Richard Dawkins discusses his life in science and the public eye, from the debates within evolution, to the all-out war between his field and fundamentalist religion. But first: after years of secret trade negotiations, representatives from 12 countries announce they’ve reached a deal on the Trans Pacific Partnership. We’ll take a look at what’s in it, and what’s next.
Guests:
- Melinda St. Louis, International Campaigns Director with Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
- Katy Roemer, a nurse at Kaiser Oakland, and a board member for the California Nurses Association
- Richard Dawkins, fellow of the Royal Society, and author of many many books, about evolution, behavior, and the clash between science and theology. His latest is about his own life – it’s entitled Brief Candle in the Dark: my Life in Science. Tickets to his KPFA benefit are available here.
Cooperation in evolutionary biology is not a “Marxist” notion, Brian. Contrary to the impression Dawkins gave on the show today, the so-called selfish gene idea and kin selection are subsumed into group selection, i.e. evolution mainly rewards cooperation inside and between groups. Richard Lewontin (a Marxist) and E.O. Wilson (not a Marxist) both agree that group selection trumps kin selection, which is a misnomer anyway, since kins are groups. Evolution is now known not to be reducible to the mutating genome, which is a part of a much larger process. Dawkins is an intellectual dinosaur in that regard, behind the times. Outdated.
Its unbelievable that you banned the talk by Dawkins speaking about his new book. You apparently dont know the difference between critique of ideas and hate speech. I see OVERWHELMINGLY on twitter people have shown nothing but disgust by your actions, and on the webpage you had up about the event you got so much negative feedback you took the page down.
I have been a longtime kpfa supporter but I am cancelling my membership and know a few others who are as well. You are acting no better than right wing book burners with your actions and by the feedback you have gotten you should have examined if you did the right thing. But apparently you are too egotistical to admit your error and are incapable of admitting a mistake. I thought better of pacifica.
It is a great sadness that many liberals have become as regressive as the conservatives they they oppose.
Your cancelling Dawkins’ speaking engagement because it might hurt some people’s feeling is reprehensible and beneath you. For all the demonization of Dawkins, he is not an Islamaphobe. He is someone who has been critical of all religions. In the case of Islam, he differentiates, as many on the Left are unable to do, between critiques of a set of religious beliefs, such as Islam, and bigotry towards adherents of that belief, Muslims. Those are two different things (which is why Islamaphobe is such a bad term).
The reality is that people who hew closely to “pure” Islam support some awful things – misogyny towards women, hatred of gays, violence towards anyone who believes differently or does not believe at all, and, as in Turkey, the replacement of scientific thinking with religious dogma.
Liberals, who should be calling these religious-based behaviors out, give believers in Islam a free pass and vilify anyone who challenges this blindness.
You poor little Berkley snowflakes. Hurry to your safe spaces.