian philosophy" do u mean? Crusading knights absolved of murder?
The 000s murdered for refusing to recant their Catholicism, Protestantism, or whatever they believed? The parts of Leviticus that encourage slavery & murder?
Christian philosophy = cruelty & arrogance
Dan Craig, Bangor,
Watch 'Zeitgeist'. Excellent Documentary.
People who think they have found problems with atheism such as 'Laurence' and most of the most of the americans.
May I suggest actually reading Dawkins, and Hitchins for that matter.
Karim, Knysna, South Africa
Richard Dawkins was surely employing a little denial with that final paragraph when you consider the population of Homo sapiens is 6700 million compared with all the other apes combined at less than 500,000. I'm glad Richard Dawkins has a sense of humour though!
kevin, Lincoln, UK
'Laurence': "why do we have conscience?" An evolved trait presumably. Conscience is part of the reason why morality in the real world is almost certainly not a formal system. Another is that real world morality seems tro be partly based on 'a posteriori' knowledge.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
"Christians CAN behave badly and should be asked to account for the disconnect"
what I meant by that was that any self-proclaimed Christian should admit when their actions do not meet the standard of Christian philosophy. The neo-cons who promote torture and unjust wars are prime targets for this.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Andrew,
Christians CAN behave badly and should be asked to account for the disconnect. My point is that science cannot provide morals, and that unprovable axioms are required as a moral framework can be seen as a formal system (Godel's theorems). Atheism finds that hard/impossible to deal with.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Dawkins does okay until he starts talking about religion as "good" or "bad" or "immoral" or even "evil". Well, where do we get these notions? If we have conscience why is it there? Did Someone put it there? If life is a total accident and there is no Creator, why do we have conscience?
Laurence England, Brighton, United Kingdom
Andrew,
Would you sacrifice your life to save a busload of kids from burning to death?
I presume as an atheist your existence as something of an accident.
How can you rationalise such a self-sacrifice using logic based only on self-evident axioms?
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Andrew Ryan: "By the way, I'm a moral, rational atheist. I'm happy to rationally explain my morals."
Noooooo! Don't say that! We'll have dozens of his messages misusing Godel's Incompleteness Theorems now. :-)
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Chris: "Yes, Darwinism wasn't a theory on morality but is the ultimate defense against morals that don't suit us"
That depends on how and from where you draw your morals. In fact, we've derived a set of ethics in the form of the UDHR which explicitly stands against that sort of thing.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
JohnMcD: "I never said that atheists could not lead very moral lives; merely that they could not do so rationally."
...And what's interesting is how many Christians can quite rationally lead very IMMORAL lives. By the way, I'm a moral, rational atheist. I'm happy to rationally explain my morals.
Andrew Ryan, London,
David,
The link I provided proves that you are not genuine and do not have the stomach for in depth discussion.
Carry on posting your idle and negative opinions, and I'll carry on pointing out the facts.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
"You can believe what you like, but don't misrepresent and obfuscate whilst pretending to be thoughtful and truth-seeking."
This should be directed at your straw man.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
How did God prove his existence to you Greg?
James Morgan, bolton, lancs
Sam:"carbon dated fossils, mapping..genome ..are circumstantial evidence?"
Well, they are, aren't they. I prefer evolution because it is an excellent theory: but I don't *beleive* in it because without a time-machine we're not near proof. Whereas God proved His own existence to me: so I believe.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg - '..Evolution...a good theory. .but, it is all from circumstantial evidence... took quite a while.. to come up with it.
So, carbon dated fossils, mapping the human genome and genetics are circumstantial evidence? It took time to develop? Ofcourse! The technology is new, but mind expanding!
Sam, Aylesbury, UK
John McD
There are posts here that claim evolution isn't even a theory. 'a hypothesis at best' , I was just planting a little seed of evidence to help the argument along. I accept evolution as fact based on the overwhelming evidence for it . Not everyone in this discussion does.
