believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is
the only theory that can’t account
adequately for the phenomenon of life
why only well that’s very interesting
that there is a chapter in the book
called universal Darwinism which which
advocates exactly that point of view
[Music]
Darwinism e natural selection the evolution by natural selection
evolution by natural selection not all evolution is governed by natural
not all evolution is governed by natural selection even here a plenty of
selection even here a plenty of evolution is random with respect to
evolution is random with respect to natural selection is random drift but
natural selection is random drift but adaptive evolution evolution in the
adaptive evolution evolution in the direction of improvement getting better
direction of improvement getting better doing something like getting better at
doing something like getting better at flying or seeing or swimming or or
flying or seeing or swimming or or digging or climbing or support thinking
digging or climbing or support thinking that is what natural selection is
that is what natural selection is extremely good at doing and no other
extremely good at doing and no other theory so far has ever been proposed
theory so far has ever been proposed that can do that the only one remotely
that can do that the only one remotely competitive is Lamarckism which is the
competitive is Lamarckism which is the the combination of the inheritance of
the combination of the inheritance of acquired characteristics plus the
acquired characteristics plus the principle of use and disuse use and
principle of use and disuse use and disuse means the more you use a bit of
disuse means the more you use a bit of yourself the bigger it gets and this is
yourself the bigger it gets and this is true of muscles for example the more red
true of muscles for example the more red but that’s what training is all about
but that’s what training is all about and more you use certain muscles the
and more you use certain muscles the bigger they get if you couple that with
bigger they get if you couple that with the principle of inheritance of acquired
the principle of inheritance of acquired characteristics somebody who goes to the
characteristics somebody who goes to the gym and builds up muscles then has a
gym and builds up muscles then has a childhood with a tendency to develop
childhood with a tendency to develop bigger muscles that would be Lamarckian
bigger muscles that would be Lamarckian evolution and what I argue in the
evolution and what I argue in the chapter is that although it works for
chapter is that although it works for muscles it doesn’t work for the vast
muscles it doesn’t work for the vast majority it cannot work for the vast
majority it cannot work for the vast majority of adaptations things like eyes
majority of adaptations things like eyes for example which get better at seeing
for example which get better at seeing there’s no possible way in which simply
there’s no possible way in which simply seeing makes your eyes better at it
seeing makes your eyes better at it lenses don’t become clearer
lenses don’t become clearer because photons wash through them you
because photons wash through them you don’t develop an iris diaphragm to open
don’t develop an iris diaphragm to open and shut to let in them the right amount
and shut to let in them the right amount of light just just by simply exercise
of light just just by simply exercise natural selection does that effortlessly
natural selection does that effortlessly natural selection does any improvement
natural selection does any improvement in the body anywhere no matter how
in the body anywhere no matter how deeply buried in the biochemistry of the
deeply buried in the biochemistry of the cells if it’s an improvement it improves
cells if it’s an improvement it improves the chance of the animal surviving and
the chance of the animal surviving and reproducing natural selection we’ll grab
reproducing natural selection we’ll grab it and mobility into future generations
it and mobility into future generations natural selection can produce any kind
natural selection can produce any kind of improvement you can imagine the mark
of improvement you can imagine the mark ISM simply cannot do it so I dispute
ISM simply cannot do it so I dispute that claim has been made by various
that claim has been made by various biologists that says Lamarckism is a
biologists that says Lamarckism is a fine theory it might work on other
fine theory it might work on other planets it just happens not to work on
planets it just happens not to work on this planet because we don’t have
this planet because we don’t have inheritance of acquired characteristics
inheritance of acquired characteristics that’s wrong even on a planet where you
that’s wrong even on a planet where you had inheritance of acquired
had inheritance of acquired characteristics you could not get
characteristics you could not get complex adaptation like eyes and ears by
complex adaptation like eyes and ears by and brains even by Lamarckian means so I
and brains even by Lamarckian means so I go in the chapter I go through all the
go in the chapter I go through all the all the alternatives that have ever been
all the alternatives that have ever been suggested and show not only that they
suggested and show not only that they don’t work but they cannot work they
don’t work but they cannot work they couldn’t work so there remains the
couldn’t work so there remains the possibility that there’s some theory
possibility that there’s some theory nobody’s thought of and that’s I cannot
nobody’s thought of and that’s I cannot rule that out um all I can do is put my
rule that out um all I can do is put my shirt on thee I would bet a large sum
shirt on thee I would bet a large sum that if you’ve if life is ever
that if you’ve if life is ever discovered on other planets I would bet
discovered on other planets I would bet everything I have that it will be it
everything I have that it will be it will be Darwinian life in some sense it
will be Darwinian life in some sense it wouldn’t be in detailed wouldn’t be
wouldn’t be in detailed wouldn’t be similar I mean wouldn’t is the same it
similar I mean wouldn’t is the same it would be similar there would have to be
would be similar there would have to be some sort of genetics but it might not
some sort of genetics but it might not be DNA that that kind of thing it seems
be DNA that that kind of thing it seems you connect atheism with acceptance of
you connect atheism with acceptance of the theory of evolution can’t atheism
the theory of evolution can’t atheism stand alone without the slightest nod to
stand alone without the slightest nod to evolu
evolu as if the theory was never proposed oh
as if the theory was never proposed oh goodness I doubt that because we’ve got
goodness I doubt that because we’ve got this stupendous problem of explaining
this stupendous problem of explaining our existence and I just I mean the
our existence and I just I mean the existence of all living things anybody
existence of all living things anybody who thinks that underestimates the
who thinks that underestimates the colossal improbability of a living
colossal improbability of a living organism mean think about any living
organism mean think about any living organism you like but but just take a
organism you like but but just take a bird for example it’s a beautifully
bird for example it’s a beautifully constructed machine that can fly and
constructed machine that can fly and walk and peck and reproduce highly
walk and peck and reproduce highly complicated machinery devastatingly
complicated machinery devastatingly complicated which is everything is
complicated which is everything is geared to this one task of surviving and
geared to this one task of surviving and reproducing in the particular way that
reproducing in the particular way that birds do it
birds do it fish do it in another way monkeys
fish do it in another way monkeys there’s another way to to abandon that
there’s another way to to abandon that and say I’m still an atheist would be a
and say I’m still an atheist would be a very very hard thing to do I once had an
very very hard thing to do I once had an argument with an eminent philosopher
argument with an eminent philosopher he’s not dead so I can mention him a
he’s not dead so I can mention him a jair salfred heir and I said it’d be
jair salfred heir and I said it’d be very hard to be an atheist before Darwin
very hard to be an atheist before Darwin and he said why what’s the problem
and he said why what’s the problem and I wrote a book actually to try to
and I wrote a book actually to try to explain to him was called the blind
explain to him was called the blind watchmaker to explain to him what the
watchmaker to explain to him what the problem was I think and you just simply
problem was I think and you just simply you if you think that you just don’t get
you if you think that you just don’t get was enormous ly complicated thing a
was enormous ly complicated thing a living organism is let alone the entire
living organism is let alone the entire panoply of life I’ll throw a bonus one
panoply of life I’ll throw a bonus one in off that which is I think I heard you
in off that which is I think I heard you partially answer this with Sam Harris in
partially answer this with Sam Harris in LA a couple months ago but when you had
LA a couple months ago but when you had your stroke about about a year ago did
your stroke about about a year ago did it challenge any of your beliefs or a
it challenge any of your beliefs or a lack of beliefs
it it it it reinforced my faith in scientific medicine I was very well
scientific medicine I was very well treated
treated so you didn’t go to a shaman no some of
so you didn’t go to a shaman no some of you may have read Dandan it’s
you may have read Dandan it’s magnificent
magnificent article called thank goodness which he
article called thank goodness which he wrote after he was when he was
wrote after he was when he was recovering from a very very serious
recovering from a very very serious heart problem and when he very very
heart problem and when he very very nearly died and he said that various
nearly died and he said that various people had written to him saying they
people had written to him saying they were praying for him and things like
were praying for him and things like that so he replied and did you also
that so he replied and did you also sacrifice a goat but he then went on no
sacrifice a goat but he then went on no actually I think he said he was too
actually I think he said he was too polite to give that that reply but you
polite to give that that reply but you then meant don’t say what I do want to
then meant don’t say what I do want to thank is is not not thank God I want to
thank is is not not thank God I want to thank the surgeons who worked on me for
thank the surgeons who worked on me for eight hours the the man who invented the
eight hours the the man who invented the electroencephalogram the the man who
electroencephalogram the the man who invented the MRI scanner the anesthetist
invented the MRI scanner the anesthetist all the nurses the people in the laundry
all the nurses the people in the laundry who coped with my bloodstains sheets he
who coped with my bloodstains sheets he gave a great list of people that he that
gave a great list of people that he that he thanked and it’s a wonderful essay I
he thanked and it’s a wonderful essay I recommend you read is called thank
recommend you read is called thank goodness google it well I’m glad you
goodness google it well I’m glad you mentioned Dan Dennett because I think
mentioned Dan Dennett because I think this is partly related to some of some
this is partly related to some of some of the work he does do you believe that
of the work he does do you believe that quantum physics allows for the
quantum physics allows for the possibility of free will namely physics
possibility of free will namely physics is not necessarily deterministic well
is not necessarily deterministic well the principle of indeterminacy has been
the principle of indeterminacy has been the Heisenberg’s principle has been
the Heisenberg’s principle has been widely misunderstood as being a kind of
widely misunderstood as being a kind of get out as revealed to give give us give
get out as revealed to give give us give us free will I mean III hate the free
us free will I mean III hate the free will question I must confess because I’m
will question I must confess because I’m not a philosopher and I I read some of
not a philosopher and I I read some of the stuff on it but I’m not good at
the stuff on it but I’m not good at answering the question
answering the question I rather tend to revert to Christopher
I rather tend to revert to Christopher Hitchens his answers to the question do
Hitchens his answers to the question do you believe in free will I have no
you believe in free will I have no choice
choice I know which question I’m gonna do last
I know which question I’m gonna do last so I’m gonna put that one there how do
so I’m gonna put that one there how do you evaluate the contradiction between
you evaluate the contradiction between capitalism’s need for scientific
capitalism’s need for scientific development on one hand and its
development on one hand and its insatiable drive for competition and
insatiable drive for competition and profit that interestingly seems to cling
profit that interestingly seems to cling to mystification and religious thinking
to mystification and religious thinking for its cover that is a loaded question
for its cover that is a loaded question if I have ever heard one
if I have ever heard one well nonetheless it’s loaded with
well nonetheless it’s loaded with complication let me yeah why do you feel
complication let me yeah why do you feel that one you guys could talk amongst
that one you guys could talk amongst yourselves for a moment capitalism a
yourselves for a moment capitalism a capitalism was need for scientific
capitalism was need for scientific development on the one hand and its
development on the one hand and its insatiable drive for competition and
insatiable drive for competition and profit so it’s a it’s a it’s a
profit so it’s a it’s a it’s a contradiction between the need for the
contradiction between the need for the scientific development on the wire and
scientific development on the wire and capitalism needs scientific development
capitalism needs scientific development on the one hand on the other hand that
on the one hand on the other hand that has an insatiable drive for competition
has an insatiable drive for competition and profit which the the questioner
and profit which the the questioner thinks is incompatible with scientific
thinks is incompatible with scientific development whoever wrote this question
development whoever wrote this question is having the moment of their life right
is having the moment of their life right now Richard Dawkins examining my class
now Richard Dawkins examining my class seems to cling to mr. mystification
seems to cling to mr. mystification religious thinking for its cover drive
religious thinking for its cover drive for competition and profit I don’t get
for competition and profit I don’t get why competition and profit the drives
why competition and profit the drives accomplishing profit seems to cling to
accomplishing profit seems to cling to mystification and religious thinking for
mystification and religious thinking for his cover I think the author of this
his cover I think the author of this question has written a book about this
which I would be interested to read but for the moment I don’t over there we
for the moment I don’t over there we touched on this a little bit at the
touched on this a little bit at the beginning if you want kids interested in
beginning if you want kids interested in science teach how we came from fish not
science teach how we came from fish not lived in one so what do you need to yeah
lived in one so what do you need to yeah well I like that there yeah so what do
well I like that there yeah so what do you need to do to make the theory of
you need to do to make the theory of evolution the law of evolution cosmetics
evolution the law of evolution cosmetics can have doctor approved a cosmetics can
can have doctor approved a cosmetics can be doctor approved can’t scientists have
be doctor approved can’t scientists have the
the bird law approved – yes I like that
bird law approved – yes I like that I’m not sure I’m so keen on the word law
I’m not sure I’m so keen on the word law in this case I just rather use the word
in this case I just rather use the word fact evolution is a fact we must stop
fact evolution is a fact we must stop calling it a theory because it just
calling it a theory because it just simply misleads people the current
simply misleads people the current orthodox way to handle this is to say
orthodox way to handle this is to say scientists use the word theory in a
scientists use the word theory in a different way from laypeople but that
different way from laypeople but that just doesn’t seem to work we can’t
just doesn’t seem to work we can’t gather a cross and it’s only partially
gather a cross and it’s only partially true because scientists do use the word
true because scientists do use the word theory as a synonym for hypothesis as
theory as a synonym for hypothesis as well and so although it is true that it
well and so although it is true that it that something like the the theory of
that something like the the theory of gravity is a is not just a hypothesis
gravity is a is not just a hypothesis that might be true it might be false
that might be true it might be false nevertheless scientists do use the word
nevertheless scientists do use the word theory to mean something that is
theory to mean something that is tentative and might be wrong might be
tentative and might be wrong might be right so I want to stop calling
right so I want to stop calling evolution a theory just stop it
lovely a sketch by who’s that comedian who does the telephone who bob bob
who does the telephone who bob bob newhart he plays a psychiatrist and he
newhart he plays a psychiatrist and he has a woman who comes to him because
has a woman who comes to him because she’s has a morbid fear of being buried
she’s has a morbid fear of being buried alive in a box and so he says well it’s
alive in a box and so he says well it’s gonna cost you five dollars I want you
gonna cost you five dollars I want you to listen very carefully to the
to listen very carefully to the following – I just gonna say two words I
following – I just gonna say two words I want you to take very careful note so
want you to take very careful note so she gets ready you stop it
so we’re going to stop calling evolution a theory
a theory evolution is a fact Michel Roux said
evolution is a fact Michel Roux said it’s a fact fact fact it’s a fact that
it’s a fact fact fact it’s a fact that is established as surely and securely as
is established as surely and securely as any fact in science law I’m not so sure
any fact in science law I’m not so sure I call it a law it I think that’s going
I call it a law it I think that’s going to confuse people in other ways I I have
to confuse people in other ways I I have used the word law in this context in my
used the word law in this context in my chapter in the book on universal
chapter in the book on universal Darwinism which I mentioned earlier I
Darwinism which I mentioned earlier I think I said something like Darwinism
think I said something like Darwinism Darwinian natural selection may turn out
Darwinian natural selection may turn out to have the same universal law for
to have the same universal law for properties as the great laws of physics
properties as the great laws of physics physicists are committed to the view
physicists are committed to the view that the laws of physics apply all over
that the laws of physics apply all over the universe so I didn’t mind using the
the universe so I didn’t mind using the word law there but I think it’s
word law there but I think it’s confusing to say it’s not a theory it’s
confusing to say it’s not a theory it’s a law I’d rather say it’s a fact it’s a
a law I’d rather say it’s a fact it’s a it it’s a fact that we observe it’s a
it it’s a fact that we observe it’s a fact that we understand all right well
fact that we understand all right well first off I know you’re gonna be taking
first off I know you’re gonna be taking some time to sign copies of your book
some time to sign copies of your book which came out in the United States
which came out in the United States today today that’s right
today today that’s right so Richard will be doing that after and
so Richard will be doing that after and I thought this would be an appropriate
I thought this would be an appropriate one to end on Richard how do I respond
one to end on Richard how do I respond to a friend when she says quote
to a friend when she says quote everything is good or bad energy
everything is good or bad energy she says bananas are bad energy so don’t
she says bananas are bad energy so don’t eat them
putting bananas aside for a second good or bad energy is there such thing as
or bad energy is there such thing as good or bad energy what do you do I
good or bad energy what do you do I wonder if the friend is here
wonder if the friend is here energy is one of those much misused
energy is one of those much misused words it has a precise meaning it’s a
words it has a precise meaning it’s a capacity to do work and it’s an
capacity to do work and it’s an important concept in physics it is
important concept in physics it is misused horribly by mystics and
misused horribly by mystics and charlatans who are all the time trying
charlatans who are all the time trying to self balance your energy is it
to self balance your energy is it imbalance your chakras and I think
imbalance your chakras and I think things like like that if you divide the
things like like that if you divide the word into world the things that have
word into world the things that have good energy and bad energy then the
good energy and bad energy then the kindest thing I can say is you’re simply
kindest thing I can say is you’re simply misusing the word energy and to be
misusing the word energy and to be slightly more unkind I would say
slightly more unkind I would say bollocks
the only theory that can’t account
adequately for the phenomenon of life
why only well that’s very interesting
that there is a chapter in the book
called universal Darwinism which which
advocates exactly that point of view
[Music]
Darwinism e natural selection the evolution by natural selection
evolution by natural selection not all evolution is governed by natural
not all evolution is governed by natural selection even here a plenty of
selection even here a plenty of evolution is random with respect to
evolution is random with respect to natural selection is random drift but
natural selection is random drift but adaptive evolution evolution in the
adaptive evolution evolution in the direction of improvement getting better
direction of improvement getting better doing something like getting better at
doing something like getting better at flying or seeing or swimming or or
flying or seeing or swimming or or digging or climbing or support thinking
digging or climbing or support thinking that is what natural selection is
that is what natural selection is extremely good at doing and no other
extremely good at doing and no other theory so far has ever been proposed
theory so far has ever been proposed that can do that the only one remotely
that can do that the only one remotely competitive is Lamarckism which is the
competitive is Lamarckism which is the the combination of the inheritance of
the combination of the inheritance of acquired characteristics plus the
acquired characteristics plus the principle of use and disuse use and
principle of use and disuse use and disuse means the more you use a bit of
disuse means the more you use a bit of yourself the bigger it gets and this is
yourself the bigger it gets and this is true of muscles for example the more red
true of muscles for example the more red but that’s what training is all about
but that’s what training is all about and more you use certain muscles the
and more you use certain muscles the bigger they get if you couple that with
bigger they get if you couple that with the principle of inheritance of acquired
the principle of inheritance of acquired characteristics somebody who goes to the
characteristics somebody who goes to the gym and builds up muscles then has a
gym and builds up muscles then has a childhood with a tendency to develop
childhood with a tendency to develop bigger muscles that would be Lamarckian
bigger muscles that would be Lamarckian evolution and what I argue in the
evolution and what I argue in the chapter is that although it works for
chapter is that although it works for muscles it doesn’t work for the vast
muscles it doesn’t work for the vast majority it cannot work for the vast
majority it cannot work for the vast majority of adaptations things like eyes
majority of adaptations things like eyes for example which get better at seeing
for example which get better at seeing there’s no possible way in which simply
there’s no possible way in which simply seeing makes your eyes better at it
seeing makes your eyes better at it lenses don’t become clearer
lenses don’t become clearer because photons wash through them you
because photons wash through them you don’t develop an iris diaphragm to open
don’t develop an iris diaphragm to open and shut to let in them the right amount
and shut to let in them the right amount of light just just by simply exercise
of light just just by simply exercise natural selection does that effortlessly
natural selection does that effortlessly natural selection does any improvement
natural selection does any improvement in the body anywhere no matter how
in the body anywhere no matter how deeply buried in the biochemistry of the
deeply buried in the biochemistry of the cells if it’s an improvement it improves
cells if it’s an improvement it improves the chance of the animal surviving and
the chance of the animal surviving and reproducing natural selection we’ll grab
reproducing natural selection we’ll grab it and mobility into future generations
it and mobility into future generations natural selection can produce any kind
natural selection can produce any kind of improvement you can imagine the mark
of improvement you can imagine the mark ISM simply cannot do it so I dispute
ISM simply cannot do it so I dispute that claim has been made by various
that claim has been made by various biologists that says Lamarckism is a
biologists that says Lamarckism is a fine theory it might work on other
fine theory it might work on other planets it just happens not to work on
planets it just happens not to work on this planet because we don’t have
this planet because we don’t have inheritance of acquired characteristics
inheritance of acquired characteristics that’s wrong even on a planet where you
that’s wrong even on a planet where you had inheritance of acquired
had inheritance of acquired characteristics you could not get
characteristics you could not get complex adaptation like eyes and ears by
complex adaptation like eyes and ears by and brains even by Lamarckian means so I
and brains even by Lamarckian means so I go in the chapter I go through all the
go in the chapter I go through all the all the alternatives that have ever been
all the alternatives that have ever been suggested and show not only that they
suggested and show not only that they don’t work but they cannot work they
don’t work but they cannot work they couldn’t work so there remains the
couldn’t work so there remains the possibility that there’s some theory
possibility that there’s some theory nobody’s thought of and that’s I cannot
nobody’s thought of and that’s I cannot rule that out um all I can do is put my
rule that out um all I can do is put my shirt on thee I would bet a large sum
shirt on thee I would bet a large sum that if you’ve if life is ever
that if you’ve if life is ever discovered on other planets I would bet
discovered on other planets I would bet everything I have that it will be it
everything I have that it will be it will be Darwinian life in some sense it
will be Darwinian life in some sense it wouldn’t be in detailed wouldn’t be
wouldn’t be in detailed wouldn’t be similar I mean wouldn’t is the same it
similar I mean wouldn’t is the same it would be similar there would have to be
would be similar there would have to be some sort of genetics but it might not
some sort of genetics but it might not be DNA that that kind of thing it seems
be DNA that that kind of thing it seems you connect atheism with acceptance of
you connect atheism with acceptance of the theory of evolution can’t atheism
the theory of evolution can’t atheism stand alone without the slightest nod to
stand alone without the slightest nod to evolu
evolu as if the theory was never proposed oh
as if the theory was never proposed oh goodness I doubt that because we’ve got
goodness I doubt that because we’ve got this stupendous problem of explaining
this stupendous problem of explaining our existence and I just I mean the
our existence and I just I mean the existence of all living things anybody
existence of all living things anybody who thinks that underestimates the
who thinks that underestimates the colossal improbability of a living
colossal improbability of a living organism mean think about any living
organism mean think about any living organism you like but but just take a
organism you like but but just take a bird for example it’s a beautifully
bird for example it’s a beautifully constructed machine that can fly and
constructed machine that can fly and walk and peck and reproduce highly
walk and peck and reproduce highly complicated machinery devastatingly
complicated machinery devastatingly complicated which is everything is
complicated which is everything is geared to this one task of surviving and
geared to this one task of surviving and reproducing in the particular way that
reproducing in the particular way that birds do it
birds do it fish do it in another way monkeys
fish do it in another way monkeys there’s another way to to abandon that
there’s another way to to abandon that and say I’m still an atheist would be a
and say I’m still an atheist would be a very very hard thing to do I once had an
very very hard thing to do I once had an argument with an eminent philosopher
argument with an eminent philosopher he’s not dead so I can mention him a
he’s not dead so I can mention him a jair salfred heir and I said it’d be
jair salfred heir and I said it’d be very hard to be an atheist before Darwin
very hard to be an atheist before Darwin and he said why what’s the problem
and he said why what’s the problem and I wrote a book actually to try to
and I wrote a book actually to try to explain to him was called the blind
explain to him was called the blind watchmaker to explain to him what the
watchmaker to explain to him what the problem was I think and you just simply
problem was I think and you just simply you if you think that you just don’t get
you if you think that you just don’t get was enormous ly complicated thing a
was enormous ly complicated thing a living organism is let alone the entire
living organism is let alone the entire panoply of life I’ll throw a bonus one
panoply of life I’ll throw a bonus one in off that which is I think I heard you
in off that which is I think I heard you partially answer this with Sam Harris in
partially answer this with Sam Harris in LA a couple months ago but when you had
LA a couple months ago but when you had your stroke about about a year ago did
your stroke about about a year ago did it challenge any of your beliefs or a
it challenge any of your beliefs or a lack of beliefs
it it it it reinforced my faith in scientific medicine I was very well
scientific medicine I was very well treated
treated so you didn’t go to a shaman no some of
so you didn’t go to a shaman no some of you may have read Dandan it’s
you may have read Dandan it’s magnificent
magnificent article called thank goodness which he
article called thank goodness which he wrote after he was when he was
wrote after he was when he was recovering from a very very serious
recovering from a very very serious heart problem and when he very very
heart problem and when he very very nearly died and he said that various
nearly died and he said that various people had written to him saying they
people had written to him saying they were praying for him and things like
were praying for him and things like that so he replied and did you also
that so he replied and did you also sacrifice a goat but he then went on no
sacrifice a goat but he then went on no actually I think he said he was too
actually I think he said he was too polite to give that that reply but you
polite to give that that reply but you then meant don’t say what I do want to
then meant don’t say what I do want to thank is is not not thank God I want to
thank is is not not thank God I want to thank the surgeons who worked on me for
thank the surgeons who worked on me for eight hours the the man who invented the
eight hours the the man who invented the electroencephalogram the the man who
electroencephalogram the the man who invented the MRI scanner the anesthetist
invented the MRI scanner the anesthetist all the nurses the people in the laundry
all the nurses the people in the laundry who coped with my bloodstains sheets he
who coped with my bloodstains sheets he gave a great list of people that he that
gave a great list of people that he that he thanked and it’s a wonderful essay I
he thanked and it’s a wonderful essay I recommend you read is called thank
recommend you read is called thank goodness google it well I’m glad you
goodness google it well I’m glad you mentioned Dan Dennett because I think
mentioned Dan Dennett because I think this is partly related to some of some
this is partly related to some of some of the work he does do you believe that
of the work he does do you believe that quantum physics allows for the
quantum physics allows for the possibility of free will namely physics
possibility of free will namely physics is not necessarily deterministic well
is not necessarily deterministic well the principle of indeterminacy has been
the principle of indeterminacy has been the Heisenberg’s principle has been
the Heisenberg’s principle has been widely misunderstood as being a kind of
widely misunderstood as being a kind of get out as revealed to give give us give
get out as revealed to give give us give us free will I mean III hate the free
us free will I mean III hate the free will question I must confess because I’m
will question I must confess because I’m not a philosopher and I I read some of
not a philosopher and I I read some of the stuff on it but I’m not good at
the stuff on it but I’m not good at answering the question
answering the question I rather tend to revert to Christopher
I rather tend to revert to Christopher Hitchens his answers to the question do
Hitchens his answers to the question do you believe in free will I have no
you believe in free will I have no choice
choice I know which question I’m gonna do last
I know which question I’m gonna do last so I’m gonna put that one there how do
so I’m gonna put that one there how do you evaluate the contradiction between
you evaluate the contradiction between capitalism’s need for scientific
capitalism’s need for scientific development on one hand and its
development on one hand and its insatiable drive for competition and
insatiable drive for competition and profit that interestingly seems to cling
profit that interestingly seems to cling to mystification and religious thinking
to mystification and religious thinking for its cover that is a loaded question
for its cover that is a loaded question if I have ever heard one
if I have ever heard one well nonetheless it’s loaded with
well nonetheless it’s loaded with complication let me yeah why do you feel
complication let me yeah why do you feel that one you guys could talk amongst
that one you guys could talk amongst yourselves for a moment capitalism a
yourselves for a moment capitalism a capitalism was need for scientific
capitalism was need for scientific development on the one hand and its
development on the one hand and its insatiable drive for competition and
insatiable drive for competition and profit so it’s a it’s a it’s a
profit so it’s a it’s a it’s a contradiction between the need for the
contradiction between the need for the scientific development on the wire and
scientific development on the wire and capitalism needs scientific development
capitalism needs scientific development on the one hand on the other hand that
on the one hand on the other hand that has an insatiable drive for competition
has an insatiable drive for competition and profit which the the questioner
and profit which the the questioner thinks is incompatible with scientific
thinks is incompatible with scientific development whoever wrote this question
development whoever wrote this question is having the moment of their life right
is having the moment of their life right now Richard Dawkins examining my class
now Richard Dawkins examining my class seems to cling to mr. mystification
seems to cling to mr. mystification religious thinking for its cover drive
religious thinking for its cover drive for competition and profit I don’t get
for competition and profit I don’t get why competition and profit the drives
why competition and profit the drives accomplishing profit seems to cling to
accomplishing profit seems to cling to mystification and religious thinking for
mystification and religious thinking for his cover I think the author of this
his cover I think the author of this question has written a book about this
which I would be interested to read but for the moment I don’t over there we
for the moment I don’t over there we touched on this a little bit at the
touched on this a little bit at the beginning if you want kids interested in
beginning if you want kids interested in science teach how we came from fish not
science teach how we came from fish not lived in one so what do you need to yeah
lived in one so what do you need to yeah well I like that there yeah so what do
well I like that there yeah so what do you need to do to make the theory of
you need to do to make the theory of evolution the law of evolution cosmetics
evolution the law of evolution cosmetics can have doctor approved a cosmetics can
can have doctor approved a cosmetics can be doctor approved can’t scientists have
be doctor approved can’t scientists have the
the bird law approved – yes I like that
bird law approved – yes I like that I’m not sure I’m so keen on the word law
I’m not sure I’m so keen on the word law in this case I just rather use the word
in this case I just rather use the word fact evolution is a fact we must stop
fact evolution is a fact we must stop calling it a theory because it just
calling it a theory because it just simply misleads people the current
simply misleads people the current orthodox way to handle this is to say
orthodox way to handle this is to say scientists use the word theory in a
scientists use the word theory in a different way from laypeople but that
different way from laypeople but that just doesn’t seem to work we can’t
just doesn’t seem to work we can’t gather a cross and it’s only partially
gather a cross and it’s only partially true because scientists do use the word
true because scientists do use the word theory as a synonym for hypothesis as
theory as a synonym for hypothesis as well and so although it is true that it
well and so although it is true that it that something like the the theory of
that something like the the theory of gravity is a is not just a hypothesis
gravity is a is not just a hypothesis that might be true it might be false
that might be true it might be false nevertheless scientists do use the word
nevertheless scientists do use the word theory to mean something that is
theory to mean something that is tentative and might be wrong might be
tentative and might be wrong might be right so I want to stop calling
right so I want to stop calling evolution a theory just stop it
lovely a sketch by who’s that comedian who does the telephone who bob bob
who does the telephone who bob bob newhart he plays a psychiatrist and he
newhart he plays a psychiatrist and he has a woman who comes to him because
has a woman who comes to him because she’s has a morbid fear of being buried
she’s has a morbid fear of being buried alive in a box and so he says well it’s
alive in a box and so he says well it’s gonna cost you five dollars I want you
gonna cost you five dollars I want you to listen very carefully to the
to listen very carefully to the following – I just gonna say two words I
following – I just gonna say two words I want you to take very careful note so
want you to take very careful note so she gets ready you stop it
so we’re going to stop calling evolution a theory
a theory evolution is a fact Michel Roux said
evolution is a fact Michel Roux said it’s a fact fact fact it’s a fact that
it’s a fact fact fact it’s a fact that is established as surely and securely as
is established as surely and securely as any fact in science law I’m not so sure
any fact in science law I’m not so sure I call it a law it I think that’s going
I call it a law it I think that’s going to confuse people in other ways I I have
to confuse people in other ways I I have used the word law in this context in my
used the word law in this context in my chapter in the book on universal
chapter in the book on universal Darwinism which I mentioned earlier I
Darwinism which I mentioned earlier I think I said something like Darwinism
think I said something like Darwinism Darwinian natural selection may turn out
Darwinian natural selection may turn out to have the same universal law for
to have the same universal law for properties as the great laws of physics
properties as the great laws of physics physicists are committed to the view
physicists are committed to the view that the laws of physics apply all over
that the laws of physics apply all over the universe so I didn’t mind using the
the universe so I didn’t mind using the word law there but I think it’s
word law there but I think it’s confusing to say it’s not a theory it’s
confusing to say it’s not a theory it’s a law I’d rather say it’s a fact it’s a
a law I’d rather say it’s a fact it’s a it it’s a fact that we observe it’s a
it it’s a fact that we observe it’s a fact that we understand all right well
fact that we understand all right well first off I know you’re gonna be taking
first off I know you’re gonna be taking some time to sign copies of your book
some time to sign copies of your book which came out in the United States
which came out in the United States today today that’s right
today today that’s right so Richard will be doing that after and
so Richard will be doing that after and I thought this would be an appropriate
I thought this would be an appropriate one to end on Richard how do I respond
one to end on Richard how do I respond to a friend when she says quote
to a friend when she says quote everything is good or bad energy
everything is good or bad energy she says bananas are bad energy so don’t
she says bananas are bad energy so don’t eat them
putting bananas aside for a second good or bad energy is there such thing as
or bad energy is there such thing as good or bad energy what do you do I
good or bad energy what do you do I wonder if the friend is here
wonder if the friend is here energy is one of those much misused
energy is one of those much misused words it has a precise meaning it’s a
words it has a precise meaning it’s a capacity to do work and it’s an
capacity to do work and it’s an important concept in physics it is
important concept in physics it is misused horribly by mystics and
misused horribly by mystics and charlatans who are all the time trying
charlatans who are all the time trying to self balance your energy is it
to self balance your energy is it imbalance your chakras and I think
imbalance your chakras and I think things like like that if you divide the
things like like that if you divide the word into world the things that have
word into world the things that have good energy and bad energy then the
good energy and bad energy then the kindest thing I can say is you’re simply
kindest thing I can say is you’re simply misusing the word energy and to be
misusing the word energy and to be slightly more unkind I would say
slightly more unkind I would say bollocks
Please follow and like us: