Darwin and Dawkins

S and I watched the three part series The Genius of Charles Darwin, written and presented by Richard Dawkins. Obviously no point in critiquing the science, so some vague thoughts on the programmes.
Part 1: An introduction to Darwin and the elegant, simple, perfection that is Natural Selection. Dawkins explained how Darwin came to his conclusions and how his ability to notice similarities and differences between closely related species led to the theory. What was particuarly depressing were the kids from the high school who Dawkins spoke to, some of whom denied evolution occurred thanks to the idiotic belief systems of their parents. It was encouraging that after Dawkins had spoken to them, and shown them fossils on the beach, that they were at least prepared to consider other options. I guess in the end that's all we can ask.
The one point that Dawkins did labour, which is well worth emphasising, is that of all the laws/theories/whatevers in science, Nat Sel is the only one that has never been seriously challenged. Even the 'new' fields of biology, such as genetics, all they've done is add support to Darwin's theory. There is nothing else.
Dawkins himself is a good presenter, he can get a bit ranty at times, but as he was writing/presenting the programme it was all pretty subdued.

Part 2: Dawkins looks at the social darwinism issues - eugenics and stuff. Interesting movie footage of Julian Huxley who was known for his eugenic views. Dawkins used this episode as a vehicle to argue for his selfish gene theory, but also to explain it properly, rather than the half-arsed interpretation most people have of it. Dawkins having pulling power,meant that the guests on this show included Frans de Waal and Stephen Pinker, both discussing the ability of genes to influence behaviour, and in humans, helping others. I found it interesting, but it does require you to pay attention as the concepts are subtle. Dawkins also looked at human evolution including having the Turkana boy skull sitting in front of him as he described it as the most important jewel in human collections, anywhere. Hard to argue with him there.
Good overall discussion about the differences between humans and other animals, and how our ability to recognise social groupings and critique behaviour makes us behaviour in a manner contrary to darwinian behaviour expectations.

Part 3: Ranty Dawkins came back. Kept mostly in check, this episode looked at the effect religion is having on the teaching of evolution. I'm going to try to avoid swearing a lot while writing this, although I failed miserably while watching it. There is inherent stupidity in people who say they recognise evolution occurs, but then find something that's a bit hard and say 'god did it'. What was more concerning is the christian right-wing nutjobs in the US who are demanding creationism, or its more insidious cousin 'intelligent design', are given equal time as 'theories' during science teaching. What a load of bollox. The whole point of science is that it is testable, natural selection has been tested time and time again, and has never been found wanting. Therefore, it is a fact. Creationism or ID are not testable. Therefore they do not even warrant the term 'theory'. They are just-so stories. What gets to me is the unbelievably smug look on their faces when they say 'ahhh but what about...'. I get that in my tutorials and patiently explain intermediate forms, and generally they get it (most of them are not smug looking, as they want to learn). The classic examples are the eye and human intermediate forms. The eye, or photo-receptivity, has been shown to have arisen multiple times in multiple lineages. If you want references, I'll provide them. A lot of them. And as for the absolutely massive fallacy of missing human stages, XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Two points need to be made here, evolution is not directed - a point a lot of people struggle with - if you can grasp that, you've pretty much got the concept, and secondly it is not linear, it always resembles a branching tree (divaricating for those of a plant bent). If you accept those two, human evolution becomes a case of 'what do you mean missing stages?', current fossils clearly demonstrate the increase in brain size, the change in posture (head position and pelvis) etc etc. And with dating these fossils we can clearly see the branching nature of human evolution.
The interview with Rowan Williams was interesting, and I would love to see to a written discussion between these two. Both are highly intelligent, and both are prepared to listen and critique. But the CoE's usual all encompassing position causes problems as well, it's akin to the 'well it occurs, but eh we'll say god kicked it off'. Again a cop-out. There is no need for that.

What really made me yell, and it made Dawkins grumpy too, were science teachers too scared to say 'this is how it is' for fear of offending people. FFS get a grip. It is that way. Tell them, I'm sure religious studies don't go 'well there might be a god, but also it might all be evolution with no such thing as a creator'. What Dawkins didn't say, and having dealt with 1st years for awhile, is that the high school teachers don't understand the topic either. And are therefore too scared to teach it in detail, for fear of being shown up as ignorant.

Another question left alone is: why do we always assume it's the christian god whose the big cheese? I'm sure there's a few other religions out there...

I think I've managed to not rant too much. I enjoyed the programme, finding it a good balance between detail and difficult concepts being clearly explained. As a subject I'm interested in it kept my interest without me wanting to yell at the dumbing down, all I wanted to yell at was the dumb people. I'm still convinced on his genes as units of selection, but it's reasonable...

I'm currently watching Peter Ackroyd's "Thames" now. And enjoying it.

B.