James Morgan, bolton, lancs
The advocates for religion has a 2000 year head-start (Christianity of course) so it's no wonder dawkins is going about spreading a little enlightenment with such fervour.
The other day my 6-year old daughter asked me if I believed in God, she is of course taught in school. They get them early!
Ture Damtoft, London, UK
James,
Who exactly are you arguing against and what about?
I lived in the UK most of my life and never met a creationist there.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Have some evidence!
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
Evolution in the lab.
James Morgan, Bolton, Lancs
I am tired of this guy. Does he not see the parrallels of what he pedals on science with religious belief. A lot of science is thoery based (including Darwinism) which is in essence a belief system just like religion. I would love to spend time with him and tell him about his dead relatives .....
Miesha, Stockport, UK
a quick scan of the comments on this article demonstrates how right dawkins is that religious perspectives need to be consistently opposed. creationism = nonsense.
Dan, Nottingham, uk
David,
I admit that I probably care a bit too much when charlatans and liars claim science and rationality as their own domain. You can believe what you like, but don't misrepresent and obfuscate whilst pretending to be thoughtful and truth-seeking.
John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Hi Jerry, Cambridge. I purposely referred to the ethics of Jesus rather than evangelicals. Your own argument of calling all aircraft 'wrightian' applies to calling all evangelicals Christian. Yes, Darwinism wasn't a theory on morality but is the ultimate defense against morals that don't suit us.
Chris Nel, Ripon, England
David,
"That ought to be enough for anyone."
Please don't ask me when to stop being curious and searching for the truth.
You can't ask me to accept that 1+1=2, but not 2+2=4.
You maybe functioning irrationally on limited axioms, I'd like a little more.
You're an intellectual luddite.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
David -still telling porkies!
I explained explicitly whilst you thought I was talking about the ontological argument, Once again, I never said that atheists could not lead very moral lives; merely that they could not do so rationally.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4023999.ece
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
David,
The problem is how best to experience this world. In the thread "Radical Islam taking advantage of Christianity's decline", I explained to you why the atheist approach can't logically produce a strong moral framework. Unfortunately you prefered silly fibs to the effort of honest discourse.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Dawkins: “Yes. I think we have all been brought up to give too much respect to religion, as opposed to any other kind of opinion.” Indeed. Moreover in my experience it's quite common for the religious to expect, and even demand, special respect and freedom from criticism for their beliefs.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The Blue Coat is not a private school.
Helen, Liverpool,
Methinks angry believers in the supernatural protest too much. The game is up and about time too. The natural world surpasses their self obsessed view by miles."The Genius of Charles Darwin" should be excellent viewing.
iain rae, Tunbridge Wells, U.K.
John I've looked into your beliefs and ideas a number of times and I find them neither compelling nor particularly coherent. You seem to need my validation but I find you way too excitable now for me to indulge and the medium is inappropriate for the subject. Try an atheist/philosophy forum instead.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
David -still telling porkies!
I explained explicitly whilst you thought I was talking about the ontological argument, Once again, I never said that atheists could not lead very moral lives; merely that they could not do so rationally.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4023999.ece
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
David,
"That ought to be enough for anyone."
Please don't ask me when to stop being curious and searching for the truth.
You can't ask me to accept that 1+1=2, but not 2+2=4.
You maybe functioning irrationally on limited axioms, I'd like a little more.
You're an intellectual luddite.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
David I also explained it under the "26 pilgrims" thread...but once again, the rationale fails to stick with you.
I understand that these are difficult subjects. All the more reason to work at them rather than merely pretending to understand and propagating more misinformation.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
John: "I explained to you why the atheist approach can't logically produce a strong moral framework." No, you briefly outlined your belief that it cannot. I think it is flawed in many & varied ways. However, the reality is that atheists can clearly have rewarding lives contrary to your expectations.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
David,
The problem is how best to experience this world. In the thread "Radical Islam taking advantage of Christianity's decline", I explained to you why the atheist approach can't logically produce a strong moral framework. Unfortunately you prefered silly fibs to the effort of honest discourse.
John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Steve: "Understand it, accept it, and make the most of life while you have it." Exactly. Our universe is a truly wonderful place and we have the capacity to appreciate it, form rewarding relationships with other humans and animals, and realise our own goals. That ought to be enough for anyone.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Steve B,
You should try to use your capacity for abstract thought. There is a difference between accidental truths (Volvos, ducks, etc) and conceptual truths (1+1=2, pi*r2). The evidence is your existence. Something caused you, and imperical investigation is not enuf-rationality is more than science
John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Keith S, the theories you cite (relativity etc.) are proper, useful theories that make testable predictions. Darwinism makes none, which is why I insist it is merely a hypothesis at best. To cite breeding (which has in any case never produced a new species) is a fallacy, as it is not 'natural'.
Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, UK
Gareth"the scientific facts [from the bbc] is evident that Evolution exists"
Only a small minority of Christians are formal biblical literalists. Most are allowed to accept evolution if they wish: a Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory.
(BTW, there are non-religious fanatics, too.)
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
If you were a god, would you make the world as it is?
Jack, Berwick on Tweed,
Religion is dying and the sooner it's gone the better. People fighting over who has the most important imaginary friend. Madness. Treating their life as a stepping stone to somewhere that doesn't exist. Same amount of evidence of god as there is of fairies and pixies. NONE.
Steve B, Fort Lauderdale , USA
If you really want to know how kind and caring a religion is, don't ask what it promises you if you "join up", ask what it promises you if you don't!
Steve B, Fort Lauderdale,
I amazes me how much the "brights" on here have a completely inflated opinion of their own scientific understanding. Given that it is the basis of their strawman argument against religion, you'd think they'd try harder. But that would require humility, the lack of which enables Dawkins big con job.
John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA
Murphy,
David was rejecting 'blind acceptance' (the dogma) of Dawinism. It is more than likely that Dawinism will be superceded by a better theory at some stage, It is right and proper to allow competing theories (neo-Lamarckism, epigenetics etc) to be heard. Also science vs religion is a strawman.
JohnMcD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Anthony,
An egg needs to be fertilised by another haploid cell to create a human. The combination of DNA contains the design for that human.
Are you suggesting that this is the same way in which humans sprang from amoeba? Dawinism is not a complete theory of evolution, though it may appear so to u
John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA
"Im glad someone with common sense like Prof Dawkins decided to state the blinking obvious "
I accept evolution (conditionally) because its a good theory. But it really isn't blinking obvious: it is all from circumstantial evidence, and it took quite a while for any one to come up with it.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Dr Murphy - First you must demonstrate using observed examples how natural selection results in increased genetic information, complexity and functionality in an organism.
Second you must demonstrate how life started from nonliving material.
Without these the theory is just an elegant myth.
Martin, Skye,
Murphy,
David was rejecting 'blind acceptance' (the dogma) of Dawinism. It is more than likely that Dawinism will be superceded by a better theory at some stage, It is right and proper to allow competing theories (neo-Lamarckism, epigenetics etc) to be heard. Also science vs religion is a strawman.
JMcDSF, San Francisco , ca, USA
Steve,
Apart from being a guess, you choose a belief that is nihilistic and unrewarding. Seems irrational..it is a superficial position that rejects what great minds from Plato to Godel have shown to be true...that physical reality is a sometimes misleading reflection of the full truth.
JohnMcD, San Francisco, ca, USA
Dr D Murphy
Evolution may be "elegant" but it won't work because: 1] Chemical evolution is probabalistically impossible [origin of life] 2] Beneficial [information gaining] mutations don't happen
3] Natural selection has no foresight and cannot co-develop complex organ systems.
David , Bournemouth, UK
This argument is pointless. Remember the state of complete and utter non existence you were in before you were born? Of course not, because you weren't there. This same state of complete non existence awaits you when you die. Understand it, accept it, and make the most of life while you have it.
Steve, Birmingham, UK
Religion is the last refuge of the weak-minded
Nick Mortimer, London,
Who came first "Man or God".
