0:00:03 > 0:00:07What does it take to be a scientific pioneer?
0:00:09 > 0:00:13To reframe and popularise evolutionary theory?
0:00:16 > 0:00:21To reveal a new material and win science's most coveted prize.
0:00:23 > 0:00:27Or discover one of palaeontology's elusive missing links.
0:00:29 > 0:00:33Is the key to brilliance pure talent, ego,
0:00:33 > 0:00:35or just plain good luck?
0:00:35 > 0:00:38What makes a beautiful scientific mind?
0:00:43 > 0:00:46Prof Richard Dawkins is amongst Britain's most outspoken
0:00:46 > 0:00:49and prolific scientific thinkers.
0:00:49 > 0:00:52I don't think he's quite in the Oxford English dictionary yet,
0:00:52 > 0:00:54but it's almost at that level.
0:00:57 > 0:01:01In the 1970s, he made his name with an explosive book
0:01:01 > 0:01:03that turned evolutionary thinking on its head.
0:01:05 > 0:01:11It was a wonderful, radical new vision, set out in sparkling prose,
0:01:11 > 0:01:17and, above it all, this wonderful, wonderful metaphor, the selfish gene.
0:01:17 > 0:01:22The book propelled him into the spotlight and gave Dawkins
0:01:22 > 0:01:26a platform to speak out as a ferocious critic of religion.
0:01:28 > 0:01:31Lord Jakobovits is an educated man,
0:01:31 > 0:01:34he knows perfectly well the world was not created in six days.
0:01:35 > 0:01:37Richard gives definitive answers to things.
0:01:37 > 0:01:42If you don't like those answers, you'll find it controversial and you're not going to like him.
0:01:42 > 0:01:46Sir, there could be many things that you know well, but, please,
0:01:46 > 0:01:49in the process of it, don't be arrogant.
0:01:50 > 0:01:54How did Richard Dawkins become the most influential
0:01:54 > 0:01:56evolutionary thinker of a generation?
0:01:56 > 0:01:57And how did this lead him
0:01:57 > 0:02:02to assume the mantle of evangelical spokesman for atheism?
0:02:15 > 0:02:19Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Professor Richard Dawkins!
0:02:21 > 0:02:24Richard Dawkins' public career spans four decades.
0:02:26 > 0:02:30Since the publication of his global bestseller, The Selfish Gene,
0:02:30 > 0:02:35he has penned a further 10 books, written hundreds of articles,
0:02:35 > 0:02:37and become a well-known TV personality.
0:02:37 > 0:02:38INAUDIBLE
0:02:41 > 0:02:43Would you please welcome Professor Richard Dawkins.
0:02:43 > 0:02:47Please welcome Professor Richard Dawkins.
0:02:47 > 0:02:50His message about science is simple.
0:02:51 > 0:02:53I try to emphasise
0:02:53 > 0:02:58that science is magical in the best sense of being
0:02:58 > 0:03:04spellbinding, spine-crawling, exciting - magical, in that sense.
0:03:05 > 0:03:08His thinking is defined by logic
0:03:08 > 0:03:11and by an insistence on scientific evidence.
0:03:13 > 0:03:18To say, "I don't understand X, therefore it must be magic,
0:03:18 > 0:03:20"or therefore it must supernatural, must be a miracle,"
0:03:20 > 0:03:23that is cowardly and defeatist, lazy.
0:03:23 > 0:03:29I try to rather strongly make the case against that.
0:03:30 > 0:03:33You have to be open and constantly questioning
0:03:33 > 0:03:37and using the methods of science to try to find out what is really true.
0:03:43 > 0:03:47A zoologist by training, Richard Dawkins has spent a lifetime
0:03:47 > 0:03:49questioning the mechanisms of the natural world.
0:03:56 > 0:04:00As a child of keen naturalists, biology was practically in his DNA.
0:04:05 > 0:04:11I grew up in what was then Nyasaland, now Malawi, until I was seven.
0:04:14 > 0:04:20Both my parents loved flowers, when my sister and I were young,
0:04:20 > 0:04:23and when we went on walks, they would constantly be telling us the names
0:04:23 > 0:04:27of all the wildflowers, my father in Latin, my mother in English.
0:04:27 > 0:04:32And, um, so, we both of us
0:04:32 > 0:04:37had every opportunity to love nature.
0:04:38 > 0:04:42Perhaps surprisingly, Richard did not share his family's passion
0:04:42 > 0:04:45for animals and plants.
0:04:45 > 0:04:48I suppose it should have been a paradise for a young naturalist
0:04:48 > 0:04:53and I did enjoy what I saw, and I love butterflies and birds and things,
0:04:53 > 0:04:56but I never really developed properly into a young naturalist,
0:04:56 > 0:05:00I think perhaps a bit to the disappointment of my father, who always was,
0:05:00 > 0:05:03and his father, my grandfather.
0:05:06 > 0:05:10I remember, on a visit to England, which we occasionally did,
0:05:10 > 0:05:13my grandfather looked out of the window and asked me
0:05:13 > 0:05:16whether I could identify a bird that was on the bird table.
0:05:16 > 0:05:17I hadn't the faintest idea.
0:05:17 > 0:05:20So I said, "Is it a chaffinch?"
0:05:23 > 0:05:27And Grandfather was absolutely shocked that I didn't know that it was a blue tit.
0:05:33 > 0:05:37Instead, Richard showed signs of being a different kind of thinker,
0:05:37 > 0:05:41one who was more interested in ideas than in outdoor life.
0:05:42 > 0:05:46I loved reading and I used to read in a rather sort of
0:05:46 > 0:05:49clandestine way, both at school and at home.
0:05:49 > 0:05:54Um, at school, I used to sort of disappear when I was supposed to be
0:05:54 > 0:05:58using my hands in the workshops and things like that, and read.
0:05:58 > 0:06:03And at home, I used to sort of sneak up my bedroom and read
0:06:03 > 0:06:07when I was really supposed to be out in the big outdoors.
0:06:13 > 0:06:17The natural order of things came alive to Richard,
0:06:17 > 0:06:18not through country walks,
0:06:18 > 0:06:21but in the pages of Hugh Lofting's Doctor Doolittle books.
0:06:24 > 0:06:27Dr Doolittle is rather like Charles Darwin on the Beagle.
0:06:27 > 0:06:31All the plots of the Doctor Doolittle books concern
0:06:31 > 0:06:33animals and animal welfare, really,
0:06:33 > 0:06:35and I think that really did influence me
0:06:35 > 0:06:40in the direction of having a great sympathy for non-human animals.
0:06:45 > 0:06:47When I learned about evolution,
0:06:47 > 0:06:51I became even more aware of the continuity, as Darwin very much was,
0:06:51 > 0:06:54the continuity between humans and other animals.
0:06:54 > 0:06:57We are African apes and we are
0:06:57 > 0:07:01a rather recent offshoot from other African apes.
0:07:01 > 0:07:04And so, the sort of great moral and political barrier
0:07:04 > 0:07:08that we tend to erect around homo sapiens,
0:07:08 > 0:07:11as an evolutionist I can see is not logical,
0:07:11 > 0:07:16and, as a child, I was kind of schooled into by Doctor Doolittle.
0:07:22 > 0:07:25Though Darwin's theory of natural selection would come to form
0:07:25 > 0:07:27the bedrock of Richard's science,
0:07:27 > 0:07:30as a child he did not immediately grasp it.
0:07:32 > 0:07:35I'm not sure that I really got it, actually.
0:07:35 > 0:07:37I think I sort of misunderstood it.
0:07:37 > 0:07:45I didn't really think it was up to the job of explaining all of life.
0:07:50 > 0:07:54"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank,
0:07:54 > 0:07:59"clothed with many plants of many kinds,
0:07:59 > 0:08:02"with birds, and with various insects flitting about.
0:08:02 > 0:08:07"And to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms
0:08:07 > 0:08:11"have all been produced by laws acting around us."
0:08:20 > 0:08:23To Richard, natural selection appeared to be inadequate because
0:08:23 > 0:08:26Darwin's idea was so simple.
0:08:29 > 0:08:31Darwin's original argument
0:08:31 > 0:08:34was that species produce more offspring
0:08:34 > 0:08:36than can survive to adulthood.
0:08:37 > 0:08:41And among those offspring, it is not random who survives,
0:08:41 > 0:08:45but larger ones survive or ones who are somehow better fitted to
0:08:45 > 0:08:46survive and to reproduce do.
0:08:48 > 0:08:51As the fitter individuals reproduce,
0:08:51 > 0:08:55their characteristics are transmitted to their young,
0:08:55 > 0:08:59while the less fit individuals perish, or leave behind fewer offspring.
0:09:02 > 0:09:05As those forces work through,
0:09:05 > 0:09:06down the generations,
0:09:06 > 0:09:09those that have that characteristics that that enable them to
0:09:09 > 0:09:14survive will do so and will be more represented in the generations.
0:09:20 > 0:09:24Natural selection takes place slowly,
0:09:24 > 0:09:28through tiny, incremental changes, over vast spans of time.
0:09:30 > 0:09:33Richard would be in his teens before he really took this in.
0:09:40 > 0:09:43It was probably my father who explained it to me
0:09:43 > 0:09:45so that I first got it.
0:09:45 > 0:09:46Then, fairly gradually,
0:09:46 > 0:09:51became aware that Darwinian natural selection really was not just big enough,
0:09:51 > 0:09:54but hugely big enough, it was a really gigantically good idea.
0:10:01 > 0:10:07Aged 13, the bookish Richard went to Oundle School in Northamptonshire.
0:10:07 > 0:10:09Here he met Mr Thomas,
0:10:09 > 0:10:12a teacher who would shape his approach to scientific thinking.
0:10:14 > 0:10:16He was an inspired teacher.
0:10:16 > 0:10:18He clearly was inspired by the living world
0:10:18 > 0:10:25and he spoke with great passion and...poetry, really,
0:10:25 > 0:10:32of what a marvellous subject biology is, and how much it would encompass.
0:10:32 > 0:10:36Ioan Thomas taught his class to rigorously question
0:10:36 > 0:10:38scientific ideas.
0:10:38 > 0:10:41But Richard did not yet stand out amongst his classmates.
0:10:43 > 0:10:47He wasn't a star pupil, but the group that I had were
0:10:47 > 0:10:50a lot of very able - it would be rather difficult
0:10:50 > 0:10:53to be a star amongst them.
0:10:53 > 0:10:57They were great fun to teach and he was somebody who was fun to teach
0:10:57 > 0:10:59because he responded in the right sort of way.
0:10:59 > 0:11:05But he didn't look necessarily as being outstanding.
0:11:08 > 0:11:11His parents became concerned that he was not applying himself enough
0:11:11 > 0:11:15to make the grade and get into the Oxford college they were set on.
0:11:17 > 0:11:20I think I'm right in saying that 11 members of the Dawkins family
0:11:20 > 0:11:22went to Balliol College, Oxford,
0:11:22 > 0:11:26and it was my grandfather's great hope, and my father's great hope,
0:11:26 > 0:11:27that I would as well.
0:11:27 > 0:11:30So I was sort of automatically entered for Balliol.
0:11:30 > 0:11:34My parents went to see Mr Thomas to talk about it.
0:11:34 > 0:11:38They did come to see me where I was staying in Oundle,
0:11:38 > 0:11:44and I think I did say that I don't think he is going to get to Balliol at this stage.
0:11:44 > 0:11:47He'll get into Oxford but he won't get to Balliol.
0:11:47 > 0:11:50But anyway, I applied to Balliol
0:11:50 > 0:11:54and Mr Thomas had me in his house for several evenings,
0:11:54 > 0:11:59I think about once a week, actually, for extracurricular coaching.
0:11:59 > 0:12:02And then the pace seemed to change,
0:12:02 > 0:12:05which was what my intention had been.
0:12:10 > 0:12:12Spurred on by Mr Thomas's hot housing,
0:12:12 > 0:12:16Richard rose to the challenge, and, in 1959,
0:12:16 > 0:12:19he made it to Balliol College, where he would study zoology.
0:12:25 > 0:12:28Here, he entered a world where Darwin's theory was
0:12:28 > 0:12:31barely on the radar for academic biologists.
0:12:35 > 0:12:38Darwin's theory has a curious history. People think of it
0:12:38 > 0:12:43as Darwin revealing it to the world in 1859
0:12:43 > 0:12:45and then the Origin sailing forth
0:12:45 > 0:12:49and Darwinian theory being on top of science ever since.
0:12:49 > 0:12:51It wasn't at all like that.
0:12:51 > 0:12:54It actually went through a great decline,
0:12:54 > 0:12:57it is sometimes called the eclipse of Darwinian theory.
0:12:57 > 0:13:02That started around the time that Darwin died in 1882,
0:13:02 > 0:13:07and went on until, really, past the middle of the 20th century.
0:13:07 > 0:13:12During that time it was deeply misunderstood, often ignored
0:13:12 > 0:13:14and reviled, but when it was used,
0:13:14 > 0:13:18it was not understood how the logic of it worked.
0:13:22 > 0:13:25As an undergraduate, Richard was less concerned with Darwin
0:13:25 > 0:13:29than with the meticulous detail of his weekly essays.
0:13:31 > 0:13:35He was developing a flair for writing and original thinking.
0:13:36 > 0:13:40The topics we were given for our weekly essay could well have been
0:13:40 > 0:13:43very specialised, narrow topics,
0:13:43 > 0:13:47and we were given the latest research literature on that topic,
0:13:47 > 0:13:52went into the library, one of the finest libraries in the world,
0:13:52 > 0:13:57and spent a whole week immersing oneself in this topic.
0:13:57 > 0:14:01And I did that to such an extent that I would kind of sleep,
0:14:01 > 0:14:03eat and dream the topic, whatever it was.
0:14:06 > 0:14:09I never, ever just sort of produced a textbook answer.
0:14:09 > 0:14:14It was always my own take on something, which I absolutely adored.
0:14:17 > 0:14:19My tutors, they said they loved my essays,
0:14:19 > 0:14:22I don't know whether they were just being nice.
0:14:26 > 0:14:29His talent for refining and communicating ideas
0:14:29 > 0:14:32caught the eye of one tutor in particular.
0:14:32 > 0:14:35World-renowned animal behaviourist Niko Tinbergen.
0:14:37 > 0:14:41When I do this, you know at once what I mean.
0:14:41 > 0:14:46The angry face, the clenched fist, convey a mood of aggression.
0:14:46 > 0:14:50It is a simple form of communication.
0:14:53 > 0:14:59Richard graduated in 1962 and Tinbergen was so impressed by
0:14:59 > 0:15:02his abilities that he agreed to take Richard on as a doctoral student.
0:15:04 > 0:15:09I then became a member of his group on animal behaviour.
0:15:09 > 0:15:12And that was a big turning point in my life.
0:15:12 > 0:15:14Before I had tutorials with Tinbergen
0:15:14 > 0:15:17I had been going to do something biochemical,
0:15:17 > 0:15:19which I know would not have suited me.
0:15:19 > 0:15:22And so I am very, very glad that that happened.
0:15:25 > 0:15:28The doctoral subject Tinbergen set for Richard was
0:15:28 > 0:15:32the study of innate behaviour in young animals, such as chicks.
0:15:32 > 0:15:35Richard immersed himself in the work.
0:15:39 > 0:15:42At that time, the animal behaviour group lived in
0:15:42 > 0:15:45and worked in an old Victorian house in North Oxford.
0:15:45 > 0:15:49It was one of those very vertical houses with two rooms on each floor.
0:15:49 > 0:15:52My memory of Richard was as
0:15:52 > 0:15:56one of the senior, perhaps slightly austere figures in the group,
0:15:56 > 0:15:59but absolutely remarkable for his clarity of thought
0:15:59 > 0:16:03and clarity of expression. That was one of the things that struck me from the very beginning.
