Dawkins: Lecture 3. Climbing Mount Improbable ( 1 of 8 )

[BritBarchu29]

Obviously the "concept" of climbing Mt. Improbable is no concept at all without utilizing words and phrases that only apply to intelligence. Apparently to be called a monkeys' uncle is not a slam to you, as you believe somewhere along the line you're actually a distant cousin? That's pathetic.

[DrMontague]

@BritBarchu29 I doesn't appear you have grasped the notion of Mount Improbable.

[BritBarchu29]

@DrMontague Actually you don't grasp the notion that blind, deaf and dumb cannot be explained using phrases, words, figures of speech or metaphors that apply only and directly to an intelligent source.

[DrMontague]

@BritBarchu29 Your a creationist retard/ Please die painfully.

[YaakovElijah]

@DrMontague Oh hey look, a "peaceful" atheist, Richard Dawkins would be so proud. What a bunch of puke you are. More hypocrisy from the monkey crowd. Then again, since you are an animal, it simply reasons that you will act like one. I guess "your wife is a monkey" isn't an insult to you or maybe your husband, who knows what your kind "does" these days. What a jackass you are....

[DrMontague]

@YaakovElijah You are correct I do block retarded creationists. Please fat yanks keep on stuff McDonald's burgers into your fat grotesque bodies. I heard you know longer need side walks because you too fat to walk.

[YaakovElijah]

@DrMontague Where your kind goes your worm will never die, it will be you who feels pain upon your death. What!? Are you going to block me too you H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E !!!!!

[DrMontague]

@YaakovElijah Your imaginary god is the real hypocrite. You call him a god of love and forgiveness yet the Old Testament leaves no doubt of how evil and cruel he is e.g. drowning babies and children in his flood. He demands women not found to be virgins on their wedding night to be burned to death. He is docile as well. Theists claim god is omniscient, this means he would know all our actions before he created anything, therefore we cannot have free will by default. yet he creates Lucifer!

[33dgtp]

@BritBarchu29 That makes no sense. Either try to make sense or STFU.

[timcp1]

Hmm, blind deaf and dumb cannot "climb". It is pathetic that these evolutionists need to use some figure of speech or metaphor that would describe what an intelligent source would do and place it over some natural process that wholly lacks any intelligence at all. If they were really truthful they would just say: Since evolution and natural selection lacks intelligence: is blind, deaf and dumb, there is no chance of it climbing mt. improbable or accomplishing anything regarding biological life.

[DrMontague]

@timcp1. It is clear that you don't understand the concept of mount improbable. This is because you are a creationist fucktard. It's not your fault that you are a creationist fucktard, it's an evolutionary defense mechanism of retarded brainslike yours, believing in the gods gives you comfort that there is an afterlife.

[MorganMarvinson]

Very interesting--especially that he compares evolution to a problem to be solved by luck gradualistically. This means that each hypothetical change in the series solved a single problem. It is hard to imagine that club feet in the pakicetus-whale series solved a problem or was any advantage either for walking or for swimming

[DrMontague]

@MorganMarvinson Don't forget this is only a basic introduction to evolutionary theory

[MorganMarvinson]

@DrMontague Does its being a basic introduction negate the fact that he compares it to luck solving a problem? Luck is chance, which is what fuels evolution, as Dawkins articulates it.

[FentenMenace]

damn, those kids are lucky :P Professor Dawkins is amazing. :D he has allowed me to fully understand evolution and the elegance of this seemingly simple explanation for the complexity of life. :D

[MorganMarvinson]

@FentenMenace "lucky" What? To have Dawkins wash their brains with simplistic examples, pretending to demonstrate what evolution is supposed to do? Ouch! This is the great indoctrination ... putting forth science fiction as reality. Such indoctrination, according to Dawkins' rhetoric in The God Delusion, is child abuse.

"What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

[DrMontague]

@MorganMarvinson You are a creationist retard i.e. a fucking laughing stock. Piss off!

[ubcphysicsyangbo]

As a completely heterosexual man, I gotta say this though: the younger Richard Dawkins was a pretty handsome fellow.

[visualkei72]

2:13 to the left, a kid raises his hand to volunteer for the stick insect, but gets totally denied. lol.

[MultiTrollHunter]

how come my school never took me to lectures like this hahaah

[BoooDave]

Part of me cringes when I see the audience being mostly children, as I so utterly loathe the way religion indoctrinates children, but then I guess you can't avoid educating them. I suppose it boils down to making sure what you teach them is right, rather than wrong....or even worse; lies....and we all know who is best at lying to children. I think even most religious people would agree, in light of the latest case of priests telling kids stories of trouser snakes tasting like chocolate lollies.

