Richard Dawkins: The Fact of Evolution

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can be committed to science, but as soon as you're committed to a hypothesis, you've walked off the trail of objective truth, says Richard Dawkins. For him, that is the mission of science and the purpose of the scientific method: these truths exist—they are the foundations of innovations like vaccinations, antibiotics, and space travel, because they are built on something solid: evidence. Einstein is known for highly valuing the role of imagination in science, and Dawkins agrees: imagination and intuition are the springboards scientific progress depends on—but when evidence refutes a hypothesis or a feeling, that's the end of the line. Dogged persistence doesn't get you any closer to the truth, says Dawkins, only critical thinking can do that. Richard Dawkins' latest book is Science In The Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RICHARD DAWKINS

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the former Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of several of modern science's essential texts, including The Selfish Gene (1976) and The God Delusion (2006). Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins eventually graduated with a degree in zoology from Balliol College, Oxford, and then earned a masters degree and the doctorate from Oxford University. He has recently left his teaching duties to write and manage his foundation, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, full-time. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT:

Richard Dawkins: The first chapter of 'Science in the Soul' is called 'The Values of Science and the Science of Values'. And it does, of course, give prominence to objective truth. There is a kind of whispering campaign—more than a whispering campaign, sometimes a yelling campaign—against the value of objective truth. Science, I think, is committed to objective truth; we’re committed to the view that truth is independent of the cultural background of the scientist, for example. So as I said in the book, an experiment done in a lab in New York can be replicated in a lab in New Delhi, and if it’s all done correctly in the same way they’ll get the same result. Science’s belief in objective truth works. Engineering technology based upon the science of objective through achieves results: it manages to build planes that get off the ground, it manages to send people to the moon and explore Mars with robots, and land robotic vehicles on comets. Science works. Science produces antibiotics, it produces vaccines that work. So anybody who chooses to say, “Oh, there’s no such thing as objective truth, it’s all subjective, it’s all socially constructed,” tell that to a doctor, tell that to a space scientist.


Manifestly, science works and the view that “there is no such thing as objective truth” doesn’t. Science proceeds, I believe, in the sort of Popperian view that science proceeds by intuitive leaps of the imagination, building an idea of what might be true and then testing it by experiment, by observation, in the second phase. It’s a kind of Darwinian selection of mutation, which is provided by the imagination.


So intuition is very important, but it is important that scientists should not be so wedded to their intuition that they omit the very important testing phase, and if their hypothesis is disproved they should regard that as a reason to reject the hypothesis or modify it, not a reason to just carry on doggedly sticking to the hypothesis because they are intuitively committed to it.

The phrase 'critical thinking' is quite a cliché but it is immensely important. And so I think that I really could sum it up by saying what we need is critical thinking; we need to respect evidence, we need to respect the fact that the only reason to believe anything about the real world is evidence. The evidence must be assessed critically, preferably statistically and logically. You cannot derive truths about the real world by intuition alone, by feelings alone, by what feels good.


People who say things like, “All opinions are equally valid,” or, “Well, it’s true for me, it may not be true for you.” Never tolerate that kind of thing. The only reason to believe anything is true is that there’s evidence, and everybody should either look at the evidence for themselves or they should trust that the person they’re talking to has looked at the evidence in a scientific, logical, rational,...

[CaesarAugustus.]

People who misuse the scientific interpretation of the word theory should attempt to disprove the theory of gravity.

[noeditbookreviews]

I hope all the young people out there cherish your ability to so easily access this kind of information. Back in my day we were just starting to evolve photoreceptors.

[MuonRay]

Evolution is a theory because it has not been disproven. A theory is collection of observational/experimental verified hypothesis (i.e. facts). A theory can never be proven, it can only be disproven. Calling evolution "just a theory" actually means you are saying evolution "just has not been disproven". So creationists have been shooting themselves in the foot with their own statements, without even knowing it. That's what happens when you don't know what you are talking about.

[Gintonious]

I love how his face lights up when he gets towards the end, this is his true passion.

[TheNightWatcher]

Since Rose White blocked me, I'll just put this here.

+rose white
You can call facts nonsense but whatever. Genesis describes the Earth being circular but flat, under a solid sky. The stars being imbedded in the sky, and the sky holding up a heavenly ocean. This was many Semitic cultures' explanation for why the sky was blue.

"6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

"16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, "

Look up what "the Firmament" (sky) really means in the context of Genesis.

The idea that the Earth was a flat disk under a solid sky was a very common idea in that part of the world at that time.

[takayama]

If evolution is fact then how come bananas don't have legs?

[halogen]

selective breeding is evolution and yet people try to deny it

[Antidote]

It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

[cornflakeclusters]

"Also good and bad people can enter the kingdom of heaven, it is your faith in what Jesus did that gets you there"

So you're telling my that a pious pedophile can get into heaven, but a decent atheist will burn in hell? If God did exist, wouldn't he care more about whether you were a good person, rather than if you believed in the Bible?

[kfbpro]

Name one transitional form from one species to another. Just one example of two different species sharing a common ancestor.

[zevbenjamin]

Dear christians,

What if I told you; Your inability to understand the basic principles of the theory of evolution is not an argument against it.

[apostleled]

The entire theory of evolution being a fact falls apart when we are unable to observe one genus evolving to another it requires as much faith as any religion to believe one genus can evolve to another.

[kfbpro]

You've done well in researching some fossils that scientists will point to. Although some of that evidence is somewhat swaying, I contend that it's not hard to mistake an old fossil of an extinct species as a transitional form, especially when it is not complete. What we don't see are any of those forms living today. So we basically came from small rodent-like creatures, which came from fish creatures, which came from a single cell, yea that sounds right... Btw what did a giraffe come from?

[paulmatveyev]

On the day of judgment we will see who is right and he who is wrong

[scottl]

2. Cosmic Radiation background: This is difficult to explain, but I will do my best. When we look beyond the visible spectrum of light, we see the entire universe shining with microwave radiation. Its like looking at an explosion from the inside of it. We have mapped the strength of this radiation in all directions and come up with an accurate picture of the early universe.

[benstevenson]

evolution is not a theory its a proven scientific fact Darwin got it right

[MammothProductionInc]

Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential men alive today!

[Videosaurus_Wrex]

you can keep thinking that but absolutely no other institution in the history of mankind has been better at finding the truth, predicting the future, explaining reality.
it's the best tool for truth we have

[TheGreatAlan]

Fossil record, D.N.A., and geographic distribution. PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

all you religious people are letting your beliefs determine your facts. Let that sink in

[eternalending]

The probability of a single protein coming together by chance is 1/10^164, imagine the probability of an entire cell forming. I believe in evolution, but not in the last universal ancestor.