Of course man did.
God was a creation of man to control man.
Before man there was no god.
Whoever believes in the virgin birth and Adam and Eves apple tree, are as nutty as fruitcakes.
Ask any caveman who God is and he'll will ask what the hell you are talking about.
Harry Charles Hood, sabadell, spain
Joyce from Warwickshire
Every single one of us has come from a single cell, what do you think an egg is?
Anthony, Bridgend, Wakes
Take a look at "Least Religious Countries"
Sweden, 1st (least religious)
Japan, 5th
UK, 15th
US, 44th
Do I see a correlation between religion and gullibility? The thicker you are the more likely you are to be religious.
Put organized religion on the back foot where it belongs.
Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan
KR:"If getting to heaven is free and simply requires belief, "
That is a protestant idea. No other major religion, nor other Christians, discount one's actions.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
McFarland:" Suggest you read 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alistair McGrath."
I've read it. in fact, I ordered it after the God Delusion for balance. It makes a few reasonable points along the way but it's hardly a killer response and it reads as though the author has personal issues with Dawkins.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
To those religious zealots who keep asking about the 'missing link'. There is some evidence, but even if there wasn't it's like getting the number series 2,4,x, 8,10. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the intermediate stage.
Dave, Liverpool, England
re-Louise True. If only there were no religions we could have in their place organized, money grubbing, corrupt predatory, atheistic dogmas (secular progressive, Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist) attacking people with emotional blackmail, the greatest slaughters in history & FAKE promises of heaven on earth.
Cathy Hansen, Ruckersville, Virginia, USA
Getting rid of evolution is easy-peasy - produce experimental proof of falsity in Darwin's theory. Getting rid of religious fervour, however ... If getting to heaven is free and simply requires belief, why so many rules and why the collection plate? Religion bears the hallmarks of gang membership
KR, Stockport,
David and Stephen
I'd like to hear your comments as to the why Evolutionary Theory is "flawed" or merits rejection "on rigorous scientific grounds." I'm a widely read scientist, and I believe it to be an elegant theory backed by a myriad of evidence.
You two wouldn't happen to be, erm, religious?
Dr D Murphy, Lerwick, Scotland
Religions were created for one purpose, to control people. They do it by inducing fear,hence purgatory and hell, or by promising rewards,hence the the brothel and 70 virgins per murderer. A born again atheist I neither fear the suggested perpetual torment or spend eternity in a brothel.
Victor, Sarasota, Florida
Theres nothing wrong in believing in fairy tales...
Winslow, Toronto, Canada
Is there an evolution of consciousness? If there is, then what would we know about it? What would be it's purpose?
Chris, London,
The biggest threat to true science in our classrooms is the blind acceptance of theories such as evolution.
I reject evolution purely on rigorous scientific grounds and so do countless other science graduates. When valid citicism is stifled, science becomes its own religion [Dawkianity?]
David, Bournemouth, UK
Simon Ellis, here in USA, especially the South, a vast number of people would have Creationism actually replace Evolutionism in the school systems, put homosexuals in jail and outlaw birth control of any kind. The windmills over here are spinning freely, trust me.
James Ellis, Atlanta, USA
to think that people actually believe that the Universe was formed in a week, hahaha! Some people wont accept the inarguable like dismissing a punch in the face, somewhat moronic. Im glad someone with common sense like Prof Dawkins decided to state the blinking obvious
Alex, Ferndown, United Kingdom
Dawkins speaks from a position of strength drawn from science. The religious fanatics speak from a position of wishful thinking and superstitious nonsense written by ignorant, barely literate barbarians more than 2000 years ago.
Jim, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Remember that the history of most religions is based on politics, not on caring about mankind.
Why worry about hell, when there are organised religions that can, and in my opinion do, make some people's lives hell on earth?
Why do, obscenely rich, religions accept so much money from the poor?
