THEGREENGROK

Dawkins at Duke: Just the Facts, Ma’am.


by Bill Chameides | October 4th, 2010
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

Permalink | 3 comments

Biologist Richard Dawkins (top) spoke at Duke on October 3. Later that afternoon, Father Michael Martin blessed animals for the annual Blessing of the Animals service. (Photo of Dawkins by Ashley Yeager / Photo of ceremony by Megan Morr/Duke Photography)

Richard Dawkins speaks of evidence and theories.

Yesterday I had an unexpected treat. Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, was making a stop at Duke on his national tour promoting his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. At the last minute I was asked to join a small group having brunch with him and was given a front-row seat at his talk in the afternoon.

Dawkins is quintessentially upper-class British. Well-spoken, gracious, dressed impeccably even on a Sunday morning, he has a sharp wit that can be quite cutting in a subtle kind of way when he wants it to be. Great fun when you’re on his side, not so much when you’re not. Yesterday there were lots of laughs for the folks who fall on the side of Dawkins’s cause célèbre.

That cause is evolution: that Darwin’s theory of evolution is largely fact, not conjecture or speculation or hypothesis. And that is certainly the case. In his talk yesterday, as in his many popular books, he does a magnificent job of explicating the science, the evidence, and the history of how that science and evidence were developed.

Talking Science With a Political Edge

Going a good deal further than the science, Dawkins went on to ardently defend the positions of atheism and agnosticism and the notion of separation of church and state. To end what he perceives as the social stigma of atheism, he urges all atheists to ”out” themselves by wearing a red “A” on their lapel. More about all this, including how to get your own “A,” can be found at his foundation’s Web site. (No endorsement intended.)

So in addition to the natural sciences, the events yesterday had a good deal of the social sciences and politics in them as well. At times, with its mention of Web sites and the suggestion that people organize and send money, Sunday’s lecture had the feel of a political rally. Most of the time, however, it was pretty glorious science.

So what does all this have to do with TheGreenGrok and the environment?

For one, the fundamental truth underpinning all of biology and much of Earth science (and therefore the study of the environment) is the theory of evolution. And so, for those of you wanting to understand the environment but lacking knowledge about evolution, one of Dawkins’s books would be a good place to start.

Understanding the Science and the Terms Used by Scientists

I am also struck by the parallels between the politics of evolution and the politics of climate change.

  • These two issues should not be political, but they clearly are. The demographics of the people who deny evolution are remarkably similar to those of the people who deny climate change.
  • Confusion over the word theory hurts the science. When scientists apply the word theory, they mean “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of (observed) phenomena.” Many lay people confuse this scientific definition with the other definition of theory that means a hypothesis or conjecture. Hence, people think there is some sort of wiggle room or uncertainty with climate change or evolution because scientists call them theories, which in the lay person’s mind connotes merely a hypothesis or “just a theory.” But when scientists want to call something a hypothesis they use the word hypothesis; and when they want to call something an established explanation for observed facts they use theory.

    In that sense evolution is a theory and most definitely not “just a theory.” To avoid the confusion between the different meanings of theory, Dawkins suggests dropping the “theory” (as used in the scientific sense) for the less ambiguous “fact of evolution.”

    There are parallels with climate change here as well. That the globe is empirically warming is fact; it is “unequivocal” (see here and here). Other aspects of climate change, such as the attribution of warming to human activities, are not as well established as the basic tenets of evolution, but they are pretty close to being a theory in the scientific sense.

  • And finally there are the disturbing societal implications of the widespread rejection of the science of evolution and climate change for our society. Some 40 percent of Americans believe the world is only about 10,000 years old; a similar percentage rejects the notion that humans are causing the globe to warm.

What does it say about a society whose citizens blithely turn on the lights in their homes, drive their cars to and from work, talk and text on their smartphones, and tap away on their computers each day — in short depend upon and reap the benefits of the scientific method and the work of scientists who used that method, but find no inconsistency in rejecting the results of that method when those results run contrary to their beliefs?

And what does it say about a society where parents refuse to allow their children to learn about science because that science runs contrary to their non-scientific beliefs?

And what does it say about a society that rationalizes not acting to avert potentially dangerous climate change, and therefore endangering those same children’s future, by rejecting scientific fact?

It’s all pretty ironic.

And so it was perhaps fitting that yesterday’s event concluded on a wonderfully ironic note. Following Dawkins’s talk, those of us gathered there in Page Auditorium were asked to clear the area for the next event: Duke’s annual Blessing of the Animals, an opportunity for the Durham community to have their “well-mannered” animals (from dogs to turtles and horses) blessed by Duke ministers on the green in front of the Duke Chapel. A number of people who roundly applauded Dawkins’s lecture rushed out to have their pets receive a blessing.

filed under: climate change, faculty, global warming, science
and: , , , , , ,

3 Comments

All comments are moderated and limited to 275 words. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Read our Comment Guidelines for more details.

  1. JW Fish
    Oct 12, 2010

    DH Stevens claims Dawkins is intolerant because he advocates freedom from religion as secured by the Bill of Rights of US Constitution: Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; In the same broad brush, DH calls Dawkins’ view “un-American” and ignorantly claims that for 224 years American soldiers have fought to protect a religious America as DH would see it, and somehow Dawkins doesn’t understand the simple logic of Freedom from Religion which our forefathers secured in the first article of the Bill of Rights. I say let’s strip AH of his religious liberty and promote all other religions and the belief systems which non-believers opt to espouse. How un-American can one get? AH clearly shows us when invoking the military as the defender of American religion – whatever that is – with no respect for the freedom from religion our nation was clearly founded to protect in addition to securing the freedom of all Americans to practice whatever brand of religion they felt compelled to practice.

  2. DH Stevans
    Oct 8, 2010

    There seems to be a glaring logical contradiction here. How can Dawkins advocate for tolerance of atheist beliefs, while at the same time advocating for absolute intolerance of all religions? This seems rather unscientific of him, to suppress all opinion except that which he believes to be true. This only makes sense if he is proposing that he has found the “absolute truth”, so he thinks that we no longer need plurality. This appears to make his beliefs the “state religion”. In short, you make it sound as if Dawkins seems to be advocating the repeal of the first amendment. Dawkins’ advocacy might be understood; He’s English, and he may not agree with the First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech. But it appears that you support him in his intolerance for other beliefs. American soldiers who have fought for our rights for 224 years might take a dim view of your support for Dawkins’ very un-American position. Most atheists have been publicly distancing themselves from Dawkins’ form of “militant atheism”. Why do you call his visit a “treat”?

    • Bill Chameides
      Oct 15, 2010

      Dawkins seemed pretty extreme in his advocacy of atheism, but I am pretty sure that does not extend to trying to limit free speech or repeal the First Amendment and other such radical steps.

©2015 Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University | Box 90328 | Durham, NC 27708
how to contact us > | login to the site > | site disclaimers >

footer nav stuff