Professor Richard Dawkins' Seminar at Science World 2011 Part 1

[MrDBarch]

I find it so frustrating; even Dawkins is guilty of this: evolution is NOT an idea we need to "believe in" it is a collection of accepted facts which one accepts or does not. Evolution is not religion and has no requirement of faith. Therefore, for one to say they "believe" in evolution is to reiterate a sloppy assertion.

[PaulP567]

@MrDBarch You are right. The 'tree of life' can only have been Darwinian in growth to the exclusion of all other mechanisms (Lamarckian et al). I think Dawkins uses the word 'belief' simply to be in popular step with everyone else, almost in acknowledgement that it is traditional, or customary, to say 'belief in evolution' rather than just 'evolution'. I suppose it jives with the continued use of 'theory of evolution', which surely must be a theory no longer. How can it be other than a fact?

[123backinyerface]

@MrDBarch I agree, "accept" is a better word than "believe".

[ialvarez357]

I don't understand this.

Don't all doctors believe in evolution already?

[barefootID]

@ialvarez357

It is not a matter of believing, but really understanding.

Darwin's theory explains our origin, it is natural that it should be of great interest for doctors. The problem is that Darwinism rely on monism and extracts design from chaos, so it does not presuppose any duperio order.

But doctors are educated to see human body as a PERFECT machine.... they are, in fact, essentialist (in the meaning according to Plato and his theory of the forms)

[RedAntLiberationArmy]

@ialvarez357 You'd be surprised at the amount of doctors who doesn't believe in evolution, let alone looking at health obsolete from that of darwinism.

[Nemesis000000]

@ialvarez357 Nope. They are I believe the one field of science where a fairly large percentage do not, rivalling the general public rate.

[dj2baduk]

@ialvarez357 it's one thing to believe in evolution. It's another to consider illnesses and symptoms in an evolutionary light. This is already yielding results where it's applied in medicine, with targeted gene therapy and drugs targeted at people with particular inherited traits. Understanding a persons evolutionary history is yielding more effective treatments for individuals where blanket treatments fail. Understanding viral and bacterial evolution has ended irresponsible use of antibiotics..

[thomaskurian89]

@ialvarez357 Sadly, no.

[PaulP567]

I think Dawkins is right. But in a sense he can hardly be wrong. Everything living must be Darwinian either directly or indirectly, i.e. as part of the process or incidental (accidental?) to it, following which even the 'incidentals' may find themselves with a progressive role. If Darwinism is sound, and it would seem that it is, then 'picking one's nose' (if you'll forgive me) is almost certainly Darwinian. Call it the Selfish Bogie (and you'll need to forgive me again).

[pmak8]

I wouldn't trust one who is not…