Marc, Paris, France
There's some shocking misunderstandings about the theory of evolution about and that's a good enough reason for schools to spend more time on that and what a theory actually means. Darwin wrote about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Dawkins certainly understands the difference.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
"The God Delusion – a bestseller that picks apart the inconsistencies in religion with scalpel-like logic." Have you read the book? Some unbelievers are embarassed by its poor quality. Suggest you read 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alistair McGrath.
"S Mc Farland, BALLYCLARE , UNITED KNGDOM
Not mine:----
No God=No absolute truth
No absolute truth=No rules
No rules=No morality
---Response---
No ice cream=unhappy
Unhappy=Aggression
Aggression=Mass killing
Henry, Paris, France
Change the record Professor, it s becoming very tedious. Yes we all know what you think. Clearly the vast majority under the age of 60 already agree with you. You are tilting at ruined windmills.
Simon Ellis, Budieigh, UK
I need to point out that, as a former student of the Blue Coat, the school does not condone the teaching of intelligent design in its science lessons. Also, Nick Cowan isnt a bad teacher. He teaches the syllabus with an enthusiasm which is uncommon these days. His beliefs rarely enter the classroom.
Kimberley, Liverpool, UK
People who speak against atheists is quick to scoff at Zeus, Ra,Thor, as primitive beliefs; yet they are blind to the fact that the God they believe in is no different from those ancient myths - a completely imaginary answer to questions for which humans at that time did not have an explanation.
Faqi , London, UK
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
George Bernard Shaw
Faqi , London, UK
Biblical accounts of Christ's life are not fairy tales. He healed the sick, raised the dead. Concrete acts. Similar events occur in Christian circles today. Hard to believe? Please check details. Once again, for its reason and logic, read "What's so great about Christianity", by Dinesh D'Souza.
Jacquelyn B., Ottawa, Canada
Dawkins has taken Darwinism and used it to promote his atheist agenda. Darwin suggested belief in evolution was not incompatible with belief in God although the historic creationist belief would be. Darwin was not an athiest because of his evolutionary beliefs but lost faith when his daughter died.
Paul, London,
says Dawkins. “It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.”
Islam is not a race.
Jon, London, uk
'If god exists, why doesn't he show himself?' Is a question i asked myself when I was young. Should we believe what was written in a book by people long ago who had little scientific understanding of the world. Yet people keep grasping to what those people wrote down. Its holding humanity back.
Willem Tuil, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Truth In Science (Ha Ha) are still claiming that their ID/Creationist material meets the curriculum even after new teachers guidlines ruling it out, name them specifically.
More details here;
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScienceRevealed
Mark Edon, Leeds, Yorkshire
I Love Richard Dawkins.
Greatest living Englishman.
Proud to be in your company.
Ian, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear
Faith is faith and evolution is an article of faith for Dawkins as much as intelligent design is for others. In the movie Expelled when host Ben Stein asks Dawkins to explain the origins of the universe Dawkins actually stammers something about the possibility that advanced beings had a role!
Charles, Nashville, TN, USA
The government have made it crystal clear that they do not consider intelligent design to be science & that it should not be taught in science lessons. See:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/NewGovtPosition
Alan Bellis, Goole, East Yorkshire.
science does prove many things,those unsolved mysteries,it is trying.but religion is null.
muhammed shafiq, manchester, u.k
The arguements of the religious in this blog are so trivial and ridden with holes that a five year old child could see through them. I guess powers of reason wither on the vine when you need to suppress both this and common sense in order to maintain the integrity of your religious belief.
James Darling, London,
Whatever your beliefs, you are entitled to them, but it's nasty and arrogant to say those who disagree are fundamentally stupid. What is the difference between Dawkins and the inquisitions, crusades and pogroms of history? Time.
Given time, there'll be no difference. Extremists always spill blood.
Paul M, Puerto del Rosario, Spain
St. Augustine, Acquinas and Pope JP II all warned Christians from interpretating Genisis as fact as science is constantly revealing the true laws/facts of nature. ID academics themselves lament their inability to provide scientific proof for ID and so they wage a cultural war against evolution.
