Richard Dawkins: Discussion of His New Book, The Greatest Show on Earth

Are you one of the forty percent of Americans who think that humans were created by God in the last ten-thousand years? If you are, then you should have gone to hear the Royal Society and Royal Society of Literature Fellow, Richard Dawkins, speak at the Tribeca Barnes and Nobles last night.

Dawkins discussed his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. This book is a followup to The God Delusion. The number of people who came to hear him speak was astounding. There must have been hundreds of people squashed into the back of the Barnes and Nobles Children’s Section.

Dawkins opened his discussion by talking about the “40-percenters.” Dawkins said that forty percent is not a small percent. If it was a percent of error, it would be off by forty percent. In terms of the distance across North America, that margin of error would result in an absurd distance. That would be like saying “the distance from New York to California is only eight yards long.” These people deny history like the Holocaust Deniers.

Dawkins then systematically went through the chapters of his book, choosing to read or discuss the most important parts. He said, “Creationists love the fossil record. They think that because it has gaps, evolution doesn’t exist.” He then read a passage from his book that explained the fossil record merely has gaps, but not errors. Gaps are to be expected considering how old the fossils are. However, there have been no anachronistic fossils found. Everything is in the right place. If an anachronistic fossil was found though, that would be strong evidence against evolution.

Dawkins also explained fossils need to be labeled as intermediaries, so Creationists can’t “wrongfully use fossil names against us.” He then recounted a conversation an evolution skeptic had with J.B.S. Haldane. The skeptic said, “Even given the billions of years that you say were available for evolution, I simply cannot believe it is possible to go from a single cell to a complicated human body, with its trillion of cells organized into bones and muscles and nerves, a heart that pumps without ceasing for decades, miles and miles of blood vessels and kidney tubules, and a brain capable of thinking and talking and feeling.” Haldane responded, “But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.” This of course elicited an enormous amount of laughter from the audience.

Dawkins brought up the 40-percenters who believe Noah’s Ark literally, word for word. He said that, “We can’t ignore them because they control the schools. They are senators and governors.” They build museums where children can ride on camels and dinosaurs, because humans of course existed along with dinosaurs. Dawkins noted, “They learned their science from the Flintstones.”

Dawkins commented that God must be sadistic if he created the gazelle to be able to run away from the leopard, but then created the leopard to be able to sink his sharp teeth into the gazelle. “For heaven’s sake, who’s side is the creator on?” he joked.

Dawkin’s discussion concluded with questions by the audience members. One member asked why evolution is still a theory one-hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Dawkins stated that for all practical purposes, evolution is a fact, like the heliocentric theory of the sun.

One audience member asked how Dawkins felt about the Ray Comfort version of On the Origin of Species. It has a fifty page introduction full of “creationist bollox.” Dawkins is upset by this because on Amazon.com, all the negative reviews of Ray Comfort’s version are hurting the ratings for the real Origin of Species and the positive ratings for the real Origin of Species are pulling up the ratings for the Ray Comfort fake. Dawkins actually spoke to an Amazon official about this yesterday and signed his copy of the book with, “Thank you for solving the fake Darwin problem.” Now it certainly will get fixed.

When the question period ended, Dawkins signed people’s books. It took me an hour to finally get to the front of the line. Dawkins signed my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth and The God Delusion. I was ecstatic. I told him I was writing about the event for the Columbia Spectator and told him he could read the article if he was interested. I hope he reads it! Dawkins is a personal hero of mine. I probably wouldn’t have waited on an hour long line for another author. The discussion was fascinating to hear, although my view of Dawkins was obstructed by the multitude of people who came to watch. I look forward to reading his forthcoming book on evolution for children. I hope that one day soon, all children will read that book before they go to bed. Let’s leave the 40-percenters and their bible-hugging ways in the past.

.

Share This:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks

Posted by
Nicollette Barsamian
October 21, 2009

  • silverchris
    "I hope that one day soon, all children will read that book before they go to bed. Let’s leave the 40-percenters and their bible-hugging ways in the past."

    This to me sounds to me like replacing one unreflective, child-indoctrinating ideology with another. Personally, I think I'd prefer that all who were willing and able would read both the Bible and Dawkins (actually not Dawkins, I'd prefer a more sophisticated atheist) before they got to bed. And some Quran and (definitely) some Shakespeare wouldn't hurt either. And the bit about the tiger and the gazelle... Dawkins isn't a very deep thinker, is he? I mean, really? His argument against Creationism is "why did God give both animals a fair shot?" Maybe so that the ecosystem could function properly? Just maybe? But I understand that he was giving a defense of Evolution, not so much an attack on Creationism (I suppose that's in his other book), so that's understandable. Plus, he was essentially making a joke to a bunch of like-minded individuals who already agreed with his perspective, much like, well, a preacher giving a slapdash response to atheism at a Sunday morning service. Also... conflating creationism with Holocaust denial may not be entirely a fair comparison. We have scads of first-hand accounts of the Holocaust. But somehow I don't think there's much first hand testimony from the Common Ancestor of All Life. Since it didn't have hands and all. But again, I understand: it was more preaching to the choir...

    Seriously though, although I might disagree with some of its points, I enjoyed reading this article; it was good.
  • Nicollette Barsamian
    Thanks Chris. Glad you liked the article. I agree with you that Dawkins was preaching to the choir. But as a member of the choir, I don't have a problem with it.
  • Matt
    silverchris,

    I suppose you could call evolution an "ideology". But fundamentally, the difference between evolution and creationism is that of evidence.

    As in: there is a great deal of evidence for evolution and essentially none for creationism.

    If I say "A" and you say "B" (assuming "A" and "B" are at odds, or make conflicting claims), then the only rational way to determine which of us is correct -- or at least closer to being correct -- is to examine the evidence. On this count, evolution wins, hands-down. No, the evidence is not perfect -- nor should we expect it to be, for reasons that Dawkins details quite nicely. But that does not mean that the assertion is somehow inadequate.

    No, there is no "first hand testimony" from the Common Ancestor of All Life. But there is a huge amount of evidence linking all life to bacteria. Strange, yes. Disconcerting? Perhaps. But ask your doctor how well you would fare without your intestinal flora (bacteria) and get back to me. Or, for that matter, research mitochondrial diseases and let me know if you want to deny the common heritage of all life on earth.
  • A
    I was there. I got a bit closer since I bought the book and got the ristband. But an hour? I was in the standing section and it only took 25 minutes.
  • Nicollette Barsamian
    I wasn't in the standing section. If you didn't have a wristband, you had to wait to get on line after every-single wristband person got their book signed.
  • Interesting account of the conversation between evolution sceptic and J.B.S. Haldane. I'm surprised Haldane would conflate design and manufacture.
  • Nicollette Barsamian
    From the writer of the article: In the discussion, Dawkins was saying that forty percent is not a small percent. If it was a percent of error, it would be off by forty percent. In terms of the distance across North America, that margin of error would result in a distance of only eight yards.
  • Sebastian
    There seems to be an error in the writer's understanding of the message Dr. Dawkins' wanted to convey. The writer wrote: "Forty percent is a huge margin of error."

    The 40% in "the 40-percenters" refers to the Gallup poll result that over 40% of the American population are creationists who believe in a young, under 10.000-year-old Earth. The 40% does not refer to the margin of error in their misconception about the Earth's age (<10.000 years vs. ~4.540.000.000 years), which Dawkins compares to believing that the distance across North America is only eight yards.
  • Nicollette Barsamian
    From the writer of the article: In the discussion, Dawkins was saying that forty percent is not a small percent. If it was a percent of error, it would be off by forty percent. In terms of the distance across North America, that margin of error would result in a distance of only eight yards.
  • Nicollete, I think that Sebastien is correct, and you misunderstood what Dr. Dawkins said. Dawkins uses this analogy frequently in his speeches, and I have heard him say it many times. It is very clear that the 40% is not referring to a margin of error, but to a percentage of the US population that holds creationist beliefs. Converting that percentage into "eight yards" makes no mathematical sense.

    The analogy Dawkins uses is thus: Comparing the true age of the Earth (4.7B years) to the age quoted by creationists (6000 years) is like measuring the width of North America and coming up with an answer of eight yards. That is not an error of 40% but of nearly 8000%.
  • Nicollette Barsamian
    Thanks Jim for clarifying that for me and any other readers.

    I apologize for the error.
blog comments powered by Disqus

We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.