[eggiliciousness]

i used to always watch these when i was small!! they got me interested in science.thank u!!

[18vallancel]

I love you Dawkins

[alliswel]

Thanks for posting these lectures - I'm really enjoying them.

I am wondering though if all the audience were following this...

[thefutureboom]

yeah sure, why wouldn't they, it's explained by DAWKINS!!

[teamhex]

Could you make a playlist of these 8?

[DrMontague]

Simply click on my playlists they are already there.

[DrMontague]

They are in a playlist, click my playlists.

[FightTheElite]

I must say that I admire those children. I'm not sure I would have been able to grasp these difficult concepts and ideas when I was as young as they were (in fact I was 6 years old in 1991 so I realised I'm probably a bit younger than most of the children in the audience).

[antiantiantifahool]

well yeah it is not easy, but i think dawkins presents it well so that it is quite easy to understand relative to how complicated it really is.

[FightTheElite]

@wannabeebee

Richard Dawkins is probably a bit older than you so that wouldn't be fair.

I, however, also believe that there is no such thing as a god, and that people who do believe in (any) god are just as ridiculous as people who believe in faeries or pink unicorns.

I do ofcourse know that you're not sophisticated enough to be able to debate the matter without resorting to the flawed argument of violence... so... you fancy trying to fight me in a cage?

[RedDaVincy]

Doctor Montague, please do not hesitate to post more of these delightful intellectuals!

[DrMontague]

I will, it's just that I have been so busy lately.

[EndlessVoids]

Oh my goodness! Look how young he is!

[DrMontague]

I recorded them all this year. Take out the annoying adverts and each lecture is approx 35 minutes long. It all comes down to money. Most things that leave the BBC tend to become pale imitations!

[madderscientist23]

Darn it I forgot about them this year. What was the subject?  I must say I think the chap struggled to make the maths one interesting last year.

[DrMontague]

They were about how the human body deals with extreme changes in environmntal conditions e.g. extreme heat, extreme cold.

Lack of oxygen etc. All to do with explorers, mountain climbers etc.

[ManchesterBudo]

LOL - he was a pretty crap lecturer back in the day. 8-)

Glad he's improved and can communicate such important ideas.

[Polaphuca]

I think the opposite- I think he has gotten worse over time....

[TheStig000]

I thought he was good, you have to remember he was doing this in front of children. Maybe he was trying to lecture to an audience of children instead of adults?

[Falloutmoon]

I wish there were more people like Dawkins; people that are bright enough to make the rest of us understand the complexity of the world around us.

And I must say , as an atheist, that the feeling of awe I can feel when I watch seminars or lectures as the one above is nothing short of a religious experience.

[jjuran]

"And I must say , as an atheist, that the feeling of awe I can feel when I watch seminars or lectures as the one above is nothing short of a religious experience."

In the absence of God-belief, the spiritual firmware in your brain which allows for the experience you describe will find some other catalyst. It *wants* to be awed. :-)

Nature, beauty, discovery, art, and authentic communication are all ways to connect with that which transcends.

[Falloutmoon]

I agree of course.

I was merely making the point that awe in the face of what we barely start to understand, is not the sole privilege of those who bathe in blind faith...

[GHortaV]

@Falloutmoon As an Atheist I feel calling science a religious experience is a little bit of an understatement

[bluecobalt27]

Two things strike me here:

i) These days the Christmas lectures have been dumbed-down compared to this.

ii) I find it hilarious that all these little kids were having Dawkins broadening their minds with evolution here over 15 years ago, while some today are still being told that Creationism is true. In which group, I wonder, will one find the smarter adults?

[only1duk]

Religion brings me to tears when I think of the blind delusion and faith in something without evidence, and the lengths the religious will go to spread and impose their beliefs.

WHY GOD WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

I hope that we build a rocket, and leave religion and the religious here on Earth, fly off into space and then NUKE THEM ALL!

What a wonderful world we could have without this horrible faith issue

[radiofan6872]

Religion is indeed a scourge to science and reason, but I hardly think it warrants violence against the ignorant.

Better to make them realize their follies and voluntarily discard them... for violence will only make them hold faster to their delusions.

[Erech01]

the book is amazing:)

[aleterra]

thanks for posting this!

[sharndan]

"Debate between Ricard Dawkins and Francis Collins,

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be.."

Time Nov 5th 2006

[tacopylas]

It could be what? It seems that Dawkins had an answer, and I'd like to hear it. The point of the discussion was that to say "God did it, and God is beyond our comprehension" is essentially giving up on science.

[DrMontague]

Let me put it another way. All the ancient text are SHIT. The notion of god or gods are still based on ancient texts that are shit. These people did not have science as we know it therefore it was inevitable they came to have a supernatural explanation for the VISIBLE universe.

[DrMontague]

Why make other galaxies we can't even see with the naked eye or optical telescopes?! The ancients believed in only what they could see. ALL stars were a fixed distance etc therefore god gave us some fairy lights so we could see our way home after a belly full of beer. Fcuk sake grow up.

[BlueBarrier782]

Actually some of the ancients were very skeptical as to what they see(at least the Greeks were). As should you be. Skepticism is the key to ending all forms of faith. Give our ancestors more credit, they deserve it.

[flaskhalss]

@ sharndan. That's just a silly argument. Ofcourse the answer could theoretically be God. And of course Dawkins acknowledge that. However, that doesn't make it true. Santa Claus could exist, however unlikely that is. Dawkins argument is that one should not believe in things for which there is no evidence.

[Retardidid]

it could be anything, it could be a pink unicorn, it could be a flying spaghetti monster, just because you cannot disprove something, doesnt make it the truth, it kills me when theologists think they have the upper hand in getting someone as articulate and knowledgable as professor dawkins to admit the possibility of a god. a possibility is not proof, its probability that counts

[BlueBarrier782]

What's the most probable doesn't always happen. We can only base our thoughts on applying the knowledge of the past and of what actually did happen, though we are very selective in which information we use.

[heirtoruin]

What you leave out is that Dawkins would go on to say this thing beyond present understand, which would be the origin of energy... there is no reason to call it "god" since there is probably a very simple explanation of where all this came from. There's no need to postulate an advanced creature that has always existed outside of natural laws. Whereever energy originated will have a very natural explanation.

[ldl21]

Could be ET.

[BlueBarrier782]

But then you have to think "What God?" Your God, my God, the Catholics god, the Muslims god, the dead Greeks god, or maybe just an old guy in a suit who floats in outerspace contemplating all the worlds lost ballpoint pens. If he's incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding what is the point of even trying to worship or understand one? How do you even know anything about that God existing in the first place if he is incomprehensible?

[TearTheRoofOff]

This stuff should be consistently shown to children.

[martythemage]

Your mums a lock that fits my key.

/hi5

[ballardjones]

Say noman953, has Islam contributed anything to the world in the form of scientific understanding since the 12th century. Name one disease cured, universal labor saving device invented, or a single Nobel laureate from the Islamic world. Seems to me the latest contribution from Islam has to the world has been the suicide bomber. Thanks, with all Islam is doing for the future of humanity, who needs science?

[tacopylas]

The problem with Islam is that whatever "moderate/liberal/secular" Muslims there are don't swallow the whole thing. If you read the Quran, Allah obviously hates nonbelievers and wants you to conquer or kill them. If you're a heretic, just say so and renounce your religion; don't give cover to fundamentalists by saying "I'm a Muslim and I don't kill people". You are not a Muslim; Osama bin Laden is.

[BlueBarrier782]

Well I think the arguement is literalism. Some people can pick and choose from religious texts and have them open to interpretation. They call themselves a "muslim" simply because they might believe in God or something of that sort. I believe there are a few good lessons in the Bible and Quran, but I would never live my life off of one fucking book. Especially not those.

[DrMontague]

Indoctrination is a powerful force. Those under it don't always see it as such. Islamic teachings tell you not to question the existence of God. When you're not allowed to question and blindly follow your parent's or cultures belief then it can lead to a dangerous world. Fascists do not like to question things either and blindly accept what they are told by their leaders .

[noman953]

actually islamic teachings are very pro science because they encourage searching for truths

[DrMontague]

As long as you don't question the existence of God!

[DrMontague]

Could you please tell me whether or not you would stop others questioning if there is a God. Do you want as Islamic personal religion or an Islamic State that might deny other people the right not to believe in God. Why do assume that there are things science can't answer? Why do other scientists disagree with you?

[noman953]

See this is why I hate labels. I may follow islamic teachings but I'm also a feminist, a secular humanist, and a lot of other things. If people don't want to believe in God that's their business. I don't like Dawkins that much because he blames many problems on islamic countries without really knowing the political background on a lot of those topics.

[noman953]

I know many humanities professors like to seperate eugenics from Nazism. Science has caused problems just as religion has. if you study the history of the moron and the idiot you'll know that intelligence was seen as inhereted traits. biased questionnaires were made to test intelligence and minorities scored poorly due to the eurocentrism of the tests which latter justified racism. science justified racism.

[noman953]

I'm not going to drop science because it was used for evil, so why should I do the same for religion when people use it for evil

[DrMontague]

I agree with you in part. Dawkins in my opinion is good with evolutionary biology but weak at seeing the big picture as regards political propaganda. If you visit

h t t p ://w ww . richarddawkins . net / forum/ index .php You will see my criticisms of Dawkins. I go under the name of Luke Sanderson on the forum. simply copy and paste address and close the gaps.

[DrMontague]

I have an honors degree in sociology. I would be happy to debate with you further. These comment boxes here are limited to 500 characters and therefore not suitable for serious debate. Hope to meet you at Dawkins official website. You don't have to agree with Dawkins, it is a discussion forum for science and reason.

[noman953]

I don't really like forums but feel free to email me via youtube. just click my name and send me the youtube email that isn't limited to 500 words

[desert7352]

That was a very good point! It appears that both science and religion can be used to support racist ideology. Maybe it is just as important to question the motivation of the messenger as it is the message.

[DrMontague]

Dawkins argues that if some people believe that science has nothing to offer as regards our understanding of the universe,then surely no other discipline has anything to offer.

[noman953]

interesting "theory", not a fact. scientists also told us that cow milk is good for us, the said its bad, then said its good. that shows you how reliable science is. 20th century science is ruled by corporations not people ready to advance the human race. no I'm not a christian; me and my family left that hypocrital, mysogynistic, slavery provoking, genocide instigating, theology a long time ago so you can't accuse me of being a creationist

[DrMontague]

I agree that scientists do not always agree with each other. Milk might not do us any harm, perhaps it's our lazy culture of jumping in cars instead of walking or doing enough exercise. In todays world there is so much hidden fat in processed food. We now have high levels of fat intake which we didn't have years ago. Full cream milk would have been good for us 50 years ago.

[noman953]

using that argument that science isn't a 100% I can't choose evolution over religion because my religion claims 100% reliablity. Don't get me wrong I love science, but I think we should view science with a skeptical mind and be aware that facts don't stay facts for long in science.

[DrMontague]

Do you beleive in evolutionary theory? I  agree with evolution theory but will accept that we might still have a lot to learn about the actual processes involved in evolution .

[noman953]

I would like to believe in it. I'm muslim btw and my religion is totally compatible with evolution provided intelligent design has a say in it; not in biological sense but in how the cosmos came to be. I have trouble believing in science because facts don't stay facts for long in science. for eg we used to believe matter couldn't be destroyed only changed but we found out how to split an atom so that "fact" was changed

[DrMontague]

This is the problem humanity has. Nearly every organized religion regards its own as the right one. If you had of been born or adopted into a Christian family would have more than likely remained a Christian and Islam would appear a strange religion to you.

[noman953]

actually I converted to Islam. I'll admit about 90% of the world's problems are caused by religion and nationalism. i guess its hard for people to accept that humans are alone in the universe with no higher power watching us.

[shatvansammy]

E=mc2. Please read up on "your" science again and post intelligent statements when you comment on science.

[noman953]

please do shut up. I don't even know what your arguing about

[DrMontague]

agree

[shatvansammy]

that was the explanation for the "splitting of the atom" accusation made by someone that "science could not explain".

[DrMontague]

Please explain. What is your point as regards Dawkin's lectures?

[shatvansammy]

it has nothing to do with dawkins lecture. Im sorry for the confusion, i guess i didnt post the comment where I should have. it should have been a comment to an already existing comment but as things are, I didnt. my original reply was in response to the splitting of atoms explanation demanded by noman953 earlier... I hope this clears it out.

[noman953]

you are an ass. for the record I'm a micro-biology student so don't tell me I need to read up on science. my main point was that its ok to love science, as I do, but its not ok to be too dependent on it because I believe that there are questions that will never be answered by it.

[shatvansammy]

mommy he hurt my feelings :(...

Enjoy your middle path and "best" of both worlds outlook. No one is dependant on science. The fact that science is willing to accept mistakes is what makes it so. No religion is needed to supplement science. The questions that science can't answer, NO ONE CAN. NOT RELIGION, NO ONE. religious folks love to harm on non-sensical questions and thats your only basis to "prove" the incapacity of science.

[noman953]

you totoally missed my argument buddy

[ballardjones]

Yes, healthy skepticism is the very essence of science. And we should apply the same skepticism to all religious dogmas that make claims about the nature of the world unsupported by factual evidence.

The problem is not the facts don't stay facts for long in science, the problem is that ostensible "facts" become indelibly etched into the minds of the faithful in the form of unquestionable beliefs by religious dogma for millennia!

[noman953]

SOME religions yes. all knowledge must be challenged, especially things that impact society on a grander scale. By not being dependent on science means don't say that just because a scientist says cows milk is bad that everyone should dump on drinking it. common sense would say that if people have been drinking it for centuries then there must be something that's needs questioning about the science that made that claim. and yes some nuts do say cow milk is bad

[ballardjones]

But why not ALL religions? Why should only SOME religions be questioned? Why should any religion have a free pass to make fantastic claims about the nature of reality, without accountability to reason supported by evidence?

Baghdad is awash in human blood, the vast majority of which is that of innocents spilled by true believers of Islam, whose faith has convinced them to believe that murdering children is the path to eternal salvation.

[noman953]

wow you are insane. generalizations won't help your argument. indeed religion should be questioned. those people choose to fight because their sects have become their identity and killing is clearly contradictory to what Islam says. however, they also fight because they leaders who have always been controlled by western influence that encourages infighting.

[ballardjones]

The Sunnis and the Shiites have been murdering each other for a thousand years over rival interpretations of ancient literature, and its the West's fault?

The Q'ran divides the world into the House of Islam, and the House of War, which gives a pretty clear indication of how all non-believers are to be dealt with.  There are many passages in the Q'ran and the

Hadith where the all-knowing creator of the universe advises the faithful to put non-believers to the

sword. Islam glorifies jihad.

[shatvansammy]

why target islam? Since we are commenting on a Dawkins video, i presume every 1 has watched/heard of the root of evil docu. I think all religions preach some level of intolerance, because humans with egos wrote them. "God" being the most superious being, would have no ego and hence would have no need for his subjects to praise and glorify him. Gods explicit "request" to worship him for our betterment proves he doesnt exist in the form religion defines him. QED

[chwee]

The impact of Dawkins work in immeasurable and incomparable. As an educator myself, I am hopeful that the majority of the young people in the audience had benefited from such an interesting and insightful lecture. The amount of details that went into the planning of this lecture with the use of learning objects - both real and authentic - to concretise some rather abstract terms - are hallmarks of a good teacher/lecturer and passion in teaching. Thank you for putting up this series of lectures.

[bryn100]

Thank you, really

[DrMontague]

h t t p : / / w w w . unpronounceable . com / dawkins /

An excellent website-all vids by Dawkins r put in logical order. simply copy and paste into your address bar it will come up with google page then click on link. or copy and paste and use curser to close gaps in address.

[everyspecies]

DM, a comment to the blocked yusense's comments.

he might be getting the idea of common descent as he does refer to you as a dog!!

[SFdixit]

yusense is evidence Intelligent Design is wrong.

[ChrisCummins]

LOL.

Thanks for uploading these!

[yusense]

Put some ice on, my drizzle. I guess my question was to tough for you. You must be trippin, cracker. I ain't seen no intellectual answers yet. I be keep lookin', space cadet!

[DrMontague]

goodbye yusense your blocked

[yusense]

Yo, son? Wassup wit the evolution confusion! How can somethin evolve from some other somethin. This video is about 10 years out of step wit science. Come on dog, get you some educatin!

[DrMontague]

hi yusense. I will not allow unintellegent remarks on this board which 100% r made by creationists. I don't mind a sense of humour or tongue in cheek laugh by anyone. However If u start to waste the valuable time of people who r giving intellectual answers I will simply block u. U have been warned

[bluesfanm]

okay i know hes really old now ...but i do find the fifteen year younger version kinda sexy...lol...gr8 series...

[amsterdammed71]

Many thanks, DrMontague, for posting these EXCELLENT lectures, which explain evolution so clearly. Amazing to find there are people who rate bronze-age myths higher than the tons of evidence for evolution in museums and rock faces around the world! Anyway, keep up the good work!!!

[evirus]

your reading way too much into the example, read into something too much and you compleatly miss the point

[evirus]

did you even watch the whole thing?

[theinquisitor]

Fool (n)

One who is deficient in judgement, sense, or understanding. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe. A creationist.

[coeuz]

Gotta love the internet :)

Thanks for uploading!

[PrettyMuchBryce]

Hey Montague thanks alot.

[everyspecies]

I always regretted not taping this set of lectures, thanks for making them avilable.

[logos888]

5 stars for truth and reality. Nice intro animation.

[DrMontague]

It's from vhs years ago now I tansfered to to fliv the message is there. Good to know like minded people

[evirus]

could have better quality but... what can you do right? (5 stars for truth)

[DrMontague]

good observation. this was shown at Xmas - DEC 1991 and

Jan 1992. End credits (I'm in process of uploading)

give 1992

[richardcadbury]

5 Stars! wanted this for ages! it's 1991, not 1992, but who am i to complain; it's brilliant!