Anthony, Dubai, UAE
Science itself evolves which is exactly what sets it apart from the unchanging dogmas and myths of religion. So rather than battling to convince children of a particular scientific theory that may change over time, let's instead teach our children the joys of discovery and accomplishment.
mike Romeling, east Nassau, U.S.
We need more people like Dawkins to challenge the deadly grip which religion seems to have on our schools and to question the respect which religion seems unreasonably to expect from those in authority. Why do schools waste so much time teaching RE at the expense of useful subjects
David Bennington, Ruislip, UK
" Williams’s line is that evolution is all well and good, but that God was responsible for it." So what's the problem? you get scientific evolution AND God.
"We are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge.” Substitute faith for science and reread.
Sarah N., London, UK
Strange that so many cannot trust the physical evidence all around them.
Why prefer an impoverished world of superstition to the awesome wonders of reality?
Barbar Suzuki, Norwich,
"Truth in Science" is not a pamphlet or 'a manifesto for evolution via “intelligent design"'. Truth in Science is a group of Young Earth Creationists led by Prof. Andy Mackintosh, who claims that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood 4000 years ago. ID is just the thin end of their wedge.
Brian Jordan, Huddersfield, Yorkshire
C Nel "Darwinsim" is not meaningful here - its like calling all aircraft "wrightian" (Judson). Darwin's basic principles stand but understanding has moved on since AND it is was not a theory of morality but of the origin of spiecies p. s. Divorce rates are just as high in US evangelical homes
jerry w, cambridge, uk
Its time to sling religion out of all of our schools. State education needs to be factual. Children need facts to counter fairy stories.
No god stupidity would put creation on its knees, when it has feet and brains. Obeisance lacks morality. Confidence in evolution is our genetic right.
Charlotte Peters Rock, Knutsford, England
While some do correctly observe that science cannot (yet) explain everything, it certainly can explain, and indeed common sense already allows us to understand, the stories in the Bible, Koran, and likely the other religious texts. There's nothing divine about them and this isn't really hard to see.
Matt, Berlin, Germany
What is great is that Richard Dawkins creates debate. As atheism is not an organised body such as the church, it is marvellous it has a spokesperson who can get publicity. I believe the real point is we should be able to question everything, without fear. We never believe the sign "wet paint" do we?
Keith Lawson, Poole, UK
If only Richard D were better known for promoting the public understanding of science than for bashing Christianity. If only there was more belief in goodn and evil in schools. We might then have fewer children knifing other children to death. Please, RD - stop milking the God cash cow. Science?
MDA, Crouch End , UK
Did I read something about his 'third wife'? Darwinism is so convenient isn't it. Live by my own laws, do my own thing and arrogantly condemn all who suggest that the morals, ethics and teachings of Jesus Christ are better than those of atheistic materialists. It offers a pseudo-scientific excuse.
Chris Nel, Ripon, England
How ar is Mr.Dawkins prepared to consider thateven Darwin's theoryof evolution overlooks one very inconvenient fact: namely the so called 'missing link' between man and homo erectus is not to be found on earth, but that man shares a common ancstor with a group of aliens
Jeremih, London,
Respect for religion is fine , but what about respect for science and, dare I say it, truth. I'm equally perplexed about Darwin's final comment about music and poetry. It's essentially intellectual snobism with a hint of British prudishness. Even Darwin liked kissing girls Richard.
Laurent, Auvergne, France
I watched the BBC Series Earth and I was hooked. I have never been a religious fan but the scentific facts from this programme is evident that Evolution exsists. I am currently working as a contractor in Iraq, I don't have to look far to see how religion has brain washed a nation.
Gareth Watkins, Swansea, UK
I was brought up to 'fear God'. Since than (I am age 69 now) I no longer fear God, but only want to try to get closer to Him as a person. God is a Spirit: no wonder we can't touch Him except through the inner eye of Faith.....How may Dawkins feel as death approaches. A sudden humbling? I hope so.
