Added: 3 years ago
From: richarddawkinsdotnet
Views: 57,249
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (209)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I was not aware of that particular statistic, and I find it terrifying to the deepest part of my being. I have had the bad habit until recent times of speaking on subject about which I had no amount of understanding. I have been humbled so greatly by those who have taken the time to truly understand what they are talking about. I wish I could confer that experience upon those many teachers who haven't the experience or knowledge necessary to properly teach.

  • "Over 90% of middle school teachers haven't taken a science class outside of high school" - I can attest to this. When I went to middle school, and even high school, most the science (and math) classes were taught by coaches who didn't give a crap about the subject. But man, those athletics were soooooo important.

  • They comment on politics, but are they members of political parties, do they encourage their colleagues and friends to join political parties, where is the intelligent criticism at the very base of the political process coming from? When a candidate says something stupid, are there people in his local party who can correct him with confidence, in front of the very people responsible for selecting him in the first place?

  • hehe believe this part of science and not that part. . . . ist that what theists do with the scripture. . . sounds weird, at least radicals truly believe in there fairy tails, and anyone who isn't a radical/fundamentalist isn't a true believer

  • If the sound is screwed up then don't watch the videos from the playlist but click them one after another without the playlist at the bottom that will fix it !

  • That should settle the debate real quickly. Toss out one of our biological weapons, atheists take the scientific cure, theists pray to their god to stop the plague. We should also get a control group of each side...maybe give some people placebos, just to be sure. Double-blind if possible. Then we compile the results and see how effective each theory of medicine is! Theists could finally prove conclusively that the god hypothesis is better than science theory, how about that!

  • I think the cartoon Richard was trying to remember was a Doonesbury from 2005 about a doctor and a creationist patient. You'll find it if you google "doonesbury creationism".

  • Can't wait for Krauss' new book - "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing."

  • @rrpauldoran

    I actually agree. I wish there were no laws against hitting the trully stupid. The "I don't want to learn" Types.

  • Richard Dawkins should be Richard Darwin, but do to evolution, Darwin evolved to adapt to NOW!!

  • It's designed to kill us :D

  • i could watch these 2 talk forever! "purpose of purpose" and "a universe from nothing" are great lectures as well that made me love these 2 guys. i dont think ive ever even partially disagreed with anything they have said

  • I thought Dawkins was going to shit his pants with 90% of teachers have not taken a science class above of the High School level.

  • wtf america? seriously?

  • To comment on the teachings of elementary teachers of science, I can remember somehow that one day we (4th grade) were discussing the Sun and space. My friend raised his hand and asked "How does the Sun burn in space if there is no oxygen?" He actually stumped the teacher. She gave him extra credit points for asking such a question and that she didn't know the answer. Good Kentucky education huh?!

    I have since graduated from WKU with a double major in Biology/Chemistry and got into med school.

  • Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL

  • I absolutely HATE, and I mean FUCKING HATE people who say they ''don't care'' about questions like ''how did we get here'' and ''why are we here''.

    People that can actually go through life not caring, and being apathetic towards those EXTREMELY important questions absolutely shock the hell out of me.

    Basically, if you're apathetic towards important life questions and matters, let me just say that we're not going to be friends, and I inherently hate you from the very essence of your being.

  • @rrpauldoran I feel ya man. I wouldn't go as far as using the word "hate" because it gives being an athiest a bad name. These are very simpleminded people that are misguided. They need to open up a little.

  • @NarLiv

    Yeah, I suppose I'm a little too explicit with using ''hate''.

    But I'm talking about people who call themsevles even ''agnostic'' as well.

    I dislike closed-mindedness as well, but people who simply don't care just shock me.

  • Dawkins and these atheist scientists seem to ignore the role of religion within social structures

  • @AustrianAtheist Such as?

  • @AustrianAtheist Social structures would be there without religion

  • Nobody has ever claimed the opposite?

    However, atheists should study the many theories how and why religion came into being in the stone age. How religion was used to increase the legitimation of certain moral codes, laws, but also of tribe leaders.

    It is also interesting, that changes in society always lead to a change of religous ideas and so on.

    The history of religion is an extremely strong argument for atheism, which is not really popular.

  • @AustrianAtheist I agree with you about religion's role as a social factor, but I think that we are finally moving out of the tribal Darwinistic nature of our ape cousins. Atheism is not an easy thing to realize for people I understand however, but human kind is finally getting ready to step out of the benefits of the social factors of religious belief and into the scientific reality of our new status as becoming a technological civilization.

  • I do not think there are any benefits, I just think that religion can be well explained by its history and its current role.

    PS: most claimed "benefits" are just lies. For instance there is no correlation between birthrates and religion. (China, Laos would breed like hell...) There is a correlation in the west, between high education and low birthrates and there is one between high education adn atheism....

  • @AustrianAtheist No there are no benefits currently because we have moved into a new type of society than the one that religion helped create. Without fear of gods and supernatural coercion humanity would have most likely never structured into the hierarchical and intellectually superior society it is today. However, religion has now overstayed its welcome not to mention usefulness and in today's society religion tends to have little positive effect. That is why you cannot see any benefits.

  • I remember my 6th grade science teacher telling us that B cells were called B cells because they looked like little letter "B's" microscopically. I knew better, thankfully, and corrected her. She argued with me though, and stifled me. She also proclaimed that the idea that complex carbohydrates were broken down to simple sugars equivalent to glucose, etc was "debunked." I fought her again, and lost. I will make sure my nephews have the tools to fight such atrocity.

  • @nybgrus How frustrating is that? When I was also in the 6th grade, I took an English teacher to task on her assertion that I should write 'should of' instead of 'should have,' and she convinced the class that I was wrong.

    When I was in the third grade, I practically got into a shouting match with a teacher over my assertion that 'phone' was not spelled with an F. I kid you fucking not.

  • @Saerain Oh man! That may be even worse. I have my share of stories too. Though I got back at that science teacher. We did an experiment to show that the water had air in it - ice water in a beaker and then watch the condensation. To prove the water came from the air and not the beaker, we dyed it blue and wiped the outside with a cotton ball. I snuck in ahead of class and put a tiny dab of blue dye in the center of the balls. She thought the glass was leaking and I showed her up. I know - evil

  • There are religions out there that are NOT creationist. Science and evolution are not incompatible with alot of religions. But rarely do scientific minds care to make any distinction between religions. They'd rather look for and focus on the weak concepts from weak religions to try to get others to share an overly-general asessment of ALL religions based on that. It's more like a form of hate than anything else.

    Do they also believe all governments are flawed because one of them is/was flawed?

  • @dhylec Creationism is just one form of superstition. Almost all religions have superstitious elements that are utterly unscientific. Even a godless religion like Buddhism asserts the existence of the afterlife and etc. So I don't see how any religion is compatible with science.

  • @gupsphoo .... Buddhism doesnt assert an after life they assert reincarnation... coming back to life in a another form (ok i guess thats a life after life and the form you came back in depends upon your bahvior).. they also try to back it up with science stating that energy is constant just absorbed and emitted , they also try to back up their karma with every action has an equal and oposite reaction ..... tho the reaction can come back at any time... maybe even 10 lifetimes later.

  • Science should govern a nation not scientifically illiterate politicians. Its enraging that a man can send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle, yet can't understand the most basic concepts of evolution.

    Bill Hicks said it perfectly, "You ever notice how the people that don't believe in evolution, look really under evolved".

    If you were to put Bush and Ahmadinejad in a room for long enough, sooner or later they will start grooming each other.

  • The religious non science population mostly don't understand science. They love a good alien and can appreciate other sentient life in the universe, but fail to see the contradiction.

  • 90% how is that possibale?

  • @tupacalypse88 I don't know, but it's scary.

  • it's now perfectly sync'ed or is it just me?

  • As far as the terminology goes, I've always thought that what is called micro-evolution should be called adaptation and that evolution should refer to adaptation causing radical changes over time. Just to keep it clearer, if I've got it right in my head anyway.

  • That's a truly remarkable hard-talk :-)

  • microevolution and macroevolution are qualitatively exactly the same. an elementary point, but still something many creationists somehow fail to grasp.

  • These are very entertaining to watch, real shame about the sound being out of sync.

