11 comments on “The Genius of Charles Darwin — Hosted by Richard Dawkins: Episode One Summary.

  1. Pingback: The Genius of Charles Darwin — Hosted by Richard Dawkins. « Gary William Murning Online

  2. Pingback: The Genius of Charles Darwin — Hosted by Richard Dawkins: Episode One Summary. | You Tube Blog

  3. Pingback: Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » The Genius of Charles Darwin - Hosted by Richard Dawkins: Episode One Summary.

  4. Hi Gary – I’ve been on holiday and so missed the first episode. Found your summary very useful – thanks. Am also rather sad at the limited, over simplistic view which so many people have. The evidence for evolution and natural selection is overwhelming, and I say that as a professional biologist AND as a Christian. Here I think that Richard D has some issues, in that he seems to have equated ‘belief in God’, with a literal interpretation of the bible. Many of us who are scientists and christians do NOT think like that – science has done (and still is doing) a great job at explaining HOW things work the way they do. For me – and thousands others – the Bible is NOT about that – it’s about relationships between people and between people and god. It’s about things like love, and justice and peace – which I think we would all agree are ‘real’, and important, but which are outside the realm of scientific exploration.
    All the best
    Peter

  5. Hi Peter,

    I’m very pleased that you found my summary useful. We aim to please 😉

    With regard the overwhelming evidence for evolution and natural selection, I wholeheartedly agree (naturally!) Speaking only as a layman, albeit a quite well informed one, it constantly surprises me that some still refuse to accept it as the “fact” it so clearly is. For me, not believing in natural selection is rather like not believing in oxygen!

    Yes, I must admit that whilst I admire the hell out of Dawkins, he does at times take it rather further than I personally would. I do have a problem, however, with duality — like Dawkins himself. I would (and I stress, this is just about me — it’s not intended as a criticism) have a serious problem reconciling scientific knowledge with religious belief. The two don’t sit together very well for me. I do not, however, consider it a problem in others unless it somehow impacts on my life and the things that I know. Based on the little you’ve told me about yourself, this would of course mean that your beliefs would certainly not be something I objected to.

    Some might possibly argue with your last point concerning love, justice and peace being outside the realm of scientific exploration. But I’m certainly not going to push that one and I do take your point. I do think philosophy can adequately address the points you raise, but if religious belief is a part of your or anyone else’s approach to understanding, that’s not an issue for me — as long as it doesn’t restrict knowledge or directly affect those who do not believe. Which, as far as the majority of Christians in the UK is concerned, it clearly does not.

    Dawkins might have problems with your take on Christianity, but I can live with it. 😉

    All the best and thanks for the comment.

  6. Good evening, mate!

    Thank you for calling me via a link, I truly appreciate it, and for keeping the promise you made the other day –offered a brief summary review on The Genius of C. Darwin.
    Before continuing my babbling, I’ll first have to ask your (and all readers of this particular post) pardon for linguistic inadequacy of this dull chimp as being an L4 learner of English. In other words, language accomodation and humanity tolerance is significantly requested.

    […Dawkins once again stipulates that Darwins’ work is one of the reasons why he doesn’t believe in God…]

    Will you please be more specific about the ‘God’ term, Gary? As far as I can see, Dawkins’ issue with religiosity is strictly bound to [un]scientific christianity (contents of the Bible) so it’d be a lot more appealingly appropriate if you could simply redefine it to ‘Jesus Christ’ — me thinks for the goodness sake of wider and plural spirituality perspectives toward certain beliefs. ^not that I’m in attempt to inflict any spiritual war here, just trying to be a little more objective^

    Speaking of natural selection theory, of course, not to believing in this legitimate natural law IS indeed a mere humiliation over human intelligence. A disdainful act to conduct, I must say. Notwithstanding as far as scientific knowledge vs religious belief is concerned, it is plainly the matter of unifying objective consciousness with subjective consciousness of mankind which, personally I assert, is near keen to impossible to do. Well, at least to most of us in some degree. Lol.

    Anyway, it’s obviously a good review overall you got there, mate –bookmarked for future self improvement. Thank you in advance!

    Warmest regards,
    -baba-

  7. As far as I can see, Dawkins’ issue with religiosity is strictly bound to [un]scientific christianity (contents of the Bible) so it’d be a lot more appealingly appropriate if you could simply redefine it to ‘Jesus Christ’

    I’m not sure if I’m reading you correctly here, Baba, but Dawkins’s issue is with all religion — and every degree of religious belief. As far as he is concerned, all religious belief is “delusional”.

    Glad it helped, my friend!

    (My apologies for being rather brief — I’m just dashing off.)

  8. I’m talking about

    …the biblical story of creation…Dawkins retraces his steps on the Galapagos Islands…

    ah, may be I am reading that inaccurately …
    Pardon the dull chimp’s illiteracy and inadequacy, Gary.

  9. No, mate, you’re not reading it inaccurately. That passage is definitely ambiguous. Mea culpa.

    To clarify. Dawkins retraces Darwin’s steps on the Galapagos Islands. Darwin was a Christian from what we would now terma “creationist” background. Darwin was concerned, as far as I know, only with the effects of his discoveries on his own Christian belief system. So, yes, you are quite right.

    Dawkins, however, is a different matter entirely. (I sometimes think this would be a hell of a lot easier if Dawkins’s and Darwin’s names were not quite so similar!)

  10. Hah! That explains everything!!! LOL

    I’m looking forward to having your next episode(s). Again, wholeheartedly thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s