Talking about evolution with Richard Dawkins (1996) | THINK TANK
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2020
- Original air date: November 7, 1996
Think Tank discusses Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s leading scientists, as he compares the theory that humans evolved from more simple organisms with the theory of creationism.
Host:
Ben Wattenberg - senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Panelists:
Richard Dawkins - professor at Oxford University, author of The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable
"Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" was a discussion program that aired on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) from 1994 to 2009, hosted by AEI Senior Fellow Ben Wattenberg. AEI offers uncut episodes of "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" as an academic resource that shows how American political thought has evolved on some issues and stayed the same on others.
"Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" is licensed to AEI by Grace Creek Media, the successor of New River Media and BJW, Inc. "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" © Grace Creek Media
Subscribe to AEI's CZcams Channel
czcams.com/users/AEIVideo...
Like us on Facebook
/ aeionline
Follow us on Twitter
/ aei
For more information
www.aei.org
Third-party photos, graphics, and/or video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music may have been edited in a way that does not alter the meaning of the third-party work(s). Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.
More information on AEI research integrity can be found here: www.aei.org/about/
#aei #news #politics #government #education #evolution #science #atheism #Dawkins #biology
I love the metaphor of the improbable mountain, 90 degree angle on one side, gradual slope on the other, just a very long one. Great mental image.
I was born in the year 1996 . Read The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion in 2018. Now I am an atheist ⚛️.
I was a christian. I read the Bible. That's why I became an atheist.
@@betzib8021 thaht is interesting 🤔 i have never heard
Someone become atheist in this way was there something specific that you couldn’t bare to believe in anymore
@@JonasM.M. yes....that god
@@betzib8021 😂
.......so what do you want us all to do about it?
This was certainly the most detailed and sophisticated explanation of Darwinian theory ever told.
What an amazing explanation!
I'm so grateful to life that gave me the chance to listen to the amazing Richard Dawkins, Thanks Dawkins for being you.
Thanks for your efforts, you made me love the theory of evolution and I found great meaning to my life.
Dawkins is a great scholar of biology in this era. His personality is so strong that he is sometimes criticized, but it is true that he is one of the best scholars.
There's an old Russian saying something like - 'it'sbetter to live with an ugly truth than with a beautiful lie'. I agree. Thanks Richard Dawkins for being fearless.
Atheism is the ugly lie though.
Fortunately for us, evolution is both beautiful and true.
@@st.paulschoolannarborabuse4480 You really believe a fish became a land animal and then waddled back to the water and became a whale? It is ludicrous, unscientific and a complete fabrication.
Highly intelligent answers to incredibly stupid questions.
You stupid
best conclusion of this
video
well said...
Decades of the same silly questions, why does no one seem to listen to his answers?
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science"-Darwin
I really appreciate his honesty. Both personally and professionally.
Richard looks so hot here! What a gorgeous man!
Great talk
I think he is the greatest teacher of Evolution after Darwin himself.
He's better than Darwin as a teacher for a variety of reasons. One of them being that Dawkins knows more about evolution that Darwin because of modern science. For example, Darwin didn't understand the mechanism of evolution.
@@decimustv4257 Yes. And I recently read in a book that Darwin had this public speaking anxiety. He would have his friends present his case because he struggled to speak in front of a crowd.
@@omanjabbar200 Very interesting! Did you see Dawkins recent interview with Piers Morgan. I thought it was horrible mainly because Morgan didn't let Dawkins properly answer his questions.
@@decimustv4257 No, I didn't. I haven't been following him for a long time.
Darwin's Evolution which is just an idea that suggests that the chaotic evolved and became complex through random selection. However the second law of thermodynamics [Entropy] which is a well tested and documented 'Law of Physics' states the opposite, that the complex is degenerating into chaos. So SETTLED science disagrees with the idea of Evolution.
The question he should have asked was why is it possible? why are the laws of the universe such that it allows for this complex organization and life? He did eventually get to that point but Dawkins slipped out of it, surprisingly. What he should have answered is that with infinite possible combinations/variations of the laws of physics, although it is still remarkable that it is possible at all, it begins to at least seem possible to have happened on it's own just from the shear vastness of infinity and removes the need for a creator which also would require an explanation for IT'S existence.
He looks so handsome here. Guy is a boss
He looks late 40s/early 50s. Definitely a sharp look, relative to now he's I think in his 80s.
I’d like to answer the question posed by the interviewer on why humans are passionate about so many things not necessary for passing on our genes…
This is just a byproduct of evolving high cognitive abilities along with complex sensory organs and capacity to feel pleasure and pain. All of these things had obvious evolutionary advantages. And simply as a byproduct of human capacity we gradually built technology that now allows us to live lifestyles unlike that of any other animal. And so as a byproduct of this technology along with our high creative and intellectual capacities(which had obvious evolutionary advantages) humans now choose to pursue much more in life than that which is strictly necessary for passing on our genes. I also have to disagree with Dawkins in saying that no other animals do anything beyond what is strictly necessary for passing on their genes. We clearly see the same (although arguably to a lesser extent) in other animals. When I go to the zoo for example, I see the gorilla kids chasing each other around and wrestling and playing various ways all day long just as human children do. And when I take my dog to the dog park, she runs around and plays with the other dogs. Plenty of animals pursue goals that go beyond what is helpful for procreation. But this is not at all difficult to account for evolutionarily because this is all simply a byproduct of the evolution of various traits which all had very obvious evolutionary advantages.
Also important to note is that in order for a trait to have advantage in the evolutionary sense does not require that the trait be “necessary.” It only requires that the trait makes the organisms with the trait have a higher chance at reproducing than the organisms without the trait. So organisms without the trait could still survive and it could even be that 9 times out of 10 the trait is completely unnecessary, but so long as statistically the organisms with the trait reproduce at a higher rate than the organisms without the trait, even if it’s only at a slightly higher rate they do, then so long as the trait remains advantageous across several generations this can add up over time.
Human mind is, practically, more a data processing machine than a rational faculty. That's the reason superstition is evolving at a higher speed than scientific temper. If the human comes across rationality, it will practice and propagate rationality, if it is a victim of superstition, it remains trapped in superstition.
Even if there was an ultimate reason we wouldn’t and couldn’t know it. The ultimate reason is unanswerable to us
The unsolved mystery is always thrilling.The beauty of evolution is that while you are trying to find the mystery,the subject itself becomes mystery while searching for the mystery.
Believing In Islam would definitely shorten my life.
I have lived this, when I was in my early 20s I used to be afraid all the time from god from my sins from not praying on time or praying but my focus somewhere else.
I used to look at myself as sinner although I'm a good person studying medicine.
Finally I have found the truth.
Watched
"The purpose of a bird's wing is to help it to fly". Profound.
So the purpose of the universe is?
@@rl7012 So you agree that Dawkin's statement is stupid?
@@lawrence1318 It is a bit. But if he is giving birds wings a purpose then why not the universe too? But he thinks the universe has no purpose but things in it do. That makes no sense.
@@rl7012 Correct. His position is internally inconsistent.
@@lawrence1318I think that, in the bird example, you're using the word purpose in a wrong way, as if there was intention behind it, as if someone was aiming for this exact development of the wing which is a flawed conclusion. The bird's wing has not reached a final point in development, it is still evolving, depending on it's competitors. If a predator's wing evolve to help it better hunt the prey bird, then, either the prey's wing will evolve as well and help it defend itself or it will not evolve and the prey bird will eventually go extinct, as so many species have till now.
The purpose in the bird example is for the genes to pass onto the next generation.
The word purpose in the example of the universe is to imply that someone had something in mind prior to the development of the universe and intended to make it just the way it is.
These are two different uses of the word
I like Dawkins but man did he get aggressive at moments in this interview
What did you expected? The old man is sometimes exasperating
Maybe not aggressive, but irritated definitely ;)
best reaction to seriously dumb and child like questions.
Whether question of consciousness begs for theory of design ?!?
“...God created Darwin” 😂😂😂
Just another step back behind another line on the sand. Church does it all the time. They can't deny evolution anymore, so they changed the official version and it is now tool used be the god.
Well just that Darwinism often overshadows Alfred Russel Wallaces' grit to make the theory of natural selection public.
Man listening to the host talking about the 90's, it appears as if America was less religious back in the 90's ...
He may be right ...
Dawkins has changed his position on the "Why" question. Now he recognizes it as an "interesting scientific question" rather than a silly one.
"Why" isn't really a scientific question, it's more of a philosophical one. "How" is a scientific question
20:22 Damn, is this interviewer a creationist? What’s with these goofy questions about Darwin? I could understand his question if he was joking when he said that it’s “near messianic,” but the interviewer actually seemed kind of serious. The way Dawkins phrases things could be a bit dramatic at times because he is an author and skilled speaker but there’s nothing false or illogical about what he said, and he’s not calling Darwin a prophet or saying that we must take anything Darwin said on faith. I’m sure Dawkins would happily agree that Darwin had plenty of wrong ideas as do most people, and Dawkins has no problem with discarding those false ideas. We keep the ideas he offered which hold up to the evidence now available to us in the modern era, and gladly throw out his ideas which don’t, that’s why it’s not a religion.
18:54 you have to be joking! 😹😹😹
I think "the why question" referred to in the discussion is indeed irrelevant in terms of empirical science. Dawkins overstates the point saying that it is irrelevant all in all. Of course it is relevant to ask these questions in metaphysics or ethics. You just need to point out that you are not going to prove any answer to them empirically. So they are not ex ante "silly" as he supposes, for reason arrives at such questions quite naturally. Kant would be a strong reply in that regard.
Goo goo ga ga me baby teach me
We don't live in silos. The US and the UK are impacted by what happens in Islamic countries. Can you use your approach in Islamic countries (From a sociological perspective)? Can you work with social scientists there?
How can people defy Darwinism? Dawkins is just right you have evolution and natural selection working and its just that.
Or lets answer the question where God came from?
My father is my God. He passed away and yet my memories with him keep me going...also work just as a placebo for me.
제 친구는 2명이나 종교인이고 3명은 무종교인입니다.근데 다 유신론자예요.슬프네요.무종교인 친구들은 15명인데 그중에서 무신론자는 2명입니다.대부분의 친구들은 궁합을 보고 영매를 찾습니다.심지어 유신론자가 진화론을 저보다 잘 알고 잘 믿습니다.슬프네요ㅠ
What exactly is there to worry about between being an Athiest and Religious? The life span is increased because the religious person is less worried? But worried about what? Praying for someone or something gives people less worry? Going to heaven after death gives people less worry? I don't see it. When death comes a nocking on the door, the same worry exists for both religious and athiest.
There is a great conflict between science and religion and science just succeed and religion must fail . Religion is only good for a controlled understanding of humanity in general but not to navigate with.
He must believe in the multiverse then.
"Most of our viewers are humans" 7:27 That is funny!!! I wonder who else he was talking about? Maybe some cats and dogs?
I was literally laughing out loud when the gentleman said that he read that religious people live longer.
Those who believe in a supreme invisible designer can't explain the process of the creation.
Science can’t explain how life was formed from non living material. So to say believing in a “supreme invisible designer” can’t explain the process of creation is a bit hypocritical. No matter how skillful “scientists” are at interpreting the past based on scientific data, is not enough to convince the whole world that this is where it led to where we are now as human beings, for there are always going to be flaws in the theories. We don’t know what happened billions of years ago during creation, we weren’t there. While you probably will leave it out to maintain your “scientific sanity”, I came to accept that there was only One being that was involved.
How about NO to God??
As a realist, I find the concept of sitting talking with religious people the ultimate absurdity. They are living in a long extinct past, and we live in the present and the future. All realists should never engage with religion and their supernatural beliefs, on any level, ever again. Time for us to move on and leave our prevolution in the past. Forever!
Fast forward or rewind the constitution of reality
If Dawkins was using his brain and not being intellectually lazy he would have debated William Lane Craig... Unless he determined his ideas were not "fit" enough to go against Craig. I'm using Dawkins own empty accusations against him. When Dawkins is weak on something he just insults.
Listen, if you want to disprove Christianity, focus on the resurrection. The resurrection proved that Jesus is the Son of God, and if that’s not true, then as the Apostle Paul says, all of our preaching is worthless. If Jesus is the Son of God, that means He is omnipresent (all-knowing) and morally perfect (cannot lie), meaning that when He says that Adam and Eve started it all and that the entire Old Testament is true, it’s true. And Jesus’ word is all the evidence we need based on His omnipresence and moral perfection, so we take Jesus’ word over science any day.
The task is: prove if the resurrection is true or false.
Watch Inspiring Philosophy, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig.
Its your belief, the burden of proof is on you. Then again, if your proclaimed god is smarter than me then it knows utilizing any apologist or any book to convince me of its existence would be futile.
Your comment only shows that you’re not interested in seeking the truth. Actually go and look at it for yourself, please, you say you don’t believe in an afterlife (I’m assuming based on your comment) but how do you know for sure? Do you ever think that if you’re wrong, you could go to Hell for eternity? Just make sure because your actions will have eternal consequences.
@@Nameless-pt6oj Apparently truth is relative. Death, i suspect will be alot like NOT having been conceived. Again, if your proclaimed god is smarter than me then it knows exactly what it would take to convince me..Should be pretty easy for an omniscient god..
@@Sciences0311 I'm not sure I follow - If the burden of proof is solely on the believer, that would suggest the non-believer is justified in saying it is definitively false because they witnessed it not.
But no, that would be fallacious thinking - It's like if the ground is wet, and one says it rained, but you did not see it, therefore you conclude it did not rain.
The skeptic is a flawed position. The better position is the rational thinker; you are willing to believe one of the two given enough evidence to support them. That said, not believing evidence for one isn't evidence to support the other.
The truth is out there but most religious people are either afraid to seek it. Study Levantine archaeology and anthropology to discover that ancient societies invented or adopted deities for worship. This includes the ancient Hebrews. All religions are the creation of mankind.
Doesn't prove anything other than mankind has always worshipped other idols. We still do today most in the form of music, sports or film idols or the mega successful. Doesn't disprove God in the least.
"an easy walk" - you don't have a long time "We've had Billions of years for evolution to happen" ...Actually you have about 5 Million years: czcams.com/video/IhEg7275nbA/video.html
God is not the creator but a lie originated from fear and ignorance that most of the people have not yet been able to get rid of.
Silly questions from dollar tree Giuliani.
When dawkins finally confronts his maker, God will remove the smirk from his face by wispering, "it was the butterflies Richard, did you not notice them?"
Unlikely to say the least
I guess, ignorant people much rather want to believe in gods, mysteries and fairy tales than in evidence of evolution.
In particular when it comes to the species of homo sapiens sapiens. 😂
You don't think that life springing forth from non-organic materials in a primordial soup is a fairy tale?
@@RS-tz2zn A ghost speaking words and things suddenly pop up in existence. This image somehow is more satisfying for an explanation to you?
@@Eddieshred So you acknowledge that life springing forth from non-organic materials in a primordial soup is anti-scientific and a fairy tale. Good to know. Also, there is no evidence showing that the creator necessarily needs to be a ghost. So your logic fails there. It could be an existential power, it could be a timeless being. We just have no way of knowing from a scientific standpoint, other than the creator had to be both intelligent and living. At least acknowledging a creator is scientifically and intellectually honest.
@@RS-tz2zn "So you acknowledge that life springing forth from non-organic materials in a primordial soup is anti-scientific and a fairy tale."
No I did not say that, did I?
"Also, there is no evidence showing that the creator necessarily needs to be a ghost. So your logic fails there."
I went with 'ghost' because I think that probably most represents your image of God. I also could have gone for 'old man with white beard' (but I didn't want to embarrass you), do you like that better?
And since there is no reason to presume that there is a Creator, your last arguments are redundant.
Stars and planets are formed by physical processes and biological evolution is a fact. It's not so hard now anymore to imagine the stage that life must have come about by natural processes as well. You are not taking the Biblical creation story literally now are you?
@@Eddieshred I assumed by your answer that you were acknowledging that, but maybe you are not prepared to acknowledge science...so let me ask. Did you know that the idea life came from nonliving things violates cell theory, which is one of the primary basis of modern biology?
The three tenets to the cell theory are as described below:
All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
The cell is the basic unit of structure and organization in organisms.
**Cells arise from pre-existing cells.**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory
I don't think this interviewer learned anything here.
Science remains happy with Creation. Dawkins waffling and avoiding the question is not going to help his cause.
Science is happy with fantasy books as long as people don't try to use them to explain the real world.
@@pavel9652 Science and the Bible are in full support of each other.
@@jacobfield4848 This is possible only in your alternative universe. Unless you mean The Bible can support crooked bookshelf with science books by putting it underneath the furniture. By the way did you already give like yourself? ;)
@@jacobfield4848 "FULL SUPPORT"??!!
Atheism isn't a cause. Fundamentalists are the ones going around caring what others think and trying to convert them.
The world's leading scientist is not willing to focus on the question, why! I say it again but why! No question is a silly question. Every question has an answer such as sill questions have silly answers for some, but for others profitable.
Of course, the question of "why" is in a way stupid. Because it leads nowhere. Philosophically, everyone can answer that for themselves. From a biological and evolutionary point of view, an enormous chain of lucky coincidences was necessary for life to arise on our planet. The right distance from the sun, the fact that we have a moon, the fact that the earth has a magnetic field, and so on. By clinging to the question "why", believers only want to justify the existence of a God. We were just damn lucky. That's it.
@@claudiamuller3798 Every question is important. Science takes pride in saying that I don't know, then what happens when the 'WHY' question is there to beg for the same answer. Saying I DON'T KNOW can save the face of scientists than saying it's an illogical question to ask...
We are not from ape but the mankind is from Adam (pbuh) and his pair ( Eve) as the Holy Qur'an told us in various verses of Qur'an.
Qur'an addressed the mankind as
" يا بنى آدم " (Oh children of Adam )
Evolution is still a theory not proved materially.
The verses of Holy Qur'an are facts because they are from Amighty Allah
-- the Originator of the universe and the creator of the mankind. He knows each and every hidden things
in the earth and skies ( Allah created seven skies)
Mr Richard Dawkins knows very little
and his knowledge is very limited.
Relying on this little knowledge he wrote his " The God Delusion" that is
nothing but misleads the mankind.
Now nothing left for him because he is in last stage of his life. The only thing left for him is to revert to Islam
Almighty Allah bless him and bless all of us.
Ďr.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI
Ph D ( Egyptian Arabic Literature on eminent writer Al -- Aqqad).
Go preach somewhere else.
wattenberg doesn't appear to me to be much of an intellectual....