The Genius of Charles Darwin
Posted by: Richard in Atheism, Science, TV, tags: Atheism, channel 4, evolution, origin of species, richard dawkins, ScienceI settled down to watch Richard Dawkins’ new series “The Genius of Charles Darwin” last night with high hopes. Unfortunately, it fell somewhat short of my expectations.
The subject matter certainly demands coverage in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his ground breaking work ‘The Origin of Species’. What it didn’t need, in my view, was to be turned into another atheist argument. Channel 4 has done an admirable job over the last few years of representing various world views, it’s the only channel to devote any serious time to the specific subject of atheism. I’m also quite curious about the series “make me a Christian” which starts this Sunday, but - I should add - more for the comedic value I see in the prospect. That said, I fear I’ll get wound up by it in no time.
In my view, the subject of evolution by natural selection could have been dealt with - and been the better for it - if the subject of religion had been left on the side lines. Leave it as an exercise for the viewer to draw what (to me) are solid conclusions. But accept that there are many biologists and geologists who do find a way to allow evolution to sit side by side with their beliefs (Don’t expect me to explain the mental gymnastics that requires). I simply take Occam’s razor - the simplest explanation is most likely true - quite seriously, and evolution to me does a more than adequate job at explaining our place in the world. Gods only complicate it further, and actual demand far more difficult explanations.
Dawkins’ medium is definitely not television. His written works are elegantly written, and in them he deserves his position at Oxford as the Charles Simonyi chair for the public understanding of Science. But in television I feel he comes across as slightly arrogant, smug, distant and, I’m afraid, somewhat grating over the course of an hour. I’m a big fan, so goodness knows how anybody who wasn’t would feel after settling down for an hour of documentary.
Compare this to National treasure, David Attenborough. Attenborough has found a way of reaching out and pulling his audience in to the savanna and rain forest with him, so we all manage to enjoy the splendour and variety of the life about us with him. It’s clearly a tall order to expect Dawkins to become a similar treasure overnight(!), but if he could take on some of the approaches, and manage to find a way to better engage with the audience, it’d make for far more compelling, informative and educational television, especially when dealing with scientific subjects rather than his atheism.
In the core message of the programme it did better, when he wasn’t bringing religion in to it. Evolution is not a complex concept - indeed it’s rather obvious when you look at the selective breeding process we apply to our favourite animals - but it really seemed a bit more mixed up in the life of Darwin than would have been ideal. The budget may have been at play here: The choice of what seemed like aging natural world footage of animals fighting, eating, copulating and fleeing, and the strange metaphore of a piano to explain the relative duration monkeys (and humans) have existed to the entire span of life on earth. Some on-screen graphics really would have been better, and more emphasis on the simply vast stretches of time involved. Geology plays a key part in demonstrating evolution, but it didn’t seem to be applied or explained very effectively. Similarly it was very fleeting (but when it was mentioned, did so very effectively) how horrifically cruel yet wonderful the natural world is. Parasites, eat or be eaten, how the eye has independently evolved multiple times, and how there are some bizarre relics of evolution within our own body.
All said, I’d give the programme 6/10 - Could do (much) better. It fell short of really engaging effectively with a fascinating subject, and Dawkins made atheism a far more a central part of the programme than was necessary. Dawkins perhaps needs to realise that if he had been less up-front about atheism, and focusing on the core concepts he was supposed to be putting across, it might actually have convinced more people to what seems to now be Dawkins’ main role as lead atheist. As it was, a programme that should have been about a stunning piece of science, it became more of a programme about atheism, and as such was much the poorer for it. And I say this as both a Dawkins fan, and an atheist myself.
Entries (RSS)
August 5th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I gave up after 20 minutes. I am agnostic. I thought is was going to be about evolution - but I loathe having other peoples beliefs get in the way of what they are telling me. So switched off he was. Pity.
By the way ‘everybody is some bodies lunch on this planet’.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Understanding the difference between being a neutral atheist and fighting atheist is fundamental and more political in context. Understanding evolution and fighting for evolution is also a continues process of evolution. Therefore, as a member of human race who profoundly understands the evolution, Dawkins does the correct thing.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I too, felt that Richard Dawkins came across as arrogant in this series. Too much time was spent trying to convince “believers” that they were basically ignorant and/or stupid because they clung to their belief in a divine creator.
I was brought up as a Roman Catholic but I have long since become one of those fudgy inbetweeners who strongly believes in evolution… yet still has a place for God to fit in.
I do NOT believe God is an OLD MAN WITH A LONG WHITE BEARD. This obviously false image of God is probably the most misleading concept in history. Why should God look so OLD? Unless he was once a BABY and has been ageing (like we do) over time (even if it must have been at a much slower rate) then perhaps one day “he” might grow too old and DIE! (Heaven forbid!!!) If God is eternal, then why should he not still have the face and body of a young man? The Bible says God created Adam “in his own image” yet this first man is depicted as young and in his prime… nothing like that image of the creator himself.
I’m guess I’m going to have trouble putting my point across here, but I believe that God exists only within, (or as an expression of…) our collective consciousness. That is; the consciousness (or rather the subconsciousness) of all living things.
Things such as NUMBERS and MATHEMATICS don’t actually “exist” in the real world, they are just concepts which we (especially scientists) use as tools to make sense of the universe.
I don’t suppose Mr Dawkins has any problem with these “non-existent” CONCEPTS being taught in schools. They are only created in our minds, yet are so integral and fundamental to science, because proving scientific theories necessarily involves so much experimentation and calculation.
Mr Dawkins specifically made the point how he was descended from a successful line of ancestors (which I agree, he must have) but if you follow that line back to it’s ultimate conclusion you must see that at some point in history his ancestors were not living creatures at all. At some point in the history of the earth there was NO LIFE… so where did it spring from? If you suggest that life on earth must have been spawned on another planet somewhere else in the universe and been transported here on a comet (or something like that) then you just end up with the same question to be answered (how did life begin?) but on another planet instead of earth.
I’m not saying of course, that some kind of God must have started it all off… because that just leads to questions about the origin of God. I truly believe that we cannot possibly ever answer these questions.
btw, someone once said:
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!”
I hold a reasonable amount of faith in that assertion.
I believe God does exist because life exists, and “he” cannot exist without it. As a widely held concept (though some may deny their underlying beliefs) perhaps WE cannot exist without GOD! It’s in our nature.
NATURE doesn’t need to explain itself, yet we feel the need to explain it instead of just living it.
Dinosaurs NEVER EXISTED until we dug up their fossilised remains. What I mean is: They just ate each other, or ran from each other, or hid from each other… but had no concept of “Tyrannosaurus Rex” or “Brachiosaur” for example… they just didn’t need those kind of details to get by. As the vast majority of creatures living today (those other than humans) they just lived their lives and have no need for nomenclature as we do in our lives.
Why do we feel the need to explain these things?
What is the point of knowing where we come from anyway?
Knowing where we are going would be rather more helpful I suspect, yet we cannot see into the future!
Richard Dawkins’ friend said (I can’t recall his name) something along the lines of… Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made from billions of neurons. Well what happens when these neurons die? If they are just tiny little “robots” each doing their jobs and collectively becoming a soul (or a consciousness) then why can’t they be revived and essentially brought back to life after we die?
What are the differences between dead neurons and living neurons? Couldn’t those changes be reversed?
Could our MINDs be transplanted into new bodies to save all those years of educating NEW ones in successive generations!? Wouldn’t we be “playing GOD” if we could do that? …or would we just be scientists?
August 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Why should a god automatically be considered to have a gender at all? Why should a god be assumed to be male? Apart from the quotation above for believers about “in His own image” of course. Religion is a load of old bollocks as it seeks to render male privilege immune to challenge by presenting it as “natural” and “divinely ordained”. Hence feminists such as myself (and I used to be a born-again Christian fundamentalist before I “saw the light” and turned atheist) regard organised religion as nothing more than a male-instituted/dominated/maintained instrument of oppression.
Thank you for the summary of the programme, Richard, over here I am Channel 4 deprived (really must bestir myself to nvest in a Freeview box…).
September 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’ve always thought that the intersection of radical feminism and religion would be a very interesting one, almost a pity #4 is an atheist.