0:16:05 > 0:16:08The high spot of the week, for me, was the Friday night seminars,
0:16:08 > 0:16:11where we all gathered around, and Niko was there
0:16:11 > 0:16:15and somebody gave a talk about their research.
0:16:15 > 0:16:22And Niko was quite, um, relentless in his questioning.
0:16:22 > 0:16:27I can remember one of these weekly seminars where
0:16:27 > 0:16:30a very distinguished scientist from Bristol University called John Crook
0:16:30 > 0:16:35came to give the seminar, and he got through the first sentence
0:16:35 > 0:16:41and Niko stopped him and said, "What exactly do you mean by that?" - whatever it was he'd said.
0:16:41 > 0:16:45He never had a proper chair, he sat on an old orange box or something,
0:16:45 > 0:16:48and was chain-smoking, rolling his own,
0:16:48 > 0:16:50chain-smoking, pacing up and down,
0:16:50 > 0:16:53chain-smoking, sitting on the old orange box,
0:16:53 > 0:16:56and interrupting quite frequently.
0:16:56 > 0:16:59"Ja, ja, ja," and then interrupt.
0:16:59 > 0:17:04That insistence on absolute clarity of thought must have had
0:17:04 > 0:17:06an influence on Richard's thinking.
0:17:06 > 0:17:09It certainly had an influence on my thinking.
0:17:09 > 0:17:13So, in a sense, Richard was following in the Tinbergen tradition.
0:17:13 > 0:17:18I think I came away from that enormously enthused about science,
0:17:18 > 0:17:20about asking scientific questions.
0:17:20 > 0:17:23And feeling that science really was for me.
0:17:26 > 0:17:30Richard had found his vocation at an exciting time.
0:17:30 > 0:17:33Zoologists were returning to Darwinian ideas and beginning
0:17:33 > 0:17:38to wrestle with the question of how natural selection really worked.
0:17:40 > 0:17:43They knew that evolution favoured the survival
0:17:43 > 0:17:46and reproduction of the fittest, but the fittest what?
0:17:46 > 0:17:50The fittest individuals, groups, or species?
0:17:52 > 0:17:54For Darwin, it was the individual.
0:17:54 > 0:17:57It is us, WE reproduce.
0:17:59 > 0:18:03But, in the 1960s, it became apparent that that view
0:18:03 > 0:18:05was not wholly adequate.
0:18:05 > 0:18:11It was very difficult to take that view and still account
0:18:11 > 0:18:14for some of the behaviours that we see out there in the natural world,
0:18:14 > 0:18:16especially altruistic behaviours.
0:18:16 > 0:18:21Behaviours where animals apparently sacrifice themselves for other animals.
0:18:23 > 0:18:25How could that be,
0:18:25 > 0:18:29if we are, if individuals are programmed to survive and reproduce?
0:18:32 > 0:18:35The answer for many biologists was that
0:18:35 > 0:18:38the fittest groups of organisms survived and reproduced.
0:18:38 > 0:18:42If one wildebeest behaved altruistically,
0:18:42 > 0:18:44to take care of another wildebeest's infant,
0:18:44 > 0:18:49the whole group would be successful and altruism would blossom.
0:18:49 > 0:18:52But other biologists thought this approach illogical.
0:18:55 > 0:18:59Let's imagine a hypothetical example where everybody in a group
0:18:59 > 0:19:01behaved altruistically.
0:19:01 > 0:19:05And let's say they give up their food for other people,
0:19:05 > 0:19:09but that one individual in that group now behaves differently, behaves selfishly.
0:19:09 > 0:19:13So, instead of giving up food, it grabs food from others,
0:19:13 > 0:19:17and food translates into survival and reproduction.
0:19:17 > 0:19:19You play the tape forward through a few hundred generations
0:19:19 > 0:19:24and what's happened, all the goody-goodies, the altruists who gave away their food,
0:19:24 > 0:19:27have been supplanted, replaced, by the selfish individuals who scoffed
0:19:27 > 0:19:29the food and reproduced as result.
0:19:33 > 0:19:36An alternative theory was proposed by Bill Hamilton,
0:19:36 > 0:19:40an evolutionary biologist with a particular interest
0:19:40 > 0:19:41in social insects.
0:19:44 > 0:19:48He wanted to know why female worker insects take care of the colony
0:19:48 > 0:19:52when they have no chance of ever reproducing in their own right.
0:19:53 > 0:19:57He came to believe that the sterile workers were sacrificing
0:19:57 > 0:19:59themselves for the Queen and male drones
0:19:59 > 0:20:02because they all contained the same genes.
0:20:04 > 0:20:06And he believed it was true not just of social insects
0:20:06 > 0:20:09but of all biological organisms.
0:20:11 > 0:20:14The main thrust was the idea
0:20:14 > 0:20:18that animals share genes with their relatives.
0:20:18 > 0:20:21So, if I do something for my brother, let's say,
0:20:21 > 0:20:28then the genes that cause me to do it will survive in him.
0:20:28 > 0:20:31And so there is a kind of...
0:20:31 > 0:20:36There is essentially a gene-centred process going on.
0:20:36 > 0:20:39If we took a gene-centred view of the world
0:20:39 > 0:20:42we could explain some of those behaviours
0:20:42 > 0:20:46because it is the case that although we have our genes,
0:20:46 > 0:20:49our genes are not uniquely ours, we share them with our relatives.
0:20:50 > 0:20:54What Bill Hamilton did, in 1964,
0:20:54 > 0:20:58was to realise that what matters
0:20:58 > 0:21:03is not just reproduction, not just producing children,
0:21:03 > 0:21:09but assisting the survival of your own genes, any gene that
0:21:09 > 0:21:14assists the survival of itself by working through
0:21:14 > 0:21:18sisters and brothers and nephews and nieces and so on,
0:21:18 > 0:21:20such a gene would propagate itself.
0:21:22 > 0:21:25Though Bill Hamilton published his work in the mid-60s,
0:21:25 > 0:21:27it attracted little attention.
0:21:31 > 0:21:36It was, I think, one of the most difficult papers to follow
0:21:36 > 0:21:38that has ever been written.
0:21:38 > 0:21:42So, although the paper was there, it wasn't having much impact.
0:21:44 > 0:21:47But Richard, now lecturing for Tinbergen at Oxford,
0:21:47 > 0:21:51had found his way through Hamilton's complex mathematics
0:21:51 > 0:21:54and he brought the ideas into his 1966 course notes.
0:21:57 > 0:22:01I was immensely enthusiastic about it and brought it into my lectures.
0:22:01 > 0:22:05The '66 lectures were a eureka moment for me.
0:22:05 > 0:22:11I has this sort of semi-poetic vision of immortal genes manipulating
0:22:11 > 0:22:14mortal bodies, survival machines, as I call them,
0:22:14 > 0:22:18throwing them away, and then marching on down the generations.
0:22:18 > 0:22:20It, it's...
0:22:20 > 0:22:22It's true, it's what happens,
0:22:22 > 0:22:25the thing about genes is that they are potentially immortal
0:22:25 > 0:22:29because they are copied and copied and copied, identically,
0:22:29 > 0:22:32down through countless generations, and the bodies are thrown away.
0:22:36 > 0:22:40These were ideas Richard would later immortalise in The Selfish Gene.
0:22:40 > 0:22:42But for now,
0:22:42 > 0:22:45an emerging technology kept him from getting down to writing.
0:22:47 > 0:22:50He was still studying behaviour in chicks
0:22:50 > 0:22:53and was swamped in statistics.
0:22:53 > 0:22:57What Richard needed was a way to process the data.
0:22:57 > 0:23:01He was one of the very early people into the use of computers.
0:23:04 > 0:23:08In those days, there was just one computer in Oxford
0:23:08 > 0:23:16and you had to submit your job on punched-paper tape and then you
0:23:16 > 0:23:19came back the next day, or maybe two days later, got the results,
0:23:19 > 0:23:22and you found a stupid mistake which you corrected,
0:23:22 > 0:23:25put back the paper tape, and came back with another stupid mistake
0:23:25 > 0:23:28and so on, so it was a very laborious business.
0:23:31 > 0:23:35I learned how to program and became utterly intrigued by it.
0:23:37 > 0:23:43Richard was then in charge of an animal behaviour group computer,
0:23:43 > 0:23:47which was about the size of a room, and had about the calculating power
0:23:47 > 0:23:50of a mobile phone, or less than a mobile phone, in fact.
0:23:50 > 0:23:53But Richard was one of the very early adopters.
0:23:56 > 0:23:59I remember once I dreamed that I was a computer just chugging my way through,
0:23:59 > 0:24:03repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating,
0:24:03 > 0:24:06a sort of horrible nightmare of a night.
0:24:06 > 0:24:10I got up very early at dawn!
0:24:10 > 0:24:14But, anyway, the fascination of computers stayed with me.
0:24:14 > 0:24:17I can remember Richard trying to teach all of us
0:24:17 > 0:24:21in the animal behaviour group how to write computer programs in machine code,
0:24:21 > 0:24:28a string of zeros and ones, so he was a real pioneer in that field.
0:24:28 > 0:24:32And it reflects his logical mind and, I think,
0:24:32 > 0:24:34his interest in how things work.
0:24:34 > 0:24:39I became, I think the correct word would be addicted,
0:24:39 > 0:24:43to computer programming, and the addiction became much worse
0:24:43 > 0:24:48when computers, following Moore's Law, became smaller and faster
0:24:48 > 0:24:51and cheaper and so one could have access to one's own.
0:24:51 > 0:24:54And then I really did become addicted
0:24:54 > 0:24:57and had to more less positively cure myself of it.
0:25:10 > 0:25:13Richard was not only distracted by computers.
0:25:13 > 0:25:19In the late '60s, he took a lecturing post at the University of California in Berkeley.
0:25:22 > 0:25:25It was the height of flower power
0:25:25 > 0:25:28and he soon discovered a passion for campaigning.
0:25:30 > 0:25:34My first wife, Marian and I, had just got married,
0:25:34 > 0:25:37and we went out together for a sort of adventure, in our 20s.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40We were, both of us, very politically active.
0:25:40 > 0:25:45We got involved in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations.
0:25:45 > 0:25:48We got involved in the campaigning for
0:25:48 > 0:25:52the Democratic candidacy for the presidency.
0:25:52 > 0:25:57And so our old car was simply covered with electioneering posters
0:25:57 > 0:25:59and things, and we went to demonstrations
0:25:59 > 0:26:01and political meetings and things,
0:26:01 > 0:26:05both in Berkeley and in San Francisco.
0:26:05 > 0:26:10And I lectured on animal behaviour, and I suppose it is really a time
0:26:10 > 0:26:16of youth which sort of haunts one's dreams for some time afterwards.
0:26:19 > 0:26:23But after two short years, Niko Tinbergen managed to lure
0:26:23 > 0:26:27Richard away from California, back to a research position at Oxford.
0:26:32 > 0:26:34The England he returned to could not have been
0:26:34 > 0:26:37more different from sunny California.
0:26:37 > 0:26:40- ARCHIVE:- There have been fierce struggles between the police
0:26:40 > 0:26:45and pickets as the strikers tried to stop lorries entering and leaving.
0:26:46 > 0:26:50Britain was in the grip of industrial unrest.
0:26:50 > 0:26:53A miners' strike in the early '70s brought Richard's computer work to a standstill.
0:26:56 > 0:26:58There were constant power cuts
0:26:58 > 0:27:03and it wasn't possible to do research that involved electrical apparatus.
0:27:03 > 0:27:08So I thought it would be a good idea if I tried to put together
0:27:08 > 0:27:15the ideas that had so inspired me in 1966, and write a book.
0:27:17 > 0:27:20And I started to write it, I wrote two chapters.
0:27:20 > 0:27:23But then the power came back on, and so I gave up the project
0:27:23 > 0:27:25and went back to my research.
0:27:28 > 0:27:31But evolutionary thinking was moving fast.
0:27:31 > 0:27:35Like Bill Hamilton, who had inspired Richard in the '60s,
0:27:35 > 0:27:37other academics such as John Maynard Smith
0:27:37 > 0:27:43and Bob Trivers were also publishing papers about altruism and genes.
0:27:43 > 0:27:45Reading their work spurred Richard into action.
0:27:48 > 0:27:51It was the advent of the Trivers papers and the Maynard Smith papers
0:27:51 > 0:27:55in 1971, '72, '73 and '74,
0:27:55 > 0:28:00which goaded me into finally getting back to
0:28:00 > 0:28:03taking out my first two chapters out of the drawer
0:28:03 > 0:28:06and getting down to it properly.
0:28:06 > 0:28:09I think I felt, yes, I think that is right now, it is coming back to me -
0:28:09 > 0:28:11I think those extra papers,
0:28:11 > 0:28:14I really felt, gosh, I've got to get back to that book,
0:28:14 > 0:28:17this is so exciting, there's so much to add.
0:28:17 > 0:28:21So I wrote it in quite a frenzy of energy.
0:28:26 > 0:28:33The manuscript was finished in 1975. Now, it needed a title.
0:28:33 > 0:28:36I remember Richard ran a little competition amongst us,
0:28:36 > 0:28:39his friends and colleagues, for the title of the book.
0:28:39 > 0:28:44And my...my submission was Immortal Coils,
0:28:44 > 0:28:46which I think he used as one of the chapter headings.
0:28:46 > 0:28:50But he stuck with his own idea as the title of the book.
0:28:53 > 0:28:57The title Richard chose was The Selfish Gene.
0:28:58 > 0:29:01I called the book The Selfish Gene because if anything is
0:29:01 > 0:29:05a selfish entity maximising its own survival, it is the gene.
0:29:05 > 0:29:07You don't want to talk about the selfish organism,
0:29:07 > 0:29:11the selfish individual, because most of the time, a good bit of the time,
0:29:11 > 0:29:12organisms are being altruistic.
0:29:12 > 0:29:16There are driven to be altruistic by the selfish genes.
0:29:18 > 0:29:22It was this now iconic title that appealed to publisher
0:29:22 > 0:29:25Michael Rodgers at Oxford University Press.
0:29:26 > 0:29:30So Michael asked if he could see what I was working on and I gave him
0:29:30 > 0:29:31some chapters.
0:29:31 > 0:29:33And I was phoned up and he said,
0:29:33 > 0:29:35"I must have that book!"
0:29:35 > 0:29:37And he then, nothing would deter him,
0:29:37 > 0:29:39I mean, it was absolutely...
0:29:39 > 0:29:43I don't what you'd call it, like a bull charging.
0:29:43 > 0:29:46I started reading and I couldn't stop.
0:29:46 > 0:29:51It was so good, and it was so brilliant,
0:29:51 > 0:29:53and I was completely, absolutely gripped
0:29:53 > 0:29:55and I thought it was so wonderful.
0:29:55 > 0:30:01And from then on, um...I couldn't sleep for worrying
0:30:01 > 0:30:03that, um, we wouldn't get the book.
0:30:03 > 0:30:05I wanted to publish this book
0:30:05 > 0:30:08because I thought it was going to be important and do really well.
0:30:11 > 0:30:14The book was a huge success.
0:30:14 > 0:30:17Dawkins' gift for distilling ideas and communicating them
0:30:17 > 0:30:21had come together in one seminal piece of work.
0:30:24 > 0:30:28It gave a radically new view of the world.
0:30:28 > 0:30:34It was a view that we are just vehicles for our genes.
0:30:34 > 0:30:39It's the genes' interests that matters, it's not us.
0:30:39 > 0:30:43And that, he showed, has all sorts of unintended consequences
0:30:43 > 0:30:46for the way in which we think.
0:30:46 > 0:30:50New consequences for the way in which we view human behaviour.
0:30:50 > 0:30:57And it was a wonderful, radical new vision set out in sparkling prose.
0:30:57 > 0:31:00And above it all, this wonderful, wonderful metaphor,
0:31:00 > 0:31:03The Selfish Gene.
0:31:03 > 0:31:09It revealed the logic with crystal-clear precision.
0:31:09 > 0:31:11And that enabled people to see
0:31:11 > 0:31:16why natural selection must be gene centred.
0:31:16 > 0:31:19Why it doesn't make sense to talk about it in any other way.
0:31:24 > 0:31:28Richard was, in a way, taking ideas that existed,
0:31:28 > 0:31:31but making us look at them in a different way.
0:31:31 > 0:31:34Viewing them through a different window.
0:31:34 > 0:31:37Through the window of The Selfish Gene.
0:31:37 > 0:31:41It was just the beauty of the way he expressed the ideas
0:31:41 > 0:31:43was absolutely riveting.
0:31:43 > 0:31:46And, I thought, overwhelming, for me. Captivating.
0:31:46 > 0:31:49As somebody who knew a lot about the ideas,
0:31:49 > 0:31:50but hadn't really seen them
0:31:50 > 0:31:53expressed in exactly that way before.
0:31:56 > 0:32:00It's stunningly right. It's stunningly clear.
0:32:00 > 0:32:03It is the most extraordinary book.
0:32:08 > 0:32:10The book was immensely popular.
0:32:10 > 0:32:13But it also came in for heavy criticism.
0:32:18 > 0:32:23Some biologists argued that The Selfish Gene was wrong
0:32:23 > 0:32:24because genes do not code
0:32:24 > 0:32:28for any specific characteristics of an organism.
0:32:33 > 0:32:36There is no one-to-one correlation between any gene
0:32:36 > 0:32:40and any bit of how an organism actually operates.
0:32:40 > 0:32:42Many genes are involved in the expression of any feature
0:32:42 > 0:32:46in the organism and, um, each gene is involved
0:32:46 > 0:32:49in many, many different aspects of how an organism is.
0:32:49 > 0:32:52Once you don't have that one-to-one correlation,
0:32:52 > 0:32:56it cannot be the gene is the unit of selection in this sort of way.
0:32:59 > 0:33:02I have never, ever suggested
0:33:02 > 0:33:04a sort of atomistic relationship
0:33:04 > 0:33:06between genes and the actual form of the body
0:33:06 > 0:33:09and the behaviour of the body and what it does.
0:33:09 > 0:33:11Complete nonsense.
0:33:11 > 0:33:14I never said it and I certainly don't think it and never did think it.
0:33:14 > 0:33:19My emphasis on genes is strictly an evolutionary emphasis.
0:33:19 > 0:33:22That the gene is the level in the hierarchy of life
0:33:22 > 0:33:24at which natural selection acts.
0:33:24 > 0:33:27It is the gene which survives or doesn't survive.
0:33:27 > 0:33:29That's my emphasis on the gene.
0:33:35 > 0:33:37But the debate around The Selfish Gene
0:33:37 > 0:33:42goes beyond the argument about what genes specifically code for.
0:33:42 > 0:33:46Richard Dawkins' critics claim that his ideas reduce human beings
0:33:46 > 0:33:49to mindless agents, controlled by our genes.
0:33:50 > 0:33:55You cannot say, as Dawkins did in The Selfish Gene,
0:33:55 > 0:33:59that organisms are simply lumbering robots, passive vehicles,
0:33:59 > 0:34:02whose only function is to help a gene transmit itself
0:34:02 > 0:34:04into the next generation.
0:34:06 > 0:34:11This gene-centred, gene-metaphor way of describing the world
0:34:11 > 0:34:14is what I would call genetic determinism,
0:34:14 > 0:34:16what many people call genetic determinism.
0:34:16 > 0:34:20Genetic determinism is the notion that, um,...
0:34:20 > 0:34:23if there is, "a gene for altruism
0:34:23 > 0:34:26"or another gene for another kind of behaviour,"
0:34:26 > 0:34:28somehow, that means that the genes
0:34:28 > 0:34:32determine everything in our bodies and the way we are
0:34:32 > 0:34:35and we have no liberty to change things, no free will.
0:34:35 > 0:34:39It's the idea that our genes rule the show.
0:34:39 > 0:34:44If we have a natural disposition to be nasty,
0:34:44 > 0:34:46then we'll be nasty whatever,
0:34:46 > 0:34:49and there's nothing we can do about it.
0:34:50 > 0:34:54This is a deep, deep misunderstanding.
0:34:54 > 0:34:58There is absolutely nothing fixed about our behaviour.
0:34:58 > 0:35:01Look around us. We can see that it's not fixed.
0:35:01 > 0:35:04We can see that we respond in different ways.
0:35:11 > 0:35:15Genetics and Darwinism had always had a dark side.
0:35:18 > 0:35:20Natural selection had long appealed
0:35:20 > 0:35:23to those who wanted to use it as a justification
0:35:23 > 0:35:26for weeding out the less-fit members of society.
0:35:30 > 0:35:33TV: 'Not all mental deficiency is hereditary.
0:35:33 > 0:35:37'But heredity accounts for more of the mild, feeble-minded types.
0:35:37 > 0:35:39'such as you see in this group of men
0:35:39 > 0:35:42'exercising in the grounds of the institution.
0:35:43 > 0:35:48'If carefully trained, they can be taught simple routine tasks.
0:35:48 > 0:35:51'But it would have been better by far for them
0:35:51 > 0:35:55'and for the rest of the community if they had never been born.'
0:35:56 > 0:35:58If we want to maintain the race
0:35:58 > 0:36:00at a high level physically and mentally,
0:36:00 > 0:36:02everybody sound in body and mind
0:36:02 > 0:36:05should marry and have enough children
0:36:05 > 0:36:07to perpetuate their stock and carry on the race.
0:36:07 > 0:36:13Post World War II, eugenics had fallen from favour.
0:36:13 > 0:36:17But in the '70s, extremist groups like the National Front
0:36:17 > 0:36:19perpetuated the notion of racial purity.
0:36:19 > 0:36:22They seized on The Selfish Gene
0:36:22 > 0:36:25as an intellectual defence of their ideas.
0:36:26 > 0:36:28'A warm review appeared in a journal
0:36:28 > 0:36:30'published by the National Front.'
0:36:30 > 0:36:33'One result of kin selection
0:36:33 > 0:36:35'is a tendency to identify with individuals
0:36:35 > 0:36:38'physically resembling oneself.
0:36:38 > 0:36:43'And to be nasty to individuals different in appearance.'
0:36:45 > 0:36:47Dawkins hit back against what he saw as
0:36:47 > 0:36:51the political hijacking of his work.
0:36:51 > 0:36:54Some people completely misunderstood what's implied
0:36:54 > 0:36:56by a book I wrote called The Selfish Gene.
0:36:58 > 0:37:02On the right, we had various writers from the National Front and French equivalents
0:37:02 > 0:37:06who saw the idea of The Selfish Gene as chiming in very much
0:37:06 > 0:37:09with their own rather nasty political philosophy.
0:37:10 > 0:37:12On the left on the other hand,
0:37:12 > 0:37:14I remember being blamed in a magazine article
0:37:14 > 0:37:17by one influential left-wing writer,
0:37:17 > 0:37:19almost personally blamed,
0:37:19 > 0:37:24for the election of Mrs Thatcher in the last general election.
0:37:28 > 0:37:31Though The Selfish Gene was conceived
0:37:31 > 0:37:33in the halcyon days of the '60s,
0:37:33 > 0:37:36it hit the zeitgeist in the '80s.
0:37:39 > 0:37:42Many still see it as a justification
0:37:42 > 0:37:45for a greedy, self-serving society.
0:37:48 > 0:37:51During the 1980s, Thatcherism,
0:37:51 > 0:37:54free market economics, what I call selfish capitalism,
0:37:54 > 0:38:00was in urgent need of some kind of profound intellectual justification.
0:38:00 > 0:38:03A deeper argument to justify it.
0:38:03 > 0:38:06And it's interesting that The Selfish Gene
0:38:06 > 0:38:08didn't become a bestselling book,
0:38:08 > 0:38:10one that was read widely by the public,
0:38:10 > 0:38:14rather than by just a few academics, until the 1980s.
0:38:14 > 0:38:17During that time, it was interpreted
0:38:17 > 0:38:21as suggesting that it's natural to be selfish.
0:38:21 > 0:38:24That it seemed to be a justification
0:38:24 > 0:38:26for the idea that greed is good.
0:38:31 > 0:38:34When Margaret Thatcher famously said,
0:38:34 > 0:38:38"There's no such thing as society, they're only individuals and families,"
0:38:38 > 0:38:41she was, if you like, endorsing the claim of the gene myth
0:38:41 > 0:38:45that what matters is not the social organisation in which we're embedded.
0:38:45 > 0:38:50What matters is actually only the individuals,
0:38:50 > 0:38:52their genes and their genetic relationships.
0:38:52 > 0:38:56People have used it and taken it
0:38:56 > 0:39:01as a philosophical justification for extreme right-wing politics.
0:39:01 > 0:39:03What is your answer to that?
0:39:03 > 0:39:07To the extent that natural selection
0:39:07 > 0:39:12is politically unpleasant, which it actually rather is.
0:39:12 > 0:39:15I mean, if you were to live your life
0:39:15 > 0:39:19as though you were constantly aiming for Darwinian success,
0:39:19 > 0:39:23then the political world which that would result in
0:39:23 > 0:39:26would be a very unpleasant world,
0:39:26 > 0:39:30with the strong oppressing the downtrodden.
0:39:35 > 0:39:39We can emancipate ourselves politically by saying,
0:39:39 > 0:39:41I want to live in a kind of society
0:39:41 > 0:39:44which is very far from Darwinian natural selection.
0:39:44 > 0:39:46I'm a passionate Darwinian
0:39:46 > 0:39:49who believes that it's Darwinian natural selection
0:39:49 > 0:39:52that's given us our bodies and our brains,
0:39:52 > 0:39:55but I also believe that our brains have become big enough
0:39:55 > 0:39:56that we can rebel against that.
0:40:02 > 0:40:04Although the book argues this case,
0:40:04 > 0:40:08Dawkins has never entirely rid himself of the accusation
0:40:08 > 0:40:11that his book was a defence of selfishness.
0:40:16 > 0:40:21It is a lesson that sometimes people will read a book by title only
0:40:21 > 0:40:27and omit to read the rather large footnote, which is the book itself.
0:40:28 > 0:40:33The book could have been called The Selfish Gene And The Altruistic Individual,
0:40:33 > 0:40:35or even just The Altruistic Individual.
0:40:35 > 0:40:37That would have been a bit long.
0:40:39 > 0:40:41Do you think if you'd had called it something else,
0:40:41 > 0:40:43we'd still be talking about it 35 years later?
0:40:43 > 0:40:46I like to think that the book itself has certain merits
0:40:46 > 0:40:49which might have caused it to be being talked about.
0:40:49 > 0:40:53Um,...yes, I think...
0:40:53 > 0:40:56I'm kind of talking myself around to thinking
0:40:56 > 0:40:59perhaps the title was a mistake.
0:41:04 > 0:41:08But for Richard Dawkins, the disputes around The Selfish Gene
0:41:08 > 0:41:13are also a lesson in the importance of scientific freedom.
0:41:13 > 0:41:16You cannot govern science by saying,
0:41:16 > 0:41:18if it's suggesting something to you
0:41:18 > 0:41:21that's politically or morally or emotionally unpleasant,
0:41:21 > 0:41:24therefore, it mustn't be allowed to be true.
0:41:24 > 0:41:30The great John Maynard Smith once satirised a left-wing scientist
0:41:30 > 0:41:33who was objecting to some scientific principle
0:41:33 > 0:41:35on grounds that it was unpleasant.
0:41:35 > 0:41:38More or less just that, politically unpleasant.
0:41:38 > 0:41:39And John Maynard Smith said,
0:41:39 > 0:41:42what should we have done, falsified the equations?
0:41:42 > 0:41:44Of course you can't do that.
0:41:44 > 0:41:46Of course you can't subvert your science
0:41:46 > 0:41:49by just twisting it to be politically acceptable.
0:41:49 > 0:41:51You have to report the science the way it is.
0:41:51 > 0:41:55But then you can say, let's not run our politics like that.
0:41:59 > 0:42:03Richard Dawkins followed up the success and controversy of The Selfish Gene
0:42:03 > 0:42:07with The Extended Phenotype, an academic book
0:42:07 > 0:42:12which explained gene-centred natural selection in more detail.
0:42:15 > 0:42:18But it was his next book, The Blind watchmaker,
0:42:18 > 0:42:22which would set the stage for his role as a defender of science
0:42:22 > 0:42:25against the claims of creationists.
0:42:28 > 0:42:32The Blind Watchmaker was a book about
0:42:32 > 0:42:34the argument from design and what's wrong with it.
0:42:34 > 0:42:39And it seemed to me a very natural place to go.
0:42:39 > 0:42:42The Selfish Gene had dealt with the topics of The Selfish Gene.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44There was nothing more I wanted to say about that.
0:42:44 > 0:42:47And so, the next obvious thing was
0:42:47 > 0:42:51the widespread scepticism about evolution.
0:42:53 > 0:42:56Creationists believe that the complexity of nature
0:42:56 > 0:43:00can only be explained by the work of a creator.
0:43:00 > 0:43:03The concept is called intelligent design.
0:43:03 > 0:43:07And in the '80s, the creationist movement was gathering support.
0:43:11 > 0:43:14'For over 100 years, science has told us
0:43:14 > 0:43:18'that human beings are a chance product of a mindless process.
0:43:18 > 0:43:19'Evolution.'
0:43:21 > 0:43:24'But, as the human future gets bleaker,
0:43:24 > 0:43:27'so more and more people are turning from the cold analysis of science
0:43:27 > 0:43:30'to the apparent certainties of religion.'
0:43:32 > 0:43:35# I'm no kin to the monkey No, no, no
0:43:35 > 0:43:38# The monkey's no kin to me
0:43:38 > 0:43:42# I don't know much about his ancestors
0:43:42 > 0:43:45# But mine didn't swing from a tree
0:43:45 > 0:43:48# It seems so unbelievable
0:43:48 > 0:43:52# And yet they're saying it's true... #
0:43:52 > 0:43:54'A new battle for the literal truth of Genesis
0:43:54 > 0:43:57'is being fought out on the campuses of American high schools.
0:43:57 > 0:44:00'It's an attack on what's being taught in science classes.
0:44:00 > 0:44:03'Kelly Segraves is a fundamentalist Christian
0:44:03 > 0:44:05'with three children at school.
0:44:05 > 0:44:07'Earlier this year, he took his battle
0:44:07 > 0:44:10'with the school authorities into the law courts.'
0:44:10 > 0:44:15We believe in the home and in our church that God created man as man.
0:44:15 > 0:44:19I send my son to school and I tell him, you're going to get an education here
0:44:19 > 0:44:21and I want you to listen to the teacher.
0:44:21 > 0:44:24Then the teacher's teaching things in opposition to our faith.
0:44:28 > 0:44:31In the book and the TV version of The Blind Watchmaker,
0:44:31 > 0:44:34Richard Dawkins led the charge
0:44:34 > 0:44:38against what he sees as the false scientific claims of creationism -
0:44:38 > 0:44:43like the idea that men and dinosaurs walked the Earth together.
0:44:44 > 0:44:50These two have been interpreted as a man's two feet standing together.
0:44:50 > 0:44:53This one is a very large foot with the big toe there
0:44:53 > 0:44:57and the other toes going around here and here.
0:44:57 > 0:45:00Although why Cretaceous man should have stood
0:45:00 > 0:45:04with his legs like that requires a little bit of explaining.
0:45:04 > 0:45:08These are the kinds of slight unimpressive resemblances
0:45:08 > 0:45:10that can be produced by chance alone,
0:45:10 > 0:45:12by the random forces of physics alone.
0:45:12 > 0:45:16But there are things in the world - living organisms, you and me -
0:45:16 > 0:45:20that are so complicated they are vastly too improbable to have
0:45:20 > 0:45:23been brought about by chance alone.
0:45:25 > 0:45:29Dawkins became a tireless promoter of evolution,
0:45:29 > 0:45:31arguing the case that only natural selection
0:45:31 > 0:45:35could produce such complexity.
0:45:35 > 0:45:38This is a flatfish, a halibut.
0:45:38 > 0:45:42Its ancestors once swam normally in the water,
0:45:42 > 0:45:44like a normal fish does, like that.
0:45:44 > 0:45:47But the ancestors of the halibut settled down on the bottom
0:45:47 > 0:45:49of the sea, one side down.
0:45:49 > 0:45:53But when it did that, the ancestor found that one of its eyes
0:45:53 > 0:45:55was looking straight into the sand...
0:45:55 > 0:45:57only the other one was looking up.
0:45:57 > 0:46:00And so, gradually in evolution, the other eye,
0:46:00 > 0:46:01the one that was looking into the sand,
0:46:01 > 0:46:05migrated round the side of the head and came up to the top.
0:46:05 > 0:46:08Now, anybody who was going to design a flatfish wouldn't do it that way.
0:46:11 > 0:46:13For Dawkins,
0:46:13 > 0:46:17this kind of adaptation is key evidence for evolution.
0:46:21 > 0:46:24And an insistence upon evidence defines his thinking.
0:46:29 > 0:46:31In a 2003 book of essays,
0:46:31 > 0:46:35Dawkins even published a letter he had written to his daughter Juliet
0:46:35 > 0:46:38stressing the value of critical thinking.
0:46:43 > 0:46:46"Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important,
0:46:46 > 0:46:50"think to yourself, "Is this the kind of thing that people probably
0:46:50 > 0:46:52""know because of evidence?
0:46:52 > 0:46:55""Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe
0:46:55 > 0:46:58""because of tradition, authority or revelation?"
0:46:59 > 0:47:02"And next time somebody tells you that something is true,
0:47:02 > 0:47:07"why not say to them, "What kind of evidence is there for that?"
0:47:07 > 0:47:09"And if they can't give you a good answer
0:47:09 > 0:47:13"I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
0:47:13 > 0:47:19I was trying to tell her how to think about certain things.
0:47:19 > 0:47:21Not what to think, but how to think.
0:47:21 > 0:47:25And I was trying to encourage her always to demand evidence.
0:47:25 > 0:47:30So we know something only when there's evidence for it.
0:47:30 > 0:47:32And I was particularly trying to warn her,
0:47:32 > 0:47:37trying to guard her against various wrong ways of thinking
0:47:37 > 0:47:40that you know something, such as tradition.
0:47:40 > 0:47:45You should never say, "Our people have always believed X,
0:47:45 > 0:47:47"so you should believe X."
0:47:47 > 0:47:52Authority - you should never say, "Professor so-and-so believes X,
0:47:52 > 0:47:54"therefore you should believe X."
0:47:54 > 0:47:57Or your priest believes X so you should believe X.
0:47:57 > 0:48:02Or revelation: "I have this inner conviction that X is true,
0:48:02 > 0:48:04"therefore you should believe X."
0:48:04 > 0:48:06No, the only reason you should believe X is that
0:48:06 > 0:48:08there's evidence for X.
0:48:11 > 0:48:15It is, ultimately, this passionate belief in the importance
0:48:15 > 0:48:18of evidence which has fuelled Richard Dawkins'
0:48:18 > 0:48:23most controversial role - as an outspoken advocate of atheism.
0:48:25 > 0:48:29In 2006 he published The God Delusion,
0:48:29 > 0:48:32a polemic against religion.
0:48:32 > 0:48:36It became his fastest-selling book and pitted him head-to-head
0:48:36 > 0:48:39with the religious establishment.
0:48:39 > 0:48:44Richard really had two careers - his career as a very successful
0:48:44 > 0:48:47writer on evolutionary biology - I mean, the most influential
0:48:47 > 0:48:50figure of his generation, I would say, in broader public terms,
0:48:50 > 0:48:54and one of the most influential in the scientific community.
0:48:54 > 0:48:58But then he's had this other career as a promulgator,
0:48:58 > 0:49:03as a proselytiser for atheism, which I think stems very much
0:49:03 > 0:49:08from the same kind of logical clarity of thought that he's used in
0:49:08 > 0:49:12his biological work to say, "Well, what does it actually boil down to?
0:49:12 > 0:49:15"What is religious belief trying to explain?"
0:49:17 > 0:49:21Dawkins sees this militant opposition to religion
0:49:21 > 0:49:25as a natural progression from his scientific roots.
0:49:25 > 0:49:28Right from certainly before the time when I wrote The Selfish Gene,
0:49:28 > 0:49:32I have been every bit as militant an atheist as I ever became,
0:49:32 > 0:49:36and the perception of The God Delusion as a militant book
0:49:36 > 0:49:39is really because it is a book that's all about religion,
0:49:39 > 0:49:43and my other books only touched on religion peripherally.
0:49:43 > 0:49:46But if you look at The Selfish Gene you'll find phrases which are
0:49:46 > 0:49:48just as militant as anything you'll find in The God Delusion.
0:49:48 > 0:49:51It's just that that wasn't a book about religion,
0:49:51 > 0:49:52whereas The God Delusion is.
0:49:57 > 0:50:02Richard Dawkins has campaigned tirelessly to promote science over religion.
0:50:05 > 0:50:08Religion is part of a complex of supernatural beliefs
0:50:08 > 0:50:13that are founded on lack of evidence and astrology, homoeopathy,
0:50:13 > 0:50:14all sorts of things like that.
0:50:14 > 0:50:17And it could be said that some of these are harmless.
0:50:17 > 0:50:20I don't think it's harmless. There is something insidious about
0:50:20 > 0:50:25training children to believe things for which there's no evidence.
0:50:25 > 0:50:29And so an uncritical, kind of too open-minded,
0:50:29 > 0:50:32so open-minded your brains fall out attitude is a great pity
0:50:32 > 0:50:35because it means you miss such a lot.
0:50:35 > 0:50:40And merely to say that religion is harmless isn't good enough.
0:50:41 > 0:50:45And he has taken every opportunity to publicly attack religion
0:50:45 > 0:50:48in the strongest terms.
0:50:51 > 0:50:54The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant
0:50:54 > 0:50:56character in all fiction.
0:50:56 > 0:50:59Lord Jakobovits is an educated man.
0:50:59 > 0:51:02He knows perfectly well the world was not created in six days.
0:51:02 > 0:51:05There is nothing special about the Bible.
0:51:05 > 0:51:08Richard gives definitive answers to things, and, um,
0:51:08 > 0:51:12if you don't like those answers, you're going to find it
0:51:12 > 0:51:14controversial, you're not going to like him.
0:51:14 > 0:51:17I'm rather less interested in what people think than in what's true.
0:51:17 > 0:51:21A human brain is extremely good at making things up.
0:51:21 > 0:51:24The age of the Earth - 5,000 years - I mean,
0:51:24 > 0:51:26that's... I'm sorry, Rabbi, that is ridiculous.
0:51:26 > 0:51:29People find him argumentative
0:51:29 > 0:51:32because he doesn't suffer fools gladly,
0:51:32 > 0:51:38and he is rapier-like in his ability to pick up a hole in your argument.
0:51:38 > 0:51:40And some people find that uncomfortable.
0:51:40 > 0:51:46- I'm looking for God. - Well, which God? I mean, why not Jupiter, why not Zeus, why not Thor?
0:51:46 > 0:51:48You're a Taurean, you have great gravitas,
0:51:48 > 0:51:51you find change anathema. You're Venus-ruled, that's why you've got
0:51:51 > 0:51:54those rather lovely, kissy lips on your tie.
0:51:54 > 0:51:58Richard Dawkins, where would you put astrology on a scale of belief?
0:51:58 > 0:52:01Somewhere among fairies.
0:52:01 > 0:52:02JEREMY PAXMAN LAUGHS
0:52:02 > 0:52:04What if you're wrong?
0:52:04 > 0:52:06LAUGHTER
0:52:06 > 0:52:09Well, what if I'm wrong? I mean, anybody could be wrong.
0:52:09 > 0:52:12We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster
0:52:12 > 0:52:14and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.
0:52:14 > 0:52:17What if YOU'RE wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea?
0:52:17 > 0:52:18APPLAUSE
0:52:18 > 0:52:24Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than "barking mad".
0:52:24 > 0:52:28Sir, there could be many things that you know well.
0:52:28 > 0:52:30There are other things that you don't know well.
0:52:30 > 0:52:33But please, in the process of it, don't be arrogant.
0:52:37 > 0:52:41Many of Dawkins' critics believe that their own spiritual
0:52:41 > 0:52:45experiences are proof enough of God's existence
0:52:45 > 0:52:48and that Dawkins treats their faith with a lack of respect.
0:52:49 > 0:52:51I think they should grow thicker skins.
0:52:51 > 0:52:56I mean, we all have to bear satire on whatever it is, our political views.
0:52:56 > 0:53:00And if politicians sort of started blubbing every time somebody
0:53:00 > 0:53:03drew a satirical cartoon of them or something,
0:53:03 > 0:53:05they'd never get anywhere in politics.
0:53:05 > 0:53:09There's no reason why religion should be regarded as particularly
0:53:09 > 0:53:10vulnerable to satire
0:53:10 > 0:53:15and should be handled with kid gloves any more than politics.
0:53:18 > 0:53:22But a powerful argument against Dawkins is that he does not
0:53:22 > 0:53:26appreciate the deeply consoling role religion plays in human life.
0:53:27 > 0:53:31Science and religion are performing very, very different roles,
0:53:31 > 0:53:33they're setting themselves very different questions
0:53:33 > 0:53:36and they have very different ways of answering them.
0:53:36 > 0:53:40What religion does is generate narrative structures.
0:53:40 > 0:53:43We are storytelling animals, that's what human beings are.
0:53:43 > 0:53:44They need stories.
0:53:46 > 0:53:49And the thing about religions is that they all have
0:53:49 > 0:53:52lots of stories, and I think those stories are about helping
0:53:52 > 0:53:56human beings to find meaning and value and purpose.
0:53:56 > 0:54:00And to come to terms with the seemingly arbitrary nature
0:54:00 > 0:54:01of human experience.
0:54:01 > 0:54:04I can see why you might want to find something consoling.
0:54:04 > 0:54:06I can see why you might want consolation.
0:54:06 > 0:54:11I can see why you might want to take a drug that consoles you,
0:54:11 > 0:54:15or why you might go and cry on a friendly shoulder and get patted
0:54:15 > 0:54:19and hugged and get consolation from that, but to believe that
0:54:19 > 0:54:23something is the case when you have no more reason to think it's
0:54:23 > 0:54:28the case than that it is consoling, that is just fatuous.
0:54:28 > 0:54:30That's ridiculous and illogical.
0:54:31 > 0:54:32If it's bleak, too bad.
0:54:32 > 0:54:35I mean, why should it be anything other than bleak?
0:54:35 > 0:54:38I mean, there's no caring about the universe, why should there be?
0:54:38 > 0:54:42Why should the universe care about what happens to us?
0:54:42 > 0:54:46But we can make our own world, we can make our own purposes,
0:54:46 > 0:54:49our own warmth, our own affections, our own loves,
0:54:49 > 0:54:53and we can lead a life that's anything but bleak.
0:54:57 > 0:55:00We gaze up at the stars on a dark night, with no moon
0:55:00 > 0:55:03and no city lights, and breathless with joy,
0:55:03 > 0:55:06we say the sight is pure magic.
0:55:06 > 0:55:12In this sense, "magical" simply means "deeply moving, exhilarating,
0:55:12 > 0:55:16"something that gives us goosebumps, something that makes us
0:55:16 > 0:55:18"feel more fully alive".
0:55:20 > 0:55:24Richard Dawkins' evangelical stance has made him
0:55:24 > 0:55:26one of the most recognisable faces in science.
0:55:26 > 0:55:28He has sold five million books
0:55:28 > 0:55:32and regularly packs out venues around the world.
0:55:34 > 0:55:37But all of this may have come at a cost.
0:55:39 > 0:55:42'Richard has become almost a household phrase.'
0:55:42 > 0:55:46You see it in leaders in the broadsheet newspapers.
0:55:46 > 0:55:49They refer to "Dawkins", or "Dawkinsisation",
0:55:49 > 0:55:50or something like that.
0:55:50 > 0:55:53So it's almost become... I don't think he's quite
0:55:53 > 0:55:57in the Oxford English Dictionary yet, but it's almost at that level.
0:55:57 > 0:55:59Yet Richard himself is actually quite a shy
0:55:59 > 0:56:01and retiring person, in many ways.
0:56:01 > 0:56:06He... I mean, I suspect he probably finds it quite stressful
0:56:06 > 0:56:10to be continually on public platforms, as he is.
0:56:13 > 0:56:18And, whilst many revere him, he has also faced very personal criticism.
0:56:18 > 0:56:22His e-mail inbox has, at times, been flooded with hate mail.
0:56:23 > 0:56:26People regard any attack on their religion almost as though
0:56:26 > 0:56:29I'm saying they've got an ugly face or something,
0:56:29 > 0:56:30it's a personal attack on them.
0:56:30 > 0:56:37And I think that they feel cornered and so they lash out
0:56:37 > 0:56:41with personal attacks, what amount to personal dislike.
0:56:46 > 0:56:51So, given the hostility he faces, what drives Richard Dawkins
0:56:51 > 0:56:54to continue as the outspoken public figure he has become?
0:56:57 > 0:56:59'Richard keeps on going.'
0:56:59 > 0:57:01I mean, his messages about evolution,
0:57:01 > 0:57:04his messages about religion are very well articulated
0:57:04 > 0:57:08and have been presented many times, but Richard keeps on going.
0:57:08 > 0:57:11And one might wonder why that is, what drives him.
0:57:11 > 0:57:13I think it's passion
0:57:13 > 0:57:18and it's belief that he has got an important message to put across.
0:57:18 > 0:57:21The true understanding, the scientific understanding
0:57:21 > 0:57:23of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating.
0:57:23 > 0:57:27How could you not want people to share it?
0:57:27 > 0:57:29Carl Sagan, I think, said,
0:57:29 > 0:57:32"When you're in love, you want to tell the world."
0:57:32 > 0:57:36And who, on understanding a scientific view of reality
0:57:36 > 0:57:40would not, as it were, fall in love and want to tell the world?
0:57:44 > 0:57:46And at the age of 70,
0:57:46 > 0:57:50he shows no sign of giving up on his desire to understand
0:57:50 > 0:57:54the wonders of the universe and communicate them to others.
0:57:57 > 0:58:00Different people have different ways of responding to the thought
0:58:00 > 0:58:02that they're very lucky to be alive.
0:58:02 > 0:58:06For me, it seems to suggest a great responsibility
0:58:06 > 0:58:07to make the most of it.
0:58:07 > 0:58:09I mean, you're extremely lucky to be here.
0:58:09 > 0:58:12The odds against your being here are far greater than the odds
0:58:12 > 0:58:13against your winning the lottery,
0:58:13 > 0:58:20so be thankful and spend your time - your brief time - under the sun,
0:58:20 > 0:58:24looking around and rejoicing and wondering and being fascinated
0:58:24 > 0:58:28and trying to understand everything about the universe in which
0:58:28 > 0:58:30you are so fortunate to be born.
0:58:32 > 0:58:36# It's all too beautiful
0:58:36 > 0:58:39# It's all too beautiful
0:58:39 > 0:58:43# Over Bridge of Sighs
0:58:43 > 0:58:47# To rest my eyes in shades of green
0:58:47 > 0:58:52# Under dreaming spires... #
0:58:52 > 0:58:57Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd