If you’ve got an hour free, this interview with Kevin Padian is a pleasant listen. The interviewer is a bit of a bore, but Padian is always an intelligent conversationalist — I’d like to have seen a more aggressive counter to some of the silly stuff brought up by the interviewer, but this was not an antagonistic situation so I can also see why the discussion goes in the direction it does. There were a lot of places where I would have said, “Padian is exactly right, but…” — but then I think I’m just intrinsically crankier.
Well, there is a part about halfway through where he says the role of chance is negligible that I would take strong exception to…
I noticed that part where Padian downplayed chance in evolution. Compared to the way many creationists talk about it though, any reasonable interpretation of evolution has a relatively low level of randomness. Also, since he works at the sort of super macro level, he is in a position more suited to seeing “inevitable” sorts of changes (I would think) rather than random drift at the small scale. I liked his monopoly example, except that in reality the “board” (environment?) would be subject to evolution as well as the pieces.
I thought that he completely misrepresented Dawkins with the random comment. That chance has almost nothing to do with it is absolutely correct, but the implication that that is Dawkins’ position is frankly naive. Certainly it’s worthwhile to point out the difference between lucking into a good design and maintaining that design and the gradual changes to climb mount improbable.
Also, the host made the point about how Dawkins believes in a magical watch making factory springing out of nowhere and thinks that settles the issue. I think letting that kind of comment stand is disingenuous. It’s harder to find a larger disanalogy with which to compare evolution than a factory requiring an explanation, even gravity has some workings we don’t understand.
The questioner at the end noted Einstein’s brain apparently glad that his brain was normal and therefore everybody can do what Einstein did, or some such ideas. In 1999 they reanalyzed his brain and found he was missing a section, had another section 15% larger, and the larger section had significantly more glial cells.
Good but, off.
The interviewer remarked that we don’t get much chance to teach philosophy and religion in our schools. I’m beginning to think that would actually be a good thing.
If students got a course in logic along with a course in comparative religion, many more would see through the really awful theologies with which they are confronted by a mail-order minister on TV.
Of course if they do as well in logic as they do in algebra…
If you go to the Fora.Tv website, there is an interesting ID vs. Evolution debate from 10/28/07.
Looks like lots of other cool stuff, too!
My previous comment was made before I finished watching the video, (didn’t want to lose my thought) so please pardon the double post.
I was also struck by the statement made by the interviewer that science does not explain anything. My feeling is that religion does not explain anything. Obviously we are talking about two different things, or at least kinds of explanations.
A religious person sees the SE Asian tsunamis and asks “Why?
A scientist talks about tectonic plates shifting, water being displaced, waves becoming much larger in shallower water; he explains why the tsunamis happened.
But that’s not the “why” the religious person wanted. They wanted to know how these terrible events could have played a part in the plan of a benevolent God. Were they being punished for some regional sin? Was there some greater good being served? Those are the “why” questions for the religious person.
To me, the first explanation is complete, and the questions asked by the religious person are meaningless.
Often I don’t think people realize we are talking about two very different worlds. Religious people are not any stupider on average than any others, they look at the world differently.
BaldApe, I have to differ with you over, “Religious people are not any stupider on average than any others…”.
Have you ever been to a meeting of Humanists? It’s readily apparent that their average IQ is much higher than that of the general population. I’ve not actually been to a meeting of religiots for fifty years, but I’m sure, from general observation, that they wouldn’t score much higher than average. So, I think it follows that religious people are stupider on average than atheists, (who, of course, are very often Humanists).
Richard Harris,
I realized after I said that that someone would reply as you did. What I should have said is something more like “religious people aren’t that way because they are stupid.”
There are plenty of intelligent people who choose a point of view that leads to religious thought. There are plenty of people who reject religious belief for pretty stupid reasons too.
I agree with you, but as Jonathan Swift said, you can’t reason somebody out of something they weren’t reasoned into. (or words to that effect)
…often in a stupid way…
…often in a stupid way…
Tatarize wrote:
Especially given Dawkins’ reputation in certain circles as a naive arch-adaptationist.
AttemptingReason:
Actually, it should be the other way around. It’s easier to predict antibiotic resistance in bacteria than the next new phylum. Flying vertebrates might be likely, but hardly “inevitable”.