  • Excellent point at the end by Dr Krauss I'll paraphrase " when the shit hits the fan they say "Save us science we believe in you ""

    Talk about death bed conversions

  • @Radicalindifference Don't use the word "believe" remember? lol

  • 6:50 is spot on.

  • Brilliant!

  • Why don't Dawkins and Krauss assemble the world's 100 best scientists to create a state-of-the-art Science curriculum for schools worldwide?

    Why expect undergraduate science teachers to deliver a universally interesting, exciting and 21st century curriculum?

    Schools that use such a curriculum would be the envy of every school that does not!

    I repeat, schools that use such a curriculum would be the envy of every school that does not.

  • @bando8000 that's a great point to add to that it would be nice if the systematic approach would be governed by the wikipedia contribution process (obviously contributions limited to the 100 or so scientists) to managing the material.

  • @bando8000

    I don't think there's much discrepency in the basic aspects though: there's probably not much variation in what is sufficient for a 16 year old to know about the Kreb's cycle worldwide and what is being taught in decent schools on that matter. The real issue is when children are outright lied to, perhaps the stages in which they are taught and how often they are taught. Maybe depth comes into it, but the technical details from the top scientists may only be grasped at degree level.

  • @bando8000 Stanford has started providing online courses. MIT is following their lead. Some of my professors at UTD have started discussing doing this too. It's already becoming a reality. Thank the flying spaghetti monster.

  • @bando8000 I can already see two factors that would get in the way, money and influence. Not only would a large amount of money need to be raised, they would have to educate those in legislative offices and convince of the pros that would come with such a curriculum shift.

    I for one, agree with you. I would love to see that happen, however if they were to pursue something along those lines, they have a lot of work ahead of them.

  • Wow that statement at the end here is very powerful. That's like an atomic bomb for the next time I'm talking to a theist.

  • Take care. That powerful statement came after about 100 minutes of discussion between two persuasive polemicists. It's not something to toss off to someone who probably hasn't been listening to anything you said anyway and will probably just alienate him. However, that being said, Dawkins was right! I'm still reeling from the 8 years of a president who said Jesus was his favorite philosopher! Cheers!

  • "Over 90% of middle school science teachers have never taken a science course outside of high school."

    Sorry but even for USA, this statistic sounds unbelievable... I think(hope) Krauss is wrong about middle school science teachers...

  • @Zubinen Sounds a bit high to me as well. I would hope more than 10% of them would continue to advance their own education if not just to stay current. After all, education is obviously important to them or they would have chosen a more profitable profession, one would think...

  • Unfortunately, No. He is right. ALL you have to do to prove this, is either, or both, A) Ask your local school-teachers, and/or B) Look at any college's requirements for getting a teaching certification.

  • does anyone know what video Dawkins couldn't remember?

  • It wasn't a video, but a comic strip.

    Doctor: Uh-oh, hope he's only a sunday creationist.

    Patient: TB? My God, are you sure?

    D: Afraid so, but we caught it early.

    P: So my prognosis is good?

    D: Depends, are you a creationist?

    P: Why, yes, yes, I am. Why do you ask?

    D: Because I need to know whether you want me to treat the TB bug as it was before antibiotics, or as the multiple-drug-resistant strain it has since evolved into.

    P: Evolved?

  • @BeekersSqueakers priceless.

  • (Part 2)

    D: Your choice, if you go with the Noak's Ark version, I'll give you Streptomycin.

    P: Um.. What are the newer drugs like?

    D: They're Intelligently designed.

  • At a major medical convention, a noted internist arises to announce that he has discovered a new miracle antibiotic."What's it cure?" asks a member of the audience. "Nothing we don't already have a drug for," the internist replies. "Well, what's so miraculous about it?""One of the side effects is short-term memory loss. Several of my patients have paid my bill three or four times!"

  • Does anyone know what Prof. Dawkins' argument is for thinking that evolution is incompatible with theism? He mentioned that he thought that evolution was incompatible, but he didn't elaborate his argument. I'm very curious.

  • God knows! All I can do is pray to God that I remain an atheist!!

    I'd suggest that it's the inconsistency between the scriptures and scientific discovery, such as "God created man in His own image" and how God is in control of everything, yet the evidence seems to point to something contrary.

    If you toss in the fact that there's a vast array of Gods to choose from, and that unspeakable misdeeds have been committed in the name of one God or another, then he has a general distaste for Him.

  • I'll keep my fingers crossed while you're praying...lmao

  • He'd probably only go as far as saying it's incompatible with a personal god who answers prayers and created the earth 6000 years ago and all such garbage. Certainly all the creation myths are out. I'm sure you can see for yourself why that's incompatible with accepting evolution.

    He probably wouldn't say it's incompatible with a deist god who sets the universe in motion and lays back, but he has other arguments why that's a silly belief.

    But of course that's all just speculation.

  • Thank you. I surmise that you are right. I should mention that you made me realize I was asking something I didn't intend! However you helped answer what I wanted to ask, too, which was: "What would Dawkins say is the consequence of evolution for deism?" Again, I suspect you're right.

    Deism is a different story entirely. But, I would point out that it's liable to get us confused when we ponder the existence of any deity, seeing as how theism predominates our notions about God normally.

  • He dedicates a chapter to that in The God Delusion. Calling it "The God Hypothesis", he posits that a world or a universe designed by a creator would be significantly different than what we see. In other words, whether or not there is a creator is indeed a scientific hyothesis, and although we may not (at this time) be able to prove or disprove it, as he sees it, the evidence shades the probability that it was or wasn't.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • "They should read the bible instead of going to the hospital"

    Check out the case of 11-year-old Madeline Neumann. Her parents have been convicted of murdering her.

    Instead of taking her to hospital they gathered around her and prayed to 'god' ... until she stopped breathing and died.

  • 3:09 this statistic has to be flawed O_O

    90%???!!! i can't believe this till i see the stats myself

  • BAHAHAHAA i loved his last staement! So true!

  • Can I just make sure, is EVERYONE watching this out of sync?

  • I am

  • Yep...just defocus your eyes!

  • hahaha, I sooooooooooo did that to at one point!!! lol!!

  • Yes they screwed up the whole video after like the third segment or so

  • It's very disappointing, yushis1, but it saved me plenty of bandwidth. I stopped watching the high quality versions once the sync was lost.

    Maybe it's to encourage people to buy the DVD, or perhaps something even more sinister. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, and He may have deliberately moved the soundtrack a little to the left to obfuscate the message (just as He's apparently obfuscated everything else).

    Great discussion, though, and I'll actually get this DVD one day soon. Excellent!!

  • Do you really believe your god made the video go out of sync? I mean doesn't that sound a bit out there even to you?

  • It's completely "out there", exacerbatedtaboo, because it was a joke. Due to the textual nature of the comments, you couldn't see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.

    I'm an atheist, so I don't have a God. I'm a product of evolution, and a very distant cousin of the tree that died to make my computer desk.

    Humblest apologies if you read my words literally.

  • @madzangels Yeah. The audio is a good 5 seconds ahead of the video.

  • @madzangels yeah it's ridiculous. As if the audience mic quality isn't bad enough now the subtitles are all out of sync. It's impossible to understand the questions...

  • @madzangels no

  • @madzangels it works perfectly for me.

  • @madzangels just switch it to 360p it will sync the audio

  • @BahlsenD Thank You! :)

  • @madzangels nope

  • @madzangels no, i'm watching in sync.

  • @madzangels It's not for me.

  • @madzangels not i

  • And who would be more enthusiastic about science than a scientist? Why not have actual scientists teaching science to children?

  • That would terrify the fundamentalists. They would fight it tooth and nail.

  • This is simply amazing stuff i really wish i had a better set of science teachers in school i probly would have ended up being a biologist

  • i am sure you still can become one... just do it!

    its never too late and especially not wit 26 ;)

  • 90... that number...

  • And you know this Because......

  • why is the audio out of sync on half of these videos?

  • "it's been designed to kill us" lol

  • Funny, I've said the same things about understanding science and "young earth creationists". If they're going to ignore the science that shows how old the earth actually is, then they should ignore ALL science and leave their cars at home and walk instead. Its easy to laugh at the big picture, but once you look into the details you'll find how everything is inter-related (if that a word, but you get my drift). It's not a stand-alone line of reasoning.

  • Holy shit, they really go at George Bush with a vengence here :-D ...and rightly so if you ask me!

  • Prof. Dawkins seemed visibly shaken up by that statistic. I suppose things are much better in Britain than in the U.S. as far as science education goes.

    Maybe he should have been the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in America!

  • Seriously. ~ 3:30 - 3:40 he seemed to be thinking, "oh dear, it's worse than I thought!"

  • @Toocold things are better in the uk as far as everything goes not just science education. cars women way of life life expectancy freedom history queen healthier i could fill this up with good things about uk

  • @Toocold He kind of is, isn't he?

  • 2005/Studies released this week and last year suggest that the roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries, long before the disease even existed

  • "how do you explain women in Nigeria who become immune to AIDS? The cells evolved. Plain and simple"

    this is the dumbest thing i've ever seen posted on utube.

  • why is that dumb to you? It's a fact. Same as evolution. It's a fact.

  • When the next flu/virus/etc hits, we should have registered believer cards. Those like Palin and other sickos who believe the Earth is only 6k years old and don't believe in evolution - we turn them away and tell them to talk to God. The rest of us get the vaccination.

  • The problem is theory in science means exactly that theory. But for the porpose of elementary school we call it fact, because it is as close to fact as science has yet determined. the theory of gravity is not fact, and subject to change, as is often the case. it was omly a few years ago neanderthal was considered to be pre man. Now we know that fact was wrong. during the scopes trial a tooth was presented as an example of pre man. we now know that fact was wrong. children call theory fact.

  • "they should read the bible instead of going to the hospital"

    damn right.

  • does anyone know where to find this cartoon he mentions?

  • Maybe this one: answersingenesis(dot)org/docs2­005/images/1218doonesbury_lg(d­ot)gif

  • i forgot about this, thanks that must be the one :)

  • Grandweirdo - how do you explain women in Nigeria who become immune to AIDS? The cells evolved. Plain and simple.

  • There isn't a serious scientist who would deny that some of the people and places mentioned in the Bible probably did exist at some point. The bible is a collection of folk tales and myths later unified and attributed to a single deity. Of course some elements in there are going to have roots in real historical events. Much like almost all other creation myths do.

  • The scientific community isn't overzealous, it just hates being misrepresented by some religious leaders. Science isn't a organization, it is the tool humans use to understand ourselfs and our universe. So don't blame science for your inablity to understand its concepts and theories which are available for everyone to learn. Science is the latin word for knowedge or knowing so don't hate the knowledgeable community for hating ignorance.

  • Well Science has the highest standard of testing and nothing is considered absolute fact in science....having said that....NOTHING IN THE BIBLE WOULD STAND UP TO SCIENTIFIC TESTING....THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF AT ALL!! I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PEOPLE GET PAST THAT FACT! NOW THAT'S A FACT FOR YOU....NO PROOF OF YOUR FICTIONAL BOOK! ALL YOU DO IS TRY AND DEBUNK EVERYTHING SCIENCE COMES OUT WITH...WELL ONLY THE SCIENCE THAT REFUTES YOUR RELIGION..IRONIC, HUH:)

  • Theory in science is alot differnt then theory in linguistics. You use theories in science to explain how facts fit together. Clouds exist "in" the sky, that is a fact. But why do clouds exist, how do they form, why does it rain, and why it snows is explained by science through theories and hypothesis. So these so called "Theories" have only brought us achievements like TV, PC, cellphones, Mp3 players, Medicine, and the Internet; the list is massive.

  • I'm worried about the US turning into Jesusland. If you'll base your country on religion you're gonna end up where the Middle East is, praying all day and living in houses made of mud.

  • THE US IS ALREADY JESUSLAND!

  • no GrandGuignologist, it was RELIGION that believed we were the center of the universe, not science.

  • I see what you did there. You WANT us to call you stupid, so you can then say how immoral we are. Typical creationist move. Using your stupidity to claim you're right.

  • You do not understand the word 'theory'. Would you say Pythagoras' theorem is still just a theory? It is a fact. No one believes gravity is emanating from another dimension. You make this stuff up.

  • Well actually there is an hypothesis around the idea of super gravity and multiple dimensions whereby gravity that we experience in our universe is emanating from another universe(S). But that is NOT why gravity is called a theory.

    Gravity is a FACT. Newtons gravitational theory is a fact as is Einsteins theory of special relativity.

    In science the word FACT does not mean "a temporary idea we are hanging on to for the moment". A scientific theory is a fact.

  • The theory of evolution is a theory because there is so much about it we have yet to prove. one of which is where the first bit of life came from. there are no good ideas as to how the first cell could have formed because the whole cell must be in place in order for life to begin to reproduce.

  • "one of which is where the first bit of life came from".

    Sure GrandGuignologist, but this isn't covered by evolution or even what evolution is about.

    What you are thinking about is abiogenesis.

  • randGuignologist

    Please Wiki the term "scientific theory" it will help you understand why evolution is a fact.

  • As things stand now anyone having a theory that opposes the theory that life here must have somehow formed here on its own is subject to ridicule, actually they suffer much worse, some are fired, or denied tenure for the crazy idea that life may have formed elsewhere and we were seeded. intentionally or otherwise.

  • That's a crock. You're being so vague that I can't possibly describe the pit fall you make for yourself. WHO is being fired? WHO is being denied tenure for invalid reasons? WHAT is this much worse you talk about? Better yet - what are the percentages? How many people are persecuted for teaching evolution in comparison to creationism? Then you can make a point. Otherwise, I think you're spreading the idea it's this huge event when it's more like isolated ones that happen EQUALLY.

  • I admire Dawkins for being courageous enough to use the word "stupid" so frequently.

  • That greater-than-90% statistic about the middle school teachers is indeed utterly terrifying. I can't even imagine what sort of public school system would allow that sort of thing. How can you be qualified to teach science with only a high-school level understanding of it?

    Especially when the middle school level is usually the point where students are exposed to the experimental aspects of science and the scientific method.

  • In The Begining there was nothing POOF God made the Light

    POOF the Earth

    POOF Vegetation!

    POOF The Sun, Moon and Stars!

    POOF Birds!

    POOF Land animals!

    ...

    You think the Sun and Stars were made before Plants? ,

     And Birds Came before all land animals?

  • clueless

  • there are transitional fossils you brainwashed fool

  • A small pathetic handful instead of millions of fossils! Thousands of Professors worldwide of all different belief systems think that Darwinism is also a belief system, or un-sound science (a Religion!). Most of the world does also. When the Government tried to convince everyone that JFK was killed by a "Magic Bullet" that stopped & turned in mid-air - How does that saying go, "Something so ridiculous it would take an intellect to believe it!" GO SEE EXPELED EVERYONE! Dawkins cameo is PRICELESS!

  • you do believe in artificial selection tho, right?

  • Do you have any idea what sort of elemental pressures you need to fossilize bone? What do you need for tangible evidence anyway if you're so willing to ignore what's available and rest so assured with yourself about a being you or anyone else cannot possibly prove? Don't ask for more than you can give in turn.

    NO! Don't see Expelled. The movie is terrible, and it's not only a waste of your time, effort and money, but might as well be a criminal act to put your money in hands like theirs!

  • Mate, go read a book, u very well might learn something.

  • Heh, maybe his kid's teacher was terrified because Lawrence Krauss was evaluating her?

  • Perhaps I may be able to clarify something: if you agree with Dawkins, then that does not mean that you have "blind faith" in him. After all, the arguments to which you may agree (or disagree) are independent of the man, given that the argument has a truth or falsehood value, which itself is inherently independent of any application of rhetoric. Thus, to call something of "blind faith", you must show that one accepted an argument without any rationalization as to its truth or falsehood value.

  • According to Wikipedia Krauss is an agnostic but he really strikes me as an atheist in these videos.

  • Well, you can be both. Richard is also "agnostic" to the same extent as he is to the question "does fairies exist", but they are also atheist in the meaning that they don't believe in it.

  • "You losers have nothing but BLIND FAITH in Dawkins."

    Richard has pointed this out and I've noticed before but didn't quite know how to word it. People like bestvalue KNOW THEY'RE FULL OF SHIT. If they didn't they wouldn't try to sort of bring you down to their level, to try and paint you as just as delusional as they are with you equally irrational and unfounded beliefs. It really is quite telling of just how insecure they really are.