1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #312764 by Richard Dawkins on January 5, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Richard,

I don't see how you can take that position for anything other than an early abortion. If you assert, as you do in The God Delusion, that a late term abortion can indeed cause suffering to the fetus (however minimal), how can you then hold to the principle of a fetus not suffering as being a preferential argument for pro-choice?

Although an embryo doesn’t suffer, that surely would not be the case for the duration of the pregnancy. As the child’s nervous system develops, the argument for lack of fetal suffering becomes increasingly precarious.

Precisely. So don't do late abortions, do them early.
Richard

2. Ancient African Exodus Mostly Involved Men, Geneticists Find

Comment #312688 by Richard Dawkins on January 5, 2009 at 11:19 am

Once again we have a serious and interesting article, followed by an early spate of frivolous comments, in this case making use of stereotypes about women nagging and men failing to ask directions. It reminds me of the way scientific items on the television news are so often turned into jokes.

The main finding is interesting, and reminiscent of a similar suggestion about Viking gene flow into Britain. In the Viking case the reason is much more obvious. How many Y-chromosomes were there in a longship compared with the number of heritable mitochondria? And what did the Viking males do when they landed?

I feel confused by this article too. How does it fit in with "Mitochondrial Eve" living 140kya and "Chromosomal Y Adam" living 60kya?

I don't see your problem. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor we all share in the female female female only line. Y-chromosome Adam is the most recent common ancestor we all share in the male male male only line. We are not only talking here about those of us whose ancestors moved out of Africa. Those who remained in Africa are part of the human family who are descended from M-Eve and Y-Adam (who were not a couple, remember).

It is necessarily true that, if you go back far enough, you must encounter both these individuals. But you'll need to go back less far to encounter Y-Adam, because men have greater variation in reproductive success. It is relatively easy for a dominant male with a huge harem to be the ancestor of everybody living, and that will include being the ancestor in the male male male only line.

As somebody else pointed out on this thread, there may well have been a 'Genghis Khan Effect'. This would automatically make Y-Adam more recent than M-Eve, entirely separately from the 'longship' effect which this paper reports. In order to be a common ancestor of everybody alive today, it obviously helps to reproduce via a gigantic harem of the opposite sex. This is far more likely to be true of a male than of a female, because males can have a virtually infinte number of offspring, females can't because they are limited by the nine months of pregnancy. Therefore, although it is necessarily true that there must have been a Y-Adam and an M-Eve, we will have to go back further in order to hit M-Eve than Y-Adam. The argument is spelled out in River Out of Eden Chapter 1.

Richard

3. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312117 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Sue Blackmore has written a serious and worthwhile article, but has been met on our site with mostly frivolous comments. She deserves better.

It seems to me that two worthwhile things emerge from her article. First, we might all go and sign the pledge, as I shall as soon as I sign off here. And second we might offer topics that a non-religious Thought For The Day could cover. I suppose any kind of moral philosophic question would do, and it's usually possible to find something in the day's news that raises a moral question. It would be a good opportunity to demonstrate to people who think otherwise that there is such as thing as a well thought-out secular morality. And also a good opportunity to raise consciousness about what nice people we are.

Richard

4. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311927 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm

However, given the political situation in the US today, it does not pay to voice any of these concerns, as they will be jumped on and abused by the "pro-life" and "religious right" side.

But don't you see, the REASON it would be jumped on by the 'pro-life' and 'religion' side is precisely that the feminists have been using the wrong argument all along. Basing your pro-abortion politics on a bad argument is playing into their hands. If only the feminists had based their pro-abortion argument on a good argument all along (absence of fetal suffering) there would be no question of pro-lifers jumping on it. There'd be nothing to jump on.

Richard

5. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311921 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 11:55 am

I admit that I'm not totally sure I completely agree that what happens to the fetus is of no consequence whatever and that there should be no legal redress for injuries or damage sustained by the fetus in the womb. On the other hand, with the political climate in the US, even the least step in the direction of "granting the fetus rights" (declaring them "persons" in order to get government health care money, for example) is seen, often rightly, as the thin edge of the wedge of depriving women of their reproductive rights. Something that looks totally innocuous from across the pond will sometimes "smell" like a gross infringement of rights by the religious right over here.

But this sounds as though you (or the American feminists whom you are quoting) are prepared to take the truly horrible stance that a woman's rights are paramount EVEN IF the fetus suffers atrocious agony. This cannot be the position of any decent person. What the decent person should say is that the fetus, or at least the early embryo, has no capacity to suffer and THAT is why the woman's rights are paramount.
Richard

6. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311914 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 11:46 am

To be brutally honest, a lot of pro-choice people don't care whether the fetus suffers -- the fetus is basically a non-entity and any attempt to bring it into the equation as a rights-bearing individual necessarily infringes on the rights of the woman

Yes, I am well aware that this is the standard feminist line. That is exactly what I was criticizing. It is fine, as long as the fetus doesn't suffer. But if the fetus does suffer, the woman's right to do what she likes with her own body ceases to be the only relevant consideration. But Layla, I now don't understand your own position. Are you advocating this feminist position, or simply informing us about it?
Richard

7. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311865 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 9:28 am

Absent a crystal ball, how are you going to tell who the future child whipping, starving, raping couples are?

Some sort of box-checking exam?

A police expert good at reading "shifty expressions"?

What sort of bureaucracy are we going to pile on for this?

The Dutch MP's proposal didn't come within ten miles of this. She was talking about parents who had ALREADY abused their children many times. Crystal balls and 'shifty expressions' don't come into it. She is talking about tried and tested abusers.

Richard

8. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311843 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 8:58 am

Modest proposal? Witty, yes, but really the best comparison to draw here? Methinks this line was too Swiftly seized upon...

My apparent wit, unlike Cartomancer's genuine wit, was unintentional. I withdraw it as Swiftly as possible.
Richard

9. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311838 by Richard Dawkins on January 4, 2009 at 8:48 am

I find it shocking the very idea of the state interfering in who can or cannot have children. . .

The state already interferes in who can or cannot KEEP their children. Do you think parents have a right to keep their children even if they whip them? Starve them? Rape them? Presumably not. So why is it worse if the state intervenes to stop them having children in the first place? Layla agrees with you that compulsory contraception is worse than compulsory child-seizing. I have enormous respect for her contributions to this website, but for once I find myself in strong disagreement.

The state has no right to decide who is "fit" or "unfit". Just as a woman has a right to abortion they have a right to become pregnant if they choose.

This is the standard feminist line on abortion (also advocated by Layla) which is that a woman has an absolute right over her own body. I have always found it an extremely bad argument in favour of abortion. IF it were really true that a fetus could suffer: if it were really true that a fetus cries with genuine pain when aborted (as some anti-abortion propaganda claims) I think it would be appalling to defend abortion on the grounds that a woman has an absolute right to do, with her body, what she likes. Any good argument in favour of abortion has to start from the premise that the abortus does NOT suffer the appalling agonies painted by anti-abortion propaganda. Or at least that it suffers much less than the woman suffers through being made to have an unwanted child. By overlooking the need to deny that the abortus suffers, and giving priority to a woman's right to do what she likes with her body regardless of the welfare of its living contents, pro-abortionists weaken their case. My own pro-abortion stance is grounded firmly in the belief that the embryo doesn't suffer.

To return to my main point, if you seriously think the state has no right to decide who is fit or unfit to have a baby in the first place, you must, to be consistent, deny the state the right to take an existing child away from its parent, no matter how cruelly the parent treats the child. I think that those people who object as a matter of high principle to the Dutch MP's modest proposal (she is, after all, proposing only temporary contraception not permanent sterilization) have not thought it through.

Richard

10. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311309 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2009 at 4:36 am

I feel it incumbent on me to snark at this point. This has been forced upon me by the collegial attitude shown by the previous posters. It is not a position I take lightly, but it is a burden I accept.

Right, edit it all, who want's a real conversation with noddies? Make it look slick like some shonky advertising for condos on the Gold-coast.

The whole point is that the noddies are (almost) the only bits that are NOT shown in this version. The whole point of noddies is that they are used for the EDITED version, shown on television. Noddies go hand in hand with EDITING. This is UNedited.

Richard

11. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311264 by Richard Dawkins on January 3, 2009 at 12:42 am

Once again, thank you for understanding that this is unedited, almost completely uncut, raw footage. Only a tiny fraction of it was used in 'Enemies of Reason'. At times, Nick and I went on talking when the Director was talking in the background to the cameraman, which accounts for the camera suddenly lurching off and 'looking' at the grass. I think there is some value in this kind of 'mutual tutorial', where the whole film is not stitched up into a polished, final cut. But I am interested to know, would people prefer at least SOME editing of footage like this?
Richard

12. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #311143 by Richard Dawkins on January 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jan/02/richard-dawkins-chimpanzee-hybrid?showallcomments=true

The Guardian has posted on their website my late contribution to the Edge symposium, and it has attracted some fairly dopey comments.

Richard

13. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #311012 by Richard Dawkins on January 2, 2009 at 1:24 pm

I find Gustavus intriguing. Some attack Dawkins for his views on evolution, others for his views on religion, but Gustavus goes instead for conspiracy theory territory.

Your naivety amuses me. Do you think bestselling writers are commissioned to write articles for free? You know how much the average writer of Dawkins' reputation earns from his "contributions"? $600 a word. And that's including "a" and "the".

As a matter of fact, I have not been paid a penny for this piece. John Brockman is my agent, and I applaud what he does for the public understanding of science. I neither expect, nor receive, payment for contributions of this kind. And when I AM paid for articles or lectures, the money goes straight to RDFRS, not to me personally.
Richard

14. Religious Test

Comment #309747 by Richard Dawkins on December 31, 2008 at 2:09 pm

The Secular Coalition for America, which produced this video, is an excellent institution, an umbrella organization to which a number of secular charities belong. The President is the admirable Herb Silverman, whose goal is to unite secular and freethinking organizations in a common purpose. I am on the Advisory Board, which is chaired by Woody Kaplan.

http://www.secular.org/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Coalition_for_America

The most important thing the SCA does is pay a full-time lobbyist in Washington to work for secular causes.

Those who have given money to RDFRS might like to know that we are a substantial donor to the Secular Coalition for America.

Richard

15. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308724 by Richard Dawkins on December 30, 2008 at 10:24 am

I have just posted the following on the Guardian page:


"SRW647" (whoever he may be -- since he calls me a liar under my real name, you'd think the least he could do would be to admit to his own) says:

Unfortunately I don't have the book in question with me at the office, but my memory (often faulty) is that Dawkins was also lying when he said that only one of the blurbs had to do with the book. Perhaps you can offer evidence?

Well, I do have the book in question, and I can offer evidence. Brown's book is The Darwin Wars, published by Simon & Schuster in 1999. The back cover has five quotes from five authors, namely STEVE JONES, RICHARD DAWKINS, JOHN MAYNARD SMITH, STEPHEN JAY GOULD, and DANIEL DENNETT. These quotations are set out in exactly the way endorsements normally would be set out, with the names prominently displayed in capital letters. You'd need to read the small print in order to notice that the first four quotations have nothing whatever to do with Andrew Brown's book. Steve Jones's is a witticism about evolution and allegory. Mine is a quotation from Chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene, Maynard Smith's is a strong (some might say ad hominem) criticism of Steve Gould, and Steve Gould's is a strong (some might say ad hominem) criticism of Dan Dennett. Only Dan Dennett's quotation has any connection at all with Andrew Brown, and he said:

I wouldn't admit it if Andrew Brown were my friend. What a sleazy bit of trash journalism!

I think "SRW647" owes me an apology. He says I made an ad hominem attack on Andrew Brown, when all I did was report on the contents of the back cover of Brown's book. "SRW647" on the other hand has publicly called me a liar, and if that isn't an ad hominem attack, I don't know what is. I am sorry to say that such tactics are not unusual among religious apologists.

16. No More Atheophobia

Comment #308389 by Richard Dawkins on December 29, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Here in the States, we divide into the coastal regions vs. the interior. Generally speaking, an atheist will be regarded as normal in the coastal regions, and as a dangerous entity in the interior regions.

Sort of like the cerebral cortex, with the primitive reptilian brain in the centre?
Richard

17. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308372 by Richard Dawkins on December 29, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Dan Dennett wasn't the only philosopher omitted so that Brown could say "They are none of them philosophers." There's also A.C.Grayling.

Incidentally, on one of Andrew Brown's books, his publishers had such a hard time finding endorsements from distinguished people to put on the cover, they resorted to fine-sounding quotations which, if you looked carefully, turned out to have nothing to do with Brown's book. The only quotation that mentions Andrew Brown, or his book, was the following, from Dan Dennett:

I wouldn't admit it if Andrew Brown were my friend. What a sleazy bit of trash journalism!

Richard

18. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

Comment #304733 by Richard Dawkins on December 22, 2008 at 12:12 am

Flying Goose: Sorry, I don't find your comments lucid. I don't know what you are trying to say in either of them. Why not let your yay be yay and your nay be nay? All I was doing was to call attention to the "insightful theological perspective about race" as God's gift to black pride.
Richard

19. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

Comment #304727 by Richard Dawkins on December 21, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Indeed, another Pentateuchal narrative, Numbers 12, gives an insightful theological perspective about race. Moses marries a black African woman-from Cush/Ethiopia, which was south of Egypt and under Egyptian control at that time. The term "Cushite" is mentioned twice for emphasis. Aaron and Miriam are very upset about this marital arrangement-perhaps a power struggle because a new person has entered into the circle of leadership. Despite the objections by Moses' siblings, Yahweh resoundingly approves of Moses' marriage to a black woman, highlighting his approval by turning Miriam's skin white!

Did anybody else spot this "insightful theological perspective about race"? Hugh Lofting's The Story of Dr Dolittle is now banned by librarians because Prince Bumpo, Crown Prince of Joliginki, who was obsessed with fairy tales, wanted his face to turn white so that he would not horrify any sleeping princesses.
Richard

20. Religious Ed. rebellion

Comment #304268 by Richard Dawkins on December 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm

What could be more threatening to a faith than that children, instead of being indoctrinated in it, should be taught about other faiths?

Richard

21. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302365 by Richard Dawkins on December 17, 2008 at 1:10 am

the admission of a YEC student for a BIOLOGY course at Oxford.

I still don't fully understand how he got in. There was another one who BECAME a YEC during her first year, after she was admitted to read Biology at Oxford. The first wind I got was an unaccountable wall of hostility towards me during tutorials. It seemed to be personal, and it was quite different from the way she had been towards me before. I was puzzled, and discussed it with my wife, who was also puzzled. Much later, we learned the truth, from another student. She had been taken up by an evangelical set within the university (NOT reading Biology) who actually converted her, and also filled her with antipathy towards me, as a sort of Antichrist. I don't remember which particular student society it was who captured her. Maybe OICCU (Oxford Intercollegiate Christian Union). Like the well-named CICCU (Cambridge Intercollegiate Christian Union), OICCU notoriously makes a beeline for Freshmen when they first arrive, and are lonely or nervous. By her third year, this girl had managed to cure herself, and she went back to evolution and cordiality towards me. I found the whole episode rather disturbing. The boy who prompted Freddie Ayer's remark was quite different. He was never hostile, just sort of cheerfully, obstinately giggly. His undergraduate research project, on mimicry in insects, was explicitly aimed at proving Goddidit.
Richard

22. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302332 by Richard Dawkins on December 16, 2008 at 10:39 pm

The author is halfway through their freshman year. Sometimes this happens -- a teenage student wins all the arguments they start in their hometown, then their freshman year at a top school like Harvard they get a big surprise when their behavior gets them beaten up intellectually. I'm satisfied the comments at the Crimson are showing the author their old behavior doesn't work there.

Yes, that is a more cheerful way of looking at it, thank you.

And Layla, I fear your point is right, too. Student Editors can be depressing at Oxford, too. You can see exactly where they are coming from, because it is where they hope to be going when they leave university. They are practising at being journalists, and learning early the tricks of that trade. Or like the law student at Oxford who tripped over a "Keep off the Grass" sign (when he was drunk) and sued his own college. He was presumably practising at being a real grown-up lawyer.
Richard

23. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302040 by Richard Dawkins on December 16, 2008 at 9:46 am

As many people have pointed out, it is painfully obvious that the author of this article has not read any of the people he thinks he is criticizing. I was at first shocked that such an obviously weak student could get into Harvard, given that there must be so many bright and able students who would love to go there in his place. But then I remembered that we get them in Oxford too. I once had a student who was even worse than Dhruv Singhal: he was actually a young earth creationist! The philosopher A J Ayer was a Fellow of my college, and I told him about this student. Freddy's reply was characteristic: "What? What has gone wrong with our admissions procedure?" Harvard must be saying the same thing about the author of this fatuous article. And about the editors who published it.
Richard

24. Three Godless Christmas shows

Comment #301958 by Richard Dawkins on December 16, 2008 at 5:52 am

Thank you for these helpful and constructive suggestions. If I were to do 'Gerin Oil', which several people have suggested, do you think I should tell them it's an anagram? It's harder to get it from the spoken than from the written word.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,122,Gerin-Oil,Richard-Dawkins
Richard

25. Three Godless Christmas shows

Comment #301882 by Richard Dawkins on December 16, 2008 at 2:20 am

With his tastes, in relative terms, as old as the Bible but equally as popular, it will be interesting to see what Dawkins makes of his co-stars. But patronage from Dawkins is a minor concern compared to the challenge of making subjects such as the Big Bang, evolutionary biology and the human consciousness funny.

I've been made happily aware that some of those who post on this site have read my books. I have fifteen minutes on the stage, in which to read extracts from any of my writings (not just Unweaving the Rainbow in spite of what this report says). Any suggestions for passages to read? Maybe even something funny? The bit in The God Delusion about "Presumably Our Lady of . . . were busy on other errands at the time" often gets a laugh on book tours, but does anybody have other suggestions? Maybe funny is not necessary, given all the other comedians in the show. Maybe I should try to do inspiring instead. What do you think?

Not much time, the first performance is on Thursday.
Thanks
Richard

26. Forced to Marry

Comment #301674 by Richard Dawkins on December 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

More good news. She's going home. It would be nice to think that her loathsome family might be brought to justice, but I fear they'd just play the religion card and get off. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the Bangladesh authorities cooperated to rescue her
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081215/tuk-freed-nhs-doctor-heads-for-home-dba1618.html
Richard

27. Forced to Marry

Comment #301239 by Richard Dawkins on December 14, 2008 at 6:35 am

This looks like good news for this poor woman:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5340058.ece
Richard

28. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #299615 by Richard Dawkins on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 am

Thank you for posting this. I cannot get enough of interviews like this; but PLEASE can you do an extended, uncut version of the Ted Haggard interview with RD? It would be such a joy to behold! I could do with a laugh right now!

Alas, no. There are only two of my Channel Four interviews that the lawyers won't let us reproduce. Ted Haggard is one of them. The 'Psychic Sisters' is the other.

The Psychic Sisters have a franchise in Selfridges, one of London's largest and most prestigious department stores. I interviewed them for 'Enemies of Reason' but they refused to sign the release form after one of them 'channeled' my father from 'the other side', giving me all sorts of messages from him, about how he was sad not to have said goodbye properly, and sorry that I didn't keep a photograph of him by my side etc. I let her run on like this for a while before breaking it to her that my father was alive and well and living in Oxfordshire (still is, I am glad to say). She immediately terminated the interview, ordered us to stop the camera and refused to sign the release form. We then attempted to film her colleague, another of the Psychic Sisters, and she too tried to give me a Tarot Reading. However, she terminated it on the grounds that her clairvoyant second sight could see that I was surrounded by a 'red wall' of scepticism.

Richard

29. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #299599 by Richard Dawkins on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 am

I've just listened to the whole thing and marvelled, yet again, at the pernicious effect that a religious upbringing can have on an otherwise intelligent mind. Parts of what Father Coyne says are truly fascinating examples of religiously inspired doublethink.

Incidentally, one or two of the commenters on Youtube have complained about the camera work. This is grossly unfair to the cameraman, Tim Cragg, who is probably the best cameraman I have ever worked with. The whole point is that this is an UNEDITED interview. We are all used to watching interviews on television that have been carefully edited to remove the transitions between camera angles, focusing, zooming etc. We don't normally see what goes on behind the scenes. Here we do. Finished TV interviews have cosmetically tailored cuts between wide-angle and close-up shots, they have 'noddies' recorded after the interview, and so on. The only cuts here are to remove interventions by the Director, after which you sometimes see me repeat a question that Father Coyne has previously answered. Obviously, in a finished documentary, the repetition would be eliminated and only one version used.

If somebody with a YouTube account feels like sending in a comment to this effect (or just quoting me if you want to) I would be grateful.

Thanks
Richard

30. Forced to Marry

Comment #298097 by Richard Dawkins on December 6, 2008 at 8:59 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/london-doctor-is-held-as-forced-marriage-hostage-1055684.html

Here's a new story, in today's Independent.

Richard

31. Forced to Marry

Comment #294962 by Richard Dawkins on December 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I suggested to Josh that he should post this, without realising that it cannot be seen outside Britain. That's a pity, because it is a very moving documentary.

Numerous young British women, whose families come from Pakistan, are shipped off to Pakistan and forcibly married, usually to a cousin (the risks of inbreeding depression are not mentioned in the film, but they are very real) in remote country areas, utterly alien to their upbringing in urban Britain. The documentary follows the heroic activities of a sort of 'Scarlet Pimpernel' unit set up to rescue these girls by the British High Commission (the name for Embassies within the British Commonwealth). Although paid and coordinated by the High Commission, the rescue squad are all native Pakistanis. I found their courage most heartening, and also the fact that they manage to secure the cooperation of the local Pakistani police in the remote areas where they operate.

I regret that this video can only be seen in Britain. If I knew how to put it on YouTube, I would. It would only be a matter of time before the BBC notice and take it down, but it would be worth it for the short time it was available. I particularly wish it could be seen in Pakistan, and other Islamic countries.

Richard

32. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294673 by Richard Dawkins on December 1, 2008 at 8:51 am

It's certainly rhetoric associated with the rabble-rousers, but why is it a smear to say that Obama had a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather and an immersion in Islam while growing up? All these things are true.

Yes, technically it is literally true. But what on earth is the point of MENTIONING it, if he is not trying to smear Obama? If these facts are innocently irrelevant, why mention them? The fact that he mentions them means that he is implying that they are relevant to his article. It is a smear, and you know damn well it is a smear.
Richard

33. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294633 by Richard Dawkins on December 1, 2008 at 8:19 am

I thought he was doing fine until the final outrageous smear against Obama. That pretty much wiped out his credibility for me.
Richard

34. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #291867 by Richard Dawkins on November 26, 2008 at 11:30 pm

If ever there was a case for pulling a wayward thread back to its topic, here it is. Look at the wonderful transitional turtle fossil Odontochelys now swimming at Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/odontochelys_a_transitional_tu.php#more
The reconstruction is beautiful.
Richard

35. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #289881 by Richard Dawkins on November 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

Sophie in 't Veld is a Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Keith Porteous Wood, of the British National Secular Society, should be credited with calling her attention to this affair and urging her to write her letter. He spoke to me about her on the telephone this morning. She is evidently a hero of rational thought in European politics.

Richard

36. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287464 by Richard Dawkins on November 20, 2008 at 8:30 am

Pronunciation of iguana and jaguar
When foreign words are imported into a language such as English, they eventually become part of the destination language, and it is regarded as pretentious to pronounce them in the foreign way. On their way to being integrated, however, some people pronounce them in the English way, others in the foreign way. The British are evenly divided between 'garaaje' and 'garidge'. Nobody, however, any longer pronounces 'champagne' or 'Paris' in the French way, when they are speaking English. In Britain, the sort of people who are rich enough to have a valet look down, snobbishly, on those who pronounce it 'vallay' instead of 'vallit'. Americans, on the other hand, refer to 'vallay parking', and I would probably do the same although I would not refer to Jeeves as a 'vallay'.

Of course I am aware that 'iguana' and 'jaguar' are Spanish words. In Britain, they are regarded as fully integrated into the English language, and it is therefore seen as pretentious to pronounce them in the Spanish way. That's why I say 'ig-yoo-ahna' rather than 'igwana' or 'eewana'. And I say 'jag-you-are' rather than 'ya-wah'. Similarly, I pronounce Chile as 'Chilly' but I have noticed that some Americans say 'Cheelay'. From the comments that have been made here, I would guess that there is an Anglo-American divide over the extent to which Spanish words have become fully integrated into English. In Britain, to pronounce iguana in Spanish is regarded as pretentious, in America it is the norm. That's fine. It suggests that the word is still only half way to being fully integrated. Both schools of thought are legitimitate, so please don't accuse me of incorrect pronunciation.

Richard

37. I am Darwin

Comment #285977 by Richard Dawkins on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Goodness, what a load of world-weary, cynical old curmudgeons we have posting here today!
Richard

38. The 'Great Debate' in Texas

Comment #281412 by Richard Dawkins on November 10, 2008 at 9:49 am

Upon drawing close, he heard Krauss ask Berlinski why he wasted his intellect advocating for intelligent design. To which Berlinski replied that he doesn't believe a word of it, but is happy to cash the checks the Discovery Institute writes him. Strangely enough, this would be consistent with Berlinski's odd statement early on in which he admitted that his own ethical orientation was focused on living as contentedly and as selfishly as possible.

This revelation amuses me. I once wrote that "anybody who pretends not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked but I'd rather not consider that)". In a later article I said that the 'wicked' category might be almost empty but if I had to nominate a candidate I would consider Berlinski:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,114,Ignorance-is-No-Crime,Richard-Dawkins
This anecdote of the conversation with Lawrence Krauss seems to vindicate my suspicion.

Richard

39. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278570 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Carolyn Porco, the wonderfully imaginative planetary scientist, Head of the Cassini Imaging Team, just sent this letter. It is a circular, sent to lots of people, so I'm sure she won't mind my reproducing it here. I think it beautifully expresses what so many of us feel. The state she refers to is Colorado, and I'd like to add my tribute to all the heroes and heroines who volunteered, and who worked so hard for this marvellous result.
Richard

Friends,

WE DID IT !! WE REALLY DID IT!! Can you believe it???!!!

The long, long nightmare is finally over, and a brand new day is about to begin. That this country has been able to recognize and completely repudiate the horrendous errors made over the last 8 years by what it did tonight, and offer to the world this rare prince among men, makes me so proud, I feel like I will burst.

Thanks to all of you who gave of your time to make this happen. For the first time in my life, I did so too, and I'm so glad I did.

And to those of you on this list who live across the pond, in case it hasn't yet been reported over there, Obama has won a landslide: So far, 338 electoral votes and not all states yet counted, and the biggest win in 4 decades. We over here are positively drunk with happiness .... people in tears everywhere, fireworks outside my window here in Boulder.

And I now live in a blue state!!

Best to all of you,
Carolyn

40. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278536 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Congratulations America! Welcome back to the civilised world.

Hug an American today.

Richard

41. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277992 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 10:26 am

I have read two reports that Republican canvassers were handing out leaflets in Virginia, saying that Republicans had to vote on Nov 4th, Democrats on Nov 5th! I wonder if anybody will fall for it.

Since we've been all over garp's statements and his (at first) inability to provide sources, can you provide us with any on that?...
Just to be fair...

It was on BBC TV news, on 2nd November. See also
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/phony-flier-says-virginians-vote-different-days
and http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=526931

Richard

42. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277975 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 10:13 am

I was talking to an American friend, the moron said he was going to vote Obama but then he kept saying he'll party his heart out Thursday. Turns out he thought election is Nov5! Good that I called him last night.

I have read two reports that Republican canvassers were handing out leaflets in Virginia, saying that Republicans had to vote on Nov 4th, Democrats on Nov 5th! I wonder if anybody will fall for it.

Richard

43. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277848 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

I think more people are concerned as to what happened to Hillary Clinton.

But in your original accusation of misogyny, you said,

Sorry Richard, but many will never support the misogyny that the Obama/Biden people displayed during this campaign.

Biden did not join the Obama ticket until AFTER Hillary Clinton was knocked out. So what are you talking about? And you still haven't given an example.
Richard

44. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277822 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 7:58 am

I think Sarah Palin is stupid, ignorant, bloodthirsty, and palpably unqualified to be President. Sarah Palin happens to be female.

It therefore follows that I must be a misogynist?

Richard

45. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277797 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 7:30 am

Sorry Richard, but many will never support the misogyny that the Obama/Biden regime displayed during this campaign.

For example?

46. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277773 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2008 at 7:02 am

American friends, we in the rest of the world are counting on you. We can't vote, even though the result will affect us almost as much as it affects you. You have the vote that we lack. Please use it, even if you live in a state that is thought to be a foregone conclusion. We need a landslide, not just in the presidential election but in the congressionals too. Please strike a blow from which Bush/Palinism will never recover. Destroy them, demoralise them, finish them off.

Richard

47. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #275977 by Richard Dawkins on November 1, 2008 at 2:46 am

I wish more in America held Dawkins' accurate view of our stupidly self-immolating Electoral College system. I live in one of the most populous states in America, and it is anti-democratic to make my vote worth less than someone's vote in Montana. Also keep in mind that that the amendment creating the electoral college was an amendment, not part of the original document. If we can add to it, why can't we take things away that we have realized are contrary to democracy, and which can undermine the voting rights of literally millions of people?

Since I was guilty of raising this hare, perhaps I might pursue it. If moderators feel it is worth moving to a separate thread, that would be fine by me.

A TRUE electoral college could be the best solution of all to the problems of democracy. In a true electoral college, a slate of delegates, wise and respected men and women from the state, would be elected to go to Washington and join with delegates from all the other states in deliberating the merits of rival candidates for President. The delegates would not be pledged to vote for individuals like Obama and McCain. They would be pledged only to exercise their judgment and wisdom, taking into account the interests of their state as well as the country and the world. It might be rather like the procedure for choosing a new Master of an Oxford or Cambridge college. Interview the candidates, take up references, read their publications and past speeches. At the end of this procedure, the delegates would vote for President and Vice President. It would be democracy, but representative democracy not populism.

If we must have populism, the fairest way would be a straight plebiscite over the entire country. That would eliminate the present mad concentration on 'swing states', and it would eliminate most of the opportunity for hanging chad style cheating. Under the present system, the temptation, and the opportunity, to cheat are both multiplied by the number of borderline states.

But any populist system is vulnerable to the electing of unqualified idiots like George Bush (because people want to have a beer with him) or Sarah Palin (because people are tasteless enough to find her cute) or Ronald Reagan (for a combination of those reasons). A true electoral college, where delegates genuinely exercise choice rather than being pledged to vote for a particular candidate, could be the best of both worlds.

I suspect that this may have been the original intention when the idea of an electoral college was first mooted. Do we have any American historians who might know?

Richard

48. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #275785 by Richard Dawkins on October 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm

And I'm stunned that someone of RD's educational background would bad mouth the college system in America. What an elitist Universitarian.

ELECTORAL college, Broshiesq, not college system. The system of Presidential elections whereby a victory by one single vote among millions in a state tips 20 or 30 votes in the electoral college. The system whereby, if you live in California or Texas your vote doesn't count the way it does if you live in Ohio or Florida. The stupid, dopey, ridiculous system of winner-take-all on a state-by-state basis. Nothing to do with the American college system.
Richard

49. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #275622 by Richard Dawkins on October 31, 2008 at 10:32 am

Jerry just copied to me the following letter:

Until this very day I numbered myself among the undecided in the coming presidential election. No more. Your October 31 op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer about Sarah Palin's low regard for the fruit fly has tilted me solidly to the left. Thanks.

Congratulations, Jerry. Let's hope the one who bothers to write is the tip of a large iceberg. And in Pennsylvania, too, one of the minority of states where votes actually matter, under the ridiculous 'electoral college' system.
Richard

50. Teaching hate in UK schools

Comment #275239 by Richard Dawkins on October 31, 2008 at 2:34 am

Jeremy Paxman is one of the world's most formidable interviewers, and he can be a bit of a bully, but in this case I thought he was at his magnificent best. The oil-funded invasion by the evil Saudi Arabian religious culture is one of the most frightening aspects of modern British life, because of its likely future effects when these children grow up. Apologists for it deserve, in my opinion, to be Paxmaned at every opportunity, and without mercy. Those on this forum who say Christian schools are just as bad have a point. But let's keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty bad, but isn't Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer vicious nastiness?

Nevertheless, I feel it my duty to point out that a follow-up film was produced, professionally, and presumably by a well-paid public relations firm, which put the opposing case, for the school. I have just watched it and my personal opinion is that it is deeply unconvincing -- a slick and well-financed whitewash is how I see it. But have a look and judge for yourself. Was she unfairly treated? Should the school have its government support money withdrawn? Should all faith schools have their government support withdrawn? The reply film is at
http://www.teachers.tv/video/22388

Richard