Science Talk

Creating Darwin's Biopic; and Consumer Electronics

Science Talk correspondent John Pavlus talks with Jon Amiel, director of the new Darwin biography movie Creation, and with Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great-grandson and one of the film's scriptwriters. Then we'll hear from a few of the exhibitors who spoke to ScientificAmerican.com's Larry Greenemeier at the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas














Share on Tumblr

Listen to this Podcast

Science Talk correspondent John Pavlus talks with Jon Amiel, director of the new Darwin biography movie Creation, and with Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great-grandson and one of the film's scriptwriters. Then we'll hear from a few of the exhibitors who spoke to ScientificAmerican.com's Larry Greenemeier at the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Podcast Transcription

Welcome to Science Talk, the weekly podcast of Scientific American, posted on January 23rd, 2010. I'm Steve Mirsky, and earlier this month, Las Vegas hosted the 2010 International Consumer Electronics show, the CES. ScientificAmerican.com reporter Larry Greenemeier was there, and he recorded a few brief interviews with some of the exhibitors at the show. We'll play those a little later, but first:

Bettany: "I owe it to my children [to have the] the courage of my own convictions. My title will be On the Origin of Species."

Steve: That’s Paul Bettany who plays Charles Darwin in the new movie, Creation. his past week correspondent, John Pavlus caught up here in New York City with a couple of a people who brought Darwin's story to life in the film.

Pavlus: I am here to talk about the film Creation with the film's director…

Amiel: …Jon Amiel, guilty of directing…

Pavlus: …and Randal Keynes.

Keynes: Randal Keynes. I'm author of the book that the film used for the plot. The book is now called Creation: Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution.

Pavlus: What about Darwin is the film about?

Amiel: The film takes Darwin as a much younger man than I think we normally associate him with being; this is not the Darwin with a great, bushy beard; this is a young man in the prime of his life. And it focuses on the year, really, where he struggled hugely, virtually to the point of a nervous breakdown, to come to grips with writing Origin of Species; and it tells us the story, too, primarily through his relationship with his wife, who is the devout believer, and with his 10-year-old daughter, who was his pride and joy.

Keynes: And there's a twist in what Jon has just explained, which is that Darwin's daughter had died at eight years before this time when Darwin was writing the book.

Amiel: The film presents Annie, the deceased daughter, as just you know, almost kind of like a linchpin in Darwin's, you know, home and working life and his whole career; was she really that important in the creation of his book and in his decision to write it versus not write it.

Keynes: The film doesn't claim that Darwin wrote the Origin of Species because of Annie. It presents her as a companion with whom Darwin can talk about certain things and through Darwin's link with whom we can see certain very important features of the story of his thinking and the difficulties he had in publishing it. So she is a figure in the film, but her death is an important part of the plot in the drama, but in no sense an explanation of the Origin of the Species.

Pavlus: Yes, I mean I think, she is an emotional interdependent rather than a necessarily intellectual, philosophical interdependent in that process.

Amiel: I think the film is full of the science that conceals science. In other words, if you are interested in Darwin's ideas, you'll find an enormous number of them embedded deeply in the fabric of the story, in the imagery, in the dialogue, in the dramatic confrontations, in sometimes the visual juxtapositions. For example, we dramatize some of Darwin's nightmares. The first segues from a picnic in a sunlit English meadow through, via a rat climbing over a sheep skull, moves into the sheep's skull, where we see maggots growing, where we see birds eating the maggots, we see the fledgling of this bird fall from it's nest and perish, only to be eaten by the beetles and worms and other things. A sequence like that not only goes to Darwin's nightmares, in other words, what must it feel like as a naturalist who's used to seeing the young of various species perish in a routine way, how must it feel to now look at those events through the prism of having lost a child himself; but it also dramatizes, you know, a central passage in Origin of Species where Darwin describes the meadow bank with birds flying around and butterflies and describes that as in fact a battleground where life is being created and destroyed on a [moment] by [moment] basis.

Pavlus: In the press materials, you said, Randal, that there are some parts of the film that you actually kind [of] appreciated in that they sort of took the actual historical record of the facts as sort of a jumping off point [and kind of went away from them].

Keynes: Yes.

Pavlus: And I'm wondering why you felt that way?

Keynes: This was the strangest part of the making of the film for me, that I found that in the making of the film, they managed a[t] a number of points to add points to the story. There are things for which there is no documentation, but the things that they added I was glad to have [added] because they provided a picture for a truth about the story that I felt was very important.

Amiel: One of the wonderful things about working with Randall in this was that he enfranchised us to do that and to explore things that neither a biographer or a historian is capable of doing; to actually go into the mind of the [man]; to say how do you deal with a loss of daughter when you're a naturalist? How do you deal with a relationship with a woman you adore, when you're so diametrically oppose in your view of a faith in religion? Why was it that Darwin became so violently ill during the writing of this? What must've been going through his mind at that time to make himself physically sick and virtually bring [him] to the point of a nervous breakdown? So these things are fortunately, I think, [the] purview of a feature film.

Pavlus: Paul Bettany, the star who plays Darwin was telling us that he thinks that the film, if it has a message, it's one of tolerance, if anything else, because it's about a man and a woman who just, like you said, are so differing in their ideas about how the world works and their own place in it, and yet they so clearly love each other and support each other and make a happy life together; and I'm wondering what each of you have to say about that—what you'd like people to take away from this film, if anything?

Amiel: I think we may've offended staunch creationists and, sort of, [members] of the Darwin industry, almost equally by portraying Darwin, firstly as a human being, not a bearded demon, as the creationists would like to have us believe; but also as a very fragile human being, and not the granite bastion of simple, rational thought that the Darwin [industry] would somehow up to have you believe. I think that in presenting him as a human being, powerful, indomitable and frail all at the same time, what we have done is done an enormous service to the man himself; and secondly, hopefully to provoke thought and argument about him. So much of what one hears about Darwin in the media is sloganeering and completely unrelated to the man or the reality of who he was and almost what [he] really thought. By humanizing him, I think we've done, in a sense, the most dangerous and provocative thing of all, and I hope that audiences will be moved. My greater hope is they'll leave wanting to learn a lot more about the man and his ideas.

Keynes: I would just say that I agree very much that the central achievement of the film is to bring [Darwin] to life as a thinking, imagining, feeling, caring person. Then, I hope that people will be influenced from the film to recognize how all of those aspects of human life are important in the exercise of science. And I think we can get a better understanding of science, scientific achievement, what it is to be a scientist, if we recognize that scientists are not the cool, rational, objective…

Pavlus: Yeah...

Keynes: …determiners of the truth, that they would often like to be considered to be, because that way it seems that what you're arguing has an inevitability; but need commitment, need imagination, need creativity, need support from their friends, their partners and others around them to do what is just so difficult just to make progress in knowledge and understanding.

Steve: Randal Keynes, in addition to being Darwin's great-great grandson is also the grandson of Edgar Adrian, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology, and he's the great nephew of economist, John Maynard Keynes—quite a family tree. The annual international Consumer Electronics Show, the CES, took place in Vegas earlier this month. ScientificAmerican.com reporter, Larry Greenemeier came back with four brief interviews he conducted with exhibitors at the show.

Nixon: My name is Tim Nixon. I'm the OnStar chief engineer, and we've been working on OnStar mobile app now for a number of months leading up to this event. And the whole point of the mobile app is really to extend a lot of the capabilities that are in the Volt today or that will be in the Volt when it launches later this year, pull them out of the cockpit and put them in the hands of a customer. We've recognized that customers are going to be using the vehicle in unique ways compared to a normal gasoline-engine vehicle. It's a vehicle that you can plug in, obviously it's an electric vehicle with an extended range, so you're going to have a situation, potentially, where customers are going to want to know, "What's my state of charge, I've got to go, not just home, but I've got to stop over at my buddy's house on the way home and you know it's not that normal five or 10 mile drive, and do I have enough charge? I can use the phone to tell me while I'm sitting in my office or maybe while I'm sitting in my living room at the house, tell me what's going on, right, and get you that extra connectivity. And that was really the whole point of bringing the connectivity [that] OnStar has [to] the vehicle. We do this everyday with our advisors. You can press the button and talk to a person, but we've recognized that the people [who] are going to be driving the Volt are going to really want to know some additional things that a normal car vehicle customer aren't necessarily going to be, right, they're not going to be thinking about it so much. You have gasoline, you drive it, you fill it up when you need to. Today, we're announcing the app on iPhone, Motorola/Verizon's Droid and the Blackberry Storm, and we chose those because those are kind of the prevalent smart phone[s] apps there are out there. We recognize that there may be others that come along, certainly Google just announced a new phone today or just this week, so we also recognize that we're going to have to keep an eye on what's going on, but we didn't want to go after just one device, because we felt that customers are going to be coming, bringing smart phones to this car, of course, there are customers that are out there with their phones, they're going to bring those into the dealer showroom and buy a Volt, we want to be able to accommodate more than just one device if we could. There is a demo, it's at onstarmobiledemo.com and basically if you go [on] there, if you have an iPhone or Droid or Blackberry Storm, when you go [on]to that site, it will give you instructions on how to download the app and create a native demo app on your phone. It'll be on iTunes and they can get it on the OnStar site and the OnStar site will also direct you to the iTunes store; so there'll be a button there, if you go there with an iPhone, it'll direct you to the iTunes site and bring up the app.

Pearson: Melanie Pearson with Liquid Image Co. Really what all of our products, are they're taking camera and putting it into the product, so that your hands are free and you're carrying around one less item. And all of the items, all of the products, actually have both videos and still image. We have everything from snorkel goggle[s] to scuba diving and everything from VGA to HT video and now [what] we've done is we've added a wide-angle lens, a 135-degree, as opposed to last year we had 54 degrees, so you get a wider field of view; and then we've also increased the depth to 40 meters, 130 feet. The depth grading, we were working towards deeper depth grading for multiple industries including, you know, commercial divers and people who dive on a daily basis [who], you know, go to deeper levels; but we've added lights and filters, somewhat at the request of divers and people who would use that. Primarily though, everything that we do, we do it because we want to use it, and we improve it so that it works for us. Swim goggles is more of a family fun–type product. You know, you're playing in the swimming pool and you want to capture photos and videos, and it's got a cheaper price point, $79. The new diving model will be SMA retail at $350, and it should ship around May, the snow goggle, $149.

Michelle: Hi, I'm Michelle [Soon] from Eton Corporation, and I'm going to tell you about our new product lineup for 2010. We've got an entire emergency preparedness family from American, with a co-branding of American Red Cross. The Clipray is a self-powered flashlight as well as emergency cell phone charger, so you can just plug in your cell phone to the USB port, crank it; about one minute of crank will do about two minutes of talk time, so it's really for that emergency call. We've got the Blackout Buddy, which is great; it's pretty much a night-light as well as a flashlight, so you can plug it into your wall, keep it plugged in; when it's nighttime, you can see that, when it's dark it'll actually illuminate itself—it's a nightlight—and then once it's daytime, it turns off again. And when the power is cut, it jumps to life. What you can do is you can actually pull the whole unit out and use it as a flashlight and fully charged, it will last for about two hours, which is great, you know, [it's] dark, [there are] blackouts, it's [an] emergency; you've got to get to, you know, your radios or whatever to find out; and the radios have AM/FM as well as the weather band. So its great for, you know, being informed. It's got solar panels as well as hand cranking, it has the internal batteries that stay charged, it also has its own batteries, you can plug in your own batteries as well as a DC adapter that can charge everything up. Brand new for the Eton line, we've got the Scorpion. This is a very cool all-in-one kind of outdoor utility tool. It's got the aluminum carabineers, you can just put that on your backpack and go for it, its got your AM/FM as well as weather band radio, flashlight with LED lights—all of these by the way are LEDs—it's got a fun little bottle opener, just because, you know, that's definitely [an] emergency; it also has the, what's really cool about it is it's self-contained, because the solar panel, one hour in the sun, it will last for 30 minutes of radio playtime as well as a line in. So you can plug in your iPod and watch it work as its own speaker. It's got an emergency cell phone charger as well and that is the same—you know, one minute of crank is about two minutes of speak time.

Fuhriman: My name is David Fuhriman; I'm a product marketing manager and the company is Oregon Scientific. And the Green Line is intended to help people monitor their electricity usage which in turn helps to manage it, and what we use is first a basic individual appliance manager with an LCD screen. [It] helps you to see in real time how much energy is being used; it can also account for peak pricing, so you can see what the overall cost is, even if your utility uses peak pricing models. This will be coming in the fall and I think our core competency is in wireless transmission and technology. A lot of people know [us] for weather stations that send temperature and humidity data. We're really translating that over into energy usage and passing along that same information in an easy-to-use display for people in one location in their home. The other two items that we have are wireless energy managers. So they use a wireless sensor plug that you plug into the wall, you plug your appliance into the plug, and then it will wirelessly transmit that information to a monitor or display that you can put anywhere in your home. And from that you can see in a real time not only costs from one appliance but up to eight on the Advance Wireless Manager. It also has two-way communications. So you can actually set timers for different lamps or places in your home from the display. The Aromatherapy line, in particular, the ultrasonic aroma diffusers are intended to, you know, set a nice mood and nice atmosphere, regardless of where you're at. It uses ultrasonic technology so you just add a couple of drops of aroma oil in water, and it'll start to send out those aromas, it has soothing sounds and color changing light. Funny story, we had our first baby in August, and I had a[n] early prototype of this, and I took it into the hospital because you can't take anything with flames into the hospital, and we loved it; I mean, it had a nice aroma, not the hospital smell, not hospital sounds or lights, and it worked out really well for us. So, you put a couple of drops in there with some water and it will diffuse throughout the water and send it out ultrasonically to the top of the product. This will be available this spring. This is the first from us. There's been other ultrasonic diffusers, but what we're trying to add are [a] number of unique and fun features that allow [it] to set an entire environment and not just send out the right aroma, but also the right sights, the right sounds. [It] also has a nice handy remote so you can use that on your bedside or turn it on and off or set a timer so that the aroma turns off, you know, half [an] hour after you go to bed.

Steve: You can read Larry Greenemeier and Nikhil Swaminathan's coverage of the Consumer Electronics Show at our Web site. Larry and Nikhil report on net books, supersafe external hard drives, driverless automobiles, solar powered Bluetooth devices, and much more. Just go to http://www.scientificamerican.com and search for CES.

We'll roll out the news quiz, TOTALL……. Y BOGUS in a separate stand-alone episode coming soon. Till then, check out the January 22nd blog item on how little we're doing to track the kinds of objects that would make the Earth quite a mess, if they smashed into us. It's titled, "Report Says Scientists Lack Funds to Meet Congressional Goal for Finding Smaller, Near-Earth Asteroids," and you'll find that the article at www.ScientificAmerican.com. For Science Talk, the podcast of Scientific American, I'm Steve Mirsky. Thanks for clicking on us.


18 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. ArjanD 04:28 AM 1/24/10

    I found it a wonderful film. It is a beautiful story. The film showed me how atheism is both essential and destructive in the same time. It is essential to combat to power of the church/religions (especially at that time) and destructive by its principle limitation of thought by observationally falsifiable conclusions.

    It seems Darwin couldn't see the bigger picture and decided to simply deny the existence of more then what can be provided evidence for, to exist. He saw a chemical process and death as the final end of everything. He didn't seem to see what is needed for everything to exist, what also is the reason people naturally believe in Gods.

    Life strives to more then what already is: survival. This means it can't come from the measurable, because the measurable can't be the source for itself. So as humanity we can't survive without some sort of religion. Because what person can look in the future? Nature can: it wants to be there again tomorrow.

    It seems atheists don't understand this, and in their religion they adapt the assumption that it is just a result of sertain laws. This is why atheism leads to darkness and destruction. To a world where people do not value life anymore and we see it as a chemical process and nothing more. This is wrong and very dangerous.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. phil rimmer 08:10 AM 1/24/10

    And yet the least religious countries, in Scandiwegia for instance, have lower crime and murder rates, longer lifespans more equitable societies and always come top on the happiness/contended-ness type surveys. Ah, but there I go, missing ArjanD's crucial point about relying on observations to understand how things actually are rather than how we imagine them to be.

    Pity about the title of the movie....

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. ArjanD 08:59 AM 1/24/10

    Science is a valuable tool, I didn't say it is black or white, or religion or science.

    What I say it is wrong to put your faith in science. It will lead to darkness and destruction, because science is limited.

    To go beyond what already is, it takes imagination and faith in something that can't be measured or explained by science. To get there, however, it may require science.

    Unforseeable renewal is what is required for future survival. And if it can't be forseen or measured, what will get us to actually get there?

    Life is more then a product from the building blocks. Atheists don't seem to be able to understand this, and have themselfs limited by what science can explain.

    Atheism is just a religion like any other religion, where God is replaced by 'science' and other assumptions, among which: when believing in science you are not religious.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. cwdonoghue 10:35 AM 1/24/10

    Atheists understand perfectly well that life is more than a product of building blocks. We, however, don't assume that one of those components of life absolutely has to be an inexplainable intervention of some supernatural entity. And atheism is fundamentally different from religion. Atheism is the assertion that we will believe only what can be verified to be true, by evidence, by reason, by the scientific method, etc. For religion, there is no corresponding means of validation. There is only a desire to explain the unexplainable, which is a basic human psychological need. When people are capable of believing religious ideas with no proof of their veracity, they can be led to believe almost anything. That is what makes religion dangerous and something our species should strive to evolve beyond.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. PotatoChip 11:25 AM 1/24/10

    An additional note on cwdonoghue's excellent points:

    Atheism is the rejection of dogma and faith.

    It is impossible for an anti-dogma stance to be considered a dogma.

    It is impossible for an anti-faith stance to be considered a faith.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. abrasileirosilva 05:39 PM 1/24/10

    And about this negligible word AGNOSTIC, or the word AGNOSTICISM?

    *Religious Belief
    By Charles Darwin
    This is an extract from:
    The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
    1809-1882
    With original omissions restored
    Edited with Appendix and Notes
    by his grand-daughter
    Nora Barlow.
    (1958) *

    *In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember by conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.*
    *I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.*

    Charles Darwin, himself, wrote that! He ended his days not like a theist or an atheist, but like an AGNOSTIC!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. ArjanD in reply to cwdonoghue 06:04 PM 1/24/10

    "There is only a desire to explain the unexplainable, which is a basic human psychological need."

    You said it very well, but the assertions you make based on your atheistic belief are fundamentally wrong.

    This desire to explain the unexplainable (or in other words: give spiritual meaning to what can't be understood) is not just a psychological need, which we should strive to evolve beyond.

    It is a pure necessity for our survival.

    Basic logic can make it clear that the source of existence can't be measured or explained.

    "You can't see the seeing while you see"

    It is impossible to master or 'explain' the source of life/existence.

    This is why it is required to 'believe' that there is a reason for us to survive and that we are fighting for our survival not just because everything is an illusion and we are just a chemical process bound by some laws, but to be able to understand that life holds value and is worth fighting for.

    Science can't offer this. And this makes atheism in my opinion a lot more dangerous then for example Christianity.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. phil rimmer 07:20 PM 1/24/10

    ArjanD

    It is a wonder to behold that you know what is unexplainable. I know of no basic logic that reveals this.

    I fully expect that I or some other shall "see the seeing" one day, or at least glimpse it. The "intractable" "hard" problem of consciousness is being profitably grappled with now that unwarranted dualist ideas sublime in the glare of rational investigation.

    You are fighting for your survival because your raison d'etre is withering in all this daylight. My reasons are strong my sense of life's worth, great, being underwritten by my astonishing genetic and cultural bequests and my aspirations to hand those on, augmented with just a little more wisdom for good measure. (Others have more noble reasons. Some more selfish- Van Gogh for instance. But all contribute to the ever multiplying reasons and worths to which are lives are put.)

    ArjanD, you wish to reserve gaps for your god to maintain tenure. Reserve away but your little niches are forever closing. Best wait and see if they stop closing before pointing too keenly at them.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. phil rimmer 07:24 PM 1/24/10

    our lives are put...(sorry.)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. cwdonoghue 08:00 PM 1/24/10

    "It is impossible to master or 'explain' the source of life/existence."

    Actually, since this discussion began with evolution, let me remind you that the theory of natural selection is the most successful explanation of the source of life/existence.

    And atheists are perfectly capable of understanding "that life holds value and is worth fighting for." If anything, Atheists have a much deeper understanding of the value of life, because we know that this life is the only one we have. There will be no subsequent lives, like the Hindus and Buddhists believe. And there will be no paradise after our death, like the monotheists believe. And we don't need the threat of hell to be moral people.

    I have come to a position of compassion and kindness from an objective observation of the world around me. It is precisely the actions of the religious that has taught me what is immoral, and the psychological path that leads to that immorality. Only when you believe that God has singled you and your co-religionists as better than and above others can you sanction things like murder, oppression, genocide, slavery, etc. No rational atheist could ever condone these actions, but the religious have championed them for centuries.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. Michael F 01:13 AM 1/25/10

    @ArjanD

    Your first post includes the key line:
    " This means it can't come from the measurable, because the measurable can't be the source for itself."

    This is what we call a false assumption. Where is your evidence that suggests (let alone proves) that this statement is true.

    Furthermore, if something can't create itself (which is the essence of the quote), then why do you find it perfectly reasonable to posit that "God" could create himself?

    You can use all the big, scientific words you like to try to justify religion in a world that, more and more, looks to science for reasonable, provable answers, but it will never make what you are saying any truer.

    Lastly, my position is, primarily, that of an Atheist. I will concede that there is certainly the possibility of more out there than we know. I will not concede, however, that religion is correct; that somehow these human beings figured it all out over 2,000 years ago. That's crap. We still don't know, and you believe that THEY knew? Why is it that God's miracles only occurred back when record-keeping was a joke? When's the last time you saw a sea parted (by supernatural means) or a platoon of angels come marching down out of the sky? It doesn't happen. As far as we know, it never happened. Therefore, to base your entire world-view on these events is absurd.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. abrasileirosilva 05:55 AM 1/25/10

    Christianity! *Our* Charles Darwin wrote the following about Christianity:


    *By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.*


    *But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.*

    *And this is a damnable doctrine.*

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. Quasimodo 10:50 AM 1/25/10

    The great author, Margaret Atwood points out that we're still in our terrible two's. We're still children making up stories to explain occurrences. The term 'God' is just lazy speak for 'the unknown'. Many of us still desire a sentient face on our universe. It's comforting (but false) that a big parent is watching over. Someday we'll grow out of it. May that day come soon.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. PotatoChip 11:55 AM 1/25/10

    abrasileirosilva, thanks for the terrific quotes by Darwin. They show what a clear thinker he was.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. Bops 01:49 PM 1/25/10

    Is mental illness when reality isn't good enough for a person?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. usr16 05:34 PM 1/25/10

    Why don't we clear up a few things about theism/atheism?

    1) Belief in God does not require the acceptance of unscientific/supernatural phenomena, conversely disregarding mythology does not make one an atheist as this would ignore the religions/philosophical positions of pantheism and deism which support a more classical definition of God (that which nothing greater can be conceived, etc..) but (in most cases particularly deism) not requiring belief in myth and superstition.
    Some religious people will scoff at such ideas as being "too abstract" but I fail to see the enlightenment of believing in a talking snake or Thor/Zeus hurling bolts of lightning down from the heavens, etc..

    2) Religion and specifically its irrational/unscientific elements are definitely not required for believing that the universe has a purpose, for instance a position of mathematical realism will posit that the universe has a abstract/mathematical "purpose" (perhaps further revealed by what such structure might entail e.g. for modal physical realism - the universe as all physically realisable realities it would be self evident though not necessarily desirable). Then there are positions of objective idealism or even panpsychism (where consciousness plays an additional role but only in which would in principle be revealed by a more complete theory of physics/consciousness though still assuming based on physicalism)

    3) Finaly playing the religious vs secular game of which killed more/did more evil.
    Some people confuse say communism with secularism which couldn't be further from the truth. Communism is an ideology and as with all ideologies like religions (e.g. fascism, feudalism, even capitalism) holds a set of beliefs not based on and even above scientific inquiry (e.g consider the question of property rights and the rights of the individual).
    No social system based on a rational, evolving set of scientifically determined principles has ever been created much less put into practice (I have the feeling that it will take some time, if ever).
    The point is religion is the same as ideology merely dealing with different domains (though often coinciding) .



    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. tbmartin 12:42 PM 1/27/10

    I found this interview a refreshing change from recent podcasts dealing with Darwin and evolution. For once, it did NOT include a snide comment regarding those who leave room in their belief system for the existance of God, regardless of how said God was involved, or not, in how humans came to be. I kept expecting a line such as, "And Darwin's wife, a staunch believer, and clearly an idiot...." That zinger never came. I hope the omission was not just an oversight.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. Steve Mirsky in reply to tbmartin 08:30 PM 1/31/10

    tbmartin, are you referring to snide comments on the Scientific American podcast, or in various other podcasts. If Sci Am, please provide specific examples. I recall kind references to Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic and evolutionary biologist in our programs concerning the execrable Ben Stein "documentary" Expelled. But I can think of no potshots against believers unless they are Ken Ham type Young-Earth Creationists who treat Genesis as a literal exposition of natural history. (We do consider his museum exhibitions that include dinosaurs with saddles so that Adam and Eve could ride them to be worthy of the odd snide comment.) But serious believers who also accept evolution do not get lampooned by Scientific American.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

Tweets could not be retrieved at this time

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Creating Darwin's Biopic; and Consumer Electronics

X
Scientific American MIND iPad

Tap into your MIND

Get Both Print & Tablet Editions for one low price!

Subscribe Now >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X