Richard Longridge, Henvic, France
On the contrary, this not as atheism in the guise of science, but rather atheism drawn from the conclusions of empirical science. May I emphasize that a “theory” is not a “hypothesis” as it is a testable idea; & there is indeed much evidence for evolution. (I'd elaborate but can't due to word limit!
SN, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I'm puzzled *why* we need to "rise above our Darwinian heritage"? That comment of Richard's is utterly unscientific, to be frank. Why is it when he gets to the critical stuff of how we live with one another, he throws science out the window and runs into wishy-washy metaphysics?
Dave Roberts, Aylesbury, UK
Consciousness inevitably leads humans to question their exsistence, some quickly come up with an idea many then accept this idea and mass belief reinforces and embroiders the idea. Meanwhile many more humans continue to question and test their findings. We should strive to let children decide freely
Clive Stringer, Eggesford, England
Many people who purport to be Muslim just go throught the motions, and don't really understand their faith.
The Koran encourages Muslims to examine other avenues - it seems some of their sociocultural upbringings have not allowed this.
Download the movie ZEITGEIST for a nice theory on Christianity
JB, Seef, Bahrain
Science has found a few of the answers and in doing so raised many more questions, Religion has made up ALL the answers and does not encourage questions. It would seem that many people are happy to live in ignorance, but surely we should leave our children free to decide for themselves.
Clive Stringer, Eggesford, England
The comments of Joyce and Bob reveal complete ignorance of the theory of evolution and of palaeoanthropology. Before they made fools of themselves like this they should have read a bit more on the subject.
Jim, Glasgow,
Science is in part observation: if we don't allow for the effects of intelligent forces (either us or a God) then what we observe will not be comprehensible. The probabilities against evolution starting are so great scientists are chasing multi-universe theories, but a God is the other possibility.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Cathy: "Dawkins's dogmatism (a theory) is brainwashing."
He promotes evolution as a theory and he'll be happy to explain what theory means, what support the theory has, and where the current holes are. He also reasons against god hypotheses and promotes enquiry. Brainwashing? Quite the opposite!
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Dawkins is right that teachers fear offending parents. However, when I teach evolution to 8 year olds (3rd grade), I explain that evolution is a theory that is backed by a great deal of research and facts. They should have open minds all their lives to explore and understand science.
Patrick Jacobson, Las Vegas, USA
Appallingly, Dawkins doesn't notice the moral decay which occurs once the mind is deprived of a spiritual goal. Epigenetics shows that genes transmit the stresses of parents for at least 2 generations. If materialism's grandkids are the hoodies, their heroes ought really to be Dawkins and Darwin.
iain carstairs, bedford, uk
On one hand Dawkins is "glad we've risen above" our Darwinian heritage, on the other this fanatic is infuriated that society has not trust HIS brand of Darwinian propaganda (the proliferation of atheism in the guise of science) down children's throats. Dawkins's dogmatism (a theory) is brainwashing.
Cathy Hansen, Ruckersville, Virginia, USA
Dawkins opinion on religion is absurd since Evolution is nothing more than a religion itself - you have to believe we all came from a single cell......and that a snail can become a monkey etc. Ha Ha - that's the most laughable religion yet!!
Joyce, Warwickshire, UK
Dawkins should explain why science has failed to find the missing links. Faith in unfounded science is more fairy tale stuff than faith in God.
Bob, Las Vegas, Usa
Dawkins is right to expose the naivety of religious fundamentalists, and to expect evolution to be taught clearly and openly to all from an early age. However, to so do with an atheist tone, or to suggest it is not possible for God to have created evolution would be just as wrong. Caution Mr. D!
Gary West, Jakarta, Indonesia
Many of us, with first rate scientific minds, know that the physical sciences fail to give a complete explanation of reality and the human experience.
Why is the media so enthralled by this limited mind keen to promote his worldview?
I accept evolution as a fact and I know there is God.
Garth Paul Sang, Milton Keynes,
Uche George encourages Dawkins to criticize Islam as "since he does not believe in God he has nothing to fear from the inevitable fatwa".
Total drivel.
Whether or not you believe in God has nothing to do with whether you believe in knife-wielding lunatics. I imagine Theo van Gogh believes in them.
Lizzie, London,
Faith has nothing to do with accepting hook, line, and sinker the religious dogma handed down by your culture. It has more to do with fidelity in wanting to discover Truth, whatever that is. If you constrain yourself by any dogma, you are unlikely to find the real Truth about anything.
Paul X, California, USA
Uche, read his books. Dawkins criticizes all religions, including Islam. He has the same thing to fear from a Fatwah as from a Christian inquisition, the wrath of man.
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
Stephen, if you have a PhD in physics you know Einstein's relativity, Newton's laws, and Quantum mechanics are all defective theories that only predict reality in special circumstances.
Why aren't you knocking them instead of Darwin?
Evolution by selection has been proven by breeding.
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
What is truly pathetic is to see those who hold the stories of any Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) as literal fact when we know from archaeology that they were taken from earlier pagan religions. We have the earlier texts and earlier versions.
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
If Jacquelyn can recommend a book I'd also like to: "Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke. It explains the sources of New Testament stories. Its a brilliant book, easy to read, and in paper back.
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
I think the man is brilliant - imagine if the world didn't have organised, money grabbing, corrupt, predatory churches attacking people with emotional blackmail and fake promises of life after death... if we recognised our 1 life we might actually make some time to do nice things for one and other!
louise, guadalajara, Mexico
That we are not following Darwinian dictates owes a lot to the the Jews (Ten Commandments etc), Christianity, as without them there would not be a Western civilization that led to modern science and prosperity. Einstein once said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
sd goh, pj, malaysia
Religion is a cultural expression of a society's relationship with nature/the universe/whatever. It's also a structure within which people get along with each other.
Science is based on measurement and observation, while religion focuses on relationships.
The trick is not to confuse them.
Fiona, Glasgow,
Religion should be treated with the same respect as astrology and magic.
Bruce Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
I guess instead of believing our "holy book," we should all just believe Dawkins now. He's telling us what we can believe, how much our beliefs may influence our educations, what our children should be taught, and what parts of evolutionary theory we may disregard.
Marie, San Francisco, USA
I don't understand why anyone would want to believe an idea like creationism which, to anyone with an ounce of sense, is so obviously false. From a personal persective, I find the truth far more interesting than the wishful thinking of creationists.
Ceri John, Burry Port, Wales
Ogg and Zog came out a of a cave many years ago:
"Good grief, where did all this come from?"
"Uhrrm - some guy made it."
"But there's LOADS of it."
"Oh yeah, a real BIG invisible guy."
"What, really?"
"Yeah really. Now give me 10% of everything you grow or he'll get mad."
And so religion was born.
Andy Farley, Liverpool, UK
Back in the 1980s, I was taught evolution in school as absolute fact; it was only much later, after I had completed my physics PhD, that the penny dropped as to how flawed Darwin's theory was. Actually, it's not strictly even a theory; at best a hypothesis. Pupils should be taught the difference.
Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, England
When he starts critcising islam and the prophert mohammed, then Dawkins might have earned the right to speak about religon, after all since he does not believe in God he has nothing to fear from the inenvitable fatwa
Uche George, London , England
Pesonally, I don't have a lot of time for this man and find TV programmes presented by him a complete waste of time; more than anything Pro-Christian.
He comes across as a bit of a wild anti-religion nutter obsessed by his shallow thoeries and I frequently find his arguments totally unbelievable.
Drew, Dallas, USA
I would like to recommend a book "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza, published by Regnery Publishing Inc. D'Souza uses facts and rigorous scholarly interrogation, exposing the atheist attack as intellectually baseless. Powerful, genuinely exciting arguments for Christianity.
Jacquelyn B., Ottawa, Canada
Ah, so even Dawkins falls at the final hurdle. When it comes to the behaviour of his own brain, he's a creationist.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK