Freethought Association of West Michigan

Meetings

Calendar

Past Meetings

About Us

Following are notes from 3 different people who attended the Dawkins

Lecture. Enjoy!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From C. Larue:

On Monday, October 11 @ 7PM, Dr. Richard Dawkins spoke @ the Grand

Valley State University Performing Arts Center- LAT. The topic was

after his 1998 book: Unweaving the Rainbow; Science, Delusion, and the

Appetite for Wonder.

This was sponsored by the Science and Mathematics Division and the

Dean of Science and Mathematics, P.Douglas Kindshi, introduced him,

also giving credit to Carl Bajema for his efforts to make this lecture

happen.

To an audience filling the 400 person capacity room as well as another

one that was linked via audio-visual equipment, the Professor of the

Public Understanding of Science @ Oxford University in England gave a

multi-textured presentation, followed by an audience question and

answer period for a combined hour and a half duration. Following the

lecture was a book signing. Many of the FAOWM members later got

together for stimulating conversation @ the Afterwards Coffeehouse by

the south end of the campus.

He began with the theme developed in his book sharing the lecture

title, that unlike what the poet Keats and some other notable

wordsmiths maintained, scientific understanding of the natural events

of the Universe does not take away from the poetry and beauty detected

in this exploration. The great Isaac Newton was said to have destroyed

the mysterious wonder of the rainbow when he used a prism to break

apart white light into its various wavelengths; it was seen as

clipping an angel's wing. All throughout the presentation,

evolutionary biologist and zoologist Dawkins refuted this belief that

the scientist espouses a "cold, bleak, worldview" but also said that

even if the facts and foundations of scientific inquiry led one to

such a view..."then that's tough. Let us all grow up!"

Dawkins briefly talked of how Newton's investigations paved the way

for Einstein's Special Relativity and Quantum Physics. One discovery

leading to another. The Universe and our own galaxy, our own

heliocentric system and our own planet; its history and underlying

processes expanding in direct proportion to our scientific

discoveries. He quoted John Ruskin: "For most men an ignorant

enjoyment is better than an informed one." And later Carl Sagan, who

could not understand the penchant for thinking a tiny Universe,

existing only a few thousand years, with everything explained in a

paltry way was superior to the vast expanse of time and space that

science has shown.

Dr. Dawkins showed on a visual display that the aspects visible to us

of the rainbow were just the tiniest sliver of its wavelengths;

calculated to actually stretch all the way out to the orbit of

Neptune. Similarly, planets ringing distance suns are imperceptible to

us except through the perturbations of their sun as it and the planets

affect each other. This brings with it speculations of distant life

and other wonders. Unweaving the rainbow has also given us the tool of

red or blue shifting of the light spectrum to show us the mind-bending

distances between the stars and the ubiquity of scientific laws

operating in this rapturous cosmic dance in the Universe.

Turning to his own field, Dawkins showed that what unites the most

potent theories, including evolution, is their beauty and compact

elegance. "It explains an enormous amount without needing to postulate

much." He contrasted evolutionary theory, which is "elegant and

satisfying" with the claims of young- Earth creationists, which he

deemed "ugly and kitsch." One deals with evidence and the other is

from authority. Furthermore, the popular but controversial author of

such books as The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene said that

"Creationism is not even a theory. It explains nothing, for it needs

to assume that which it explains." He spoke of how all the complexity,

adaptedness, and diversity of life follows from the fact of heredity,

with variety emerging from copying imperfections in self-copying

entities, making a recipe for darwinian natural selection and

evolution.

Dawkins showed many examples of images culled from creationist subject

matter. Also their common practice of using of statements by

scientists out of context to erroneously paint an anti-evolutionary

view from them was depicted. A quote from Dobzhansky, for example, was

shown in a creationist tract where he seems to undercut evolution

until you see the full text, conveniently omitted in said tract.

He spoke of how an understanding of genetics helps to explain death,

aging and change in the individual and life in general. Genes have

effects at different times; ones that give rise to deleterious effects

abiding in bodies that survive longer, pass on their effects later as

opposed to ones that are selected against by passing them on too soon

in an organism. He contrasted again and again the differences between

the evolutionary view of harshness, death, imperfection, organisms in

an arms race of survival, co-evolving to pass on their genes, and the

chisel of natural selection sculpting organisms with the creationist

view. The latter with comforting but banal images of eternal life,

peaceful harmony and immutable beings.

He spent some time on how the imperfections of organisms were more

revealing, "...not what you would find if life had been Designed."

Some examples given in word and picture were of the flatfish with

grossly distorted skull, having evolved from an upright position to

bottom dwelling existence; the eye moving around "Picasso fashion" so

that both were on one side. The male testes was another, where

migration of them to their current position caused an extreme

elongation of the uretheter as it looped around other structures

before getting to the kidney. The laryngeal nerves that extend into

the chest, then reroute around a main blood vessel before going back

up was another un-engineered example as was the vertebrate eye which

Dawkins demonstrated was actually backwards wired, creating the "blind

spot." The eye evolved many times independently and in not all

organisms was this "design flaw" in effect. Correcting these oddities

where they presented no real harm would have been "too much upheaval

for natural selection" but should have posed no problem, Dawkins

maintained, for an Intelligent Designer.

He spoke of convergent and divergent evolution where entities, in the

former, who adopt the same lifestyle as relatively unrelated species,

come to look and behave much the same, whereas populations that

diverge, even when closely related, come to have dissimilar

appearance, adapted as they are to a different environment via

evolutionary change. As to co-evolution, Dawkins said that since

predator and prey continually escalate in the arms race, instead of

one neatly consuming the other, the "Creator must enjoy spectator

sports."

Dr. Dawkins talked of deep time, and by analogy, asked us to think of

the history of Earth compressed to the span between his chest and his

fingertip on his extended arm. The chief distance being in the

simplest forms of life; the dinosaurs being at about the palm and

humankind rising not until the fingertip. As further perspective on

our insignificance in geological time he mentioned that all of the

productions of human civilization would be as the dust from one file

stroke of the fingernail.

He spoke of the many mass extinctions, with their reflowering of life;

each time giving rise to radiations of beings to inhabit each new

environmental niche on the changing planet. Also the myriad examples

of blind catastrophes that wiped out over 99% of the biota, no matter

how well adapted was mentioned and we too would prey to this one day.

In the Q&A portion, Dawkins responded to queries ranging from his use

of different theories of life's origins in his different books to the

ethics of controlling the genetic destiny of one's progeny if/when

that becomes possible. One of our group members posited a question to

him on how the effects of evolution on isolated populations might

effect humankind if we become space-faring. Another challenging one

dealt with the evolutionary reason for homosexuality. One interesting

point in response was that a gene's effect is not petrified but

expresses itself differently over time and in new environments; an

advantageous gene becoming disadventageous later.

He expressed his view that the communication of science, to shrink the

gap between the scientist and the lay public in understanding its

principles, is among the main challenges in the next 50 years, in

answer to a question on that.

Dawkins, in talking of how our species was able to transcend the

limitations of existing only to pass on our genes (allowing us to

follow other edifying persuits), he quoted Steven Pinker in the idea

of following one's own will: "If my selfish gene's don't like it, they

can go jump in the lake!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From C. Bajema

Richard Dawkins spoke to an overflow crowd at Grand Valley

State University, Allendale MI on Monday Nov 11, 1999.

Approximately 550 students, faculty and citizens from the west

Michigan packed the 540 seat auditorium and an additional 125

individuals saw and heard his lecture via remote feed to another

auditorium.

He presented his powerpoint illustrated lecture on "Science, Delusion

and the Appetite for Wonder," the first half of which was based on

his 1998 book "Unweaving the Rainbow." The second half of his lecture

dealt with the creation-evolution controversy. He did an excellent job

of presenting the case for the simplicity and elegance of adaptive

evolution by selection theory and summarizing the case for why the

scientific evidence supports evolution and contradicts creationist

claims.

Professor Dawkins dealt effectively with a number of questions in the

question-answer period. The questions covered such topics as What are

the current trends in human evolution? What do you think of the new

eugenics? what is the scientific meaning of life? and why is Richard

Dawkins opposed to living a Darwinian life in a Darwinian world?

(paraphrases of questions)

Professor Dawkins responded to a wide range of questions when he

attended a science and religion seminar group and when he attended a

meeting of biology students and faculty during the afternoon before

his Monday evening lecture. Numerous students and faculty who attended

these question and answer sessions have told me how much they enjoyed

both Richard Dawkins' lecture and his answers to the numerous

questions they raised in the seminar and biology student meeting

during the afternoon before the lecture.

The students and staff of any university that invites Richard Dawkins

to speak are in for a real intellectual treat.

John Catalono--thanks for maintaining the World-of-Dawkins website and

putting me in contact with Royce Carlton (email:

info@roycecarlton.com), Dawkins' lecture agent.

Carl Jay Bajema (email: Bajemacj@gvsu.edu)

Professor of Biology

Grand Valley State University

Allendale MI 49401

----------------------------------------------------------------

>From J. Soto

Richard Dawkins lecture at Grand Valley State University (Allendale)

last Monday October 11 was packed. The auditorium was so full that

they had to bring in folding chairs and even then, some people ended

up sitting on the floor!

Dawkins started his lecture by mentioning how back in 1976 some people

were distressed by his book "The Selfish Gene". One of them was his

publisher's editor, since he didn't know how people would react to the

book, another a girl who thought that life was purposeless. This is

also the material found in the preface of his book "Unweaving the

Rainbow". The pace of his lecture was nice, but I couldn't keep up

with some of the information in the slides that he was presenting.

Dawkins said that the theme for his talk was Poetic Beauty. A poet

can inspire from science, not degrade from it. He described how Isaac

Newton was able to show that light from the sun is actually the sum of

all the colors of the rainbow (spectrum), and how some philosophers

contemporary to Newton criticized this because they thought that

Newton had converted an object of awe into a cold description of a

physical process. Very importantly, Dawkins pointed out, that is not

necessarily the case. Even if we know the physical explanation for a

phenomenon, we may still get excited about its beauty because it is

inherently appealing to our senses. I can relate this feeling to an

appreciation of a rainbow, thunder, a chemical reaction, the flight of

a plane, etc.

In the process of describing the spectrum of white light, he said how

some people thought that it was going to be impossible to determine

the composition of stars, given their long distances from Earth. As

we know, given enough time, some new technique can be developed to

overcome this problem. So eventually the Fraunhofer lines were

discovered and they could be used to determine a large amount of

physical information of the stars, such as composition. He admitted

that he was not able to explain the Fraunhofer lines since, in his own

words, "Evolutionary speaking, I wasn't made to understand quantum

chemistry". This topic lead to talking about how white light is only

a tiny section of the electromagnetic spectrum. He then proceeded

talk about big numbers (distances in the universe) and how our

brain is incapable of comprehending the meaning of such large numbers.

Dawkins then focused on the fact that planets have been found around

other stars, and how this was accomplished: by studying the spectra of

the main star from these 'Solar Systems' whence the Fraunhofer lines

shifted back and forth as the system 'wobbled' due to the presence of

the massive planets. As he pointed out, unweaving the rainbow again we

were able to learn about 'Solar Systems'.

He proceeded to describe some scientists/philosophers in history,

particularly from the 19th century, who were involve in the original

philosophical discussions and discoveries which slowly built the

foundation to the Theory of Evolution.

What makes a theory beautiful is the simplicity of what it postulates.

Thus for evolution:

Theory explains /theory postulates = Life's complexity, adaptiveness,

diversity / Heredity

Natural selection penalizes sickness and disability, improving the

genes of a population as these weak organisms may die prematurely

before they can procreate (not always, obviously).

Dawkins gave examples of design of various organs in animals. He said

how imperfections in these organs are more revealing about the work of

evolution than due to the work of a (perfect) designer. Thus if the

argument from creationists is that we were created by an intelligent

designer, he/she/it/god could had done better:

1. Mollusks have a complete retina in the back of their eyes; we

humans have a blind spot (I personally don't think this blind spot is

a big deal and I can see how creationists can almost ignore this

'defect'. I though this was an interesting fact, but a weak argument

to be used in the creation/evolution debate.)

2. Laryngeal nerves go from the brain to the larynx, but not directly

as they have to go down to the chest (he pointed with his hands near

the heart). Giraffes have the same long nerve which travels the neck

essentially twice, so why was it that god designed something so

poorly?

3. He also described how the testes are not connected in the best

(shortest) way to the urethra and thus again show that there is lack

of good (optimum) design here.

He admitted that all these things do their job, they work, but

emphasized that their non-optimum design does not speak for an

intelligent designer behind them.

At the end cards were passed with questions, and due to the large

amount of them they were sorted.

Q: Is it possible that man could evolve backwards?

A: "Yes, it's plausible, but there are so many other possibilities

that the chances of us going back evolution-wise is practically

non-existent."

Q: Why does evolution allow the non-advantageous mutation of

homosexually to exist?

A: (I wasn't convinced by this answer; he may have tried to come up

with an answer on the spot(?).) "Long time ago men went hunting,

women were left in the village. Some men, not so capable for the

hunt, were left behind with the women to help in other needed chores

that men were still more capable of doing. Eventually with time these

'weaker' men may have developed some feminization...." (Oooh, no!!!,

the rationalization was so bad, I lost interest in paying attention

to what he was saying. See, there is evidence of homosexuality in

some insects and some 'higher' species, such as chimpanzees, but I'm

no expert to discuss this in detail.)

Q: (Relates to a comment by Dawkins during his lecture of "...how

tragic it was that in 1936 the Tasmanian dog was driven to

extinction"). Why do you express such sentiment about the extinction

of the Tasmanian dog?

A: "Because I love, I cry, I feel, I'm a human being.....I'm

sentimental"

The following question was, I thought, a message to us skeptics and

also to science at large:

Q: What do you think is one of the major obstacles that science will

have to deal in the next 50 years?

A: (I though he might say funding, but he carefully thought about it

and mentioned how he was surprised at the increasing number of people

believing in pseudo-sciences and that this was due to the lack of

understanding of the explanation of the pseudo-sciences vs. an

understanding of science. In other words, the comfort brought to

people by the pseudo-sciences 'preachings' outweighs any need to even

think if there is any logic behind the belief. In short he said that

what science ought to do, and it won't be easy is -->) "Communication

with and education of the public about what science is, and how it has

helped us to better understand our universe, live better and have more

fulfilling lives."

Overall, I was pleased with his talk. I found him a likable person,

admitting his imperfection and his ignorance (except maybe in the

question of homosexuality). I have the feeling that he is a person

who not only tries to understand life but also experiences its beauty

in his very own poetic way.

Jorge