Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show Магия реальности (2011) The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True is a 2011 book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, with illustrations by Dave McKean. The book was released on 15 September 2011 in the United Kingdom, and on 4 October 2011 in the United States.[1][2][3] It is a graphic science book aimed primarily at children and young adults.[4][5] Dawkins has stated that the book is intended for those aged around 12 years and upwards, and that when trialling the book prior to publishing, younger readers were able to understand its content with additional adult assistance.[6] Synopsis[edit] Most chapters begin with quick retellings of historical creation myths that emerged as attempts to explain the origin of particular observed phenomena. These myths are chosen from all across the world including Babylonian, Judeo-Christian, Aztec, Maori, Ancient Egyptian, Australian Aboriginal, Nordic, Hellenic, Chinese, Japanese, and other traditions. Reception[edit] Wyndgate Country Club controversy[edit]
The Blog | Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God | The Huffington Post America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming. Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. That's an argument?
Капеллан дьявола (2003) The book's title is a reference to a quotation of Charles Darwin, made in reference to Darwin's lack of belief in how "a perfect world" was designed by God: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"[1][2] Content[edit] The book is divided into seven sections as follows: 1 Science and Sensibility– essays largely concerning science and the scientific method. 1.1 A Devil's Chaplain 1.2 What is True? 1.3 Gaps in the Mind[3] 1.4 Science, Genetics and Ethics: Memo for Tony Blair 1.5 Trial By Jury[4] 1.6 Crystalline Truth and Crystal Balls 1.7 Postmodernism Disrobed[5] 1.8 The Joy of Living Dangerously; Sanderson of Oundle[6] 2 Light Will Be Thrown– essays on Darwinian topics. 2.1 Light Will Be Thrown[7] 2.2 Darwin Triumphant 2.3 The 'Information Challenge'[8] 2.4 Genes Aren't Us 2.5 Son of Moore's Law 3 The Infected Mind– a selection of anti-religious writings. 3.1 Chinese Junk and Chinese Whispers 3.2 Viruses of the Mind[9]
Manufacturing belief | Salon Books In Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” Alice tells the White Queen that she cannot believe in impossible things. But the Queen says Alice simply hasn’t had enough practice. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” That human penchant for belief — or perhaps gullibility — is what inspired biologist Lewis Wolpert to write a book about the evolutionary origins of belief called “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.” Wolpert is an eminent developmental biologist at University College London. He has a theory for why religion first took root. Wolpert sees human credulity all around him — not just religious faith but all sorts of modern superstitions. There’s no doubt that Wolpert is a provocateur, but unlike some other prominent atheists, he doesn’t come across as a bitter enemy of religion. Can you explain the “belief engine” in the human brain? Precisely. Exactly. Yes, exactly.
Величайшее шоу на Земле (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is a 2009 book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, which was released on 3 September 2009 in the UK and on 22 September 2009 in the US[3] It sets out the evidence for biological evolution, and is Dawkins's 10th book, following his best-selling critique of religion The God Delusion (2006) and The Ancestor's Tale (2004), which traced human ancestry back to the dawn of life. Background[edit] This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the 'theory' of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.—Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. vii Richard Dawkins has written a number of books about evolution, beginning with his first two titles The Selfish Gene (1976) and The Extended Phenotype (1982). The book is dedicated to Dawkins's technical assistant and web designer Josh Timonen (left) Synopsis[edit] Critical reception[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit]
Portland Monthly Magazine / Arts & Entertainment / Home / Detail Hear the full audio interview: Christopher Hitchens’s 2007 book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything has made him arguably the nation’s most notorious atheist. Already renowned as a political columnist for Vanity Fair, Slate, and other magazines and known for his frequent punditry on the political TV circuit, Hitchens’s barbed manifesto against religion has earned him debates across the country, often with the very fundamentalist believers his book attacks. But as a precursor to his upcoming January 5 appearance at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, Portland Monthly invited Hitchens to an encounter more befitting the Rose City: a conversation with a liberal believer—Marilyn Sewell, the recently retired minister of the First Unitarian Church of Portland. Marilyn Sewell: Your book, God Is Not Great is a sweeping indictment of how religion perpetuates war, exploitation, and oppression throughout history. I don’t have whatever it takes to say things like “the grace of God.”
Расширенный фенотип (1982) Dawkins considers the Extended Phenotype to be his principal contribution to evolutionary theory.[1] Genes synthesize only proteins[edit] A cathedral termite mound – a small animal with a very noticeable extended phenotype In the main portion of the book, Dawkins argues that the only thing that genes control directly is the synthesis of proteins. He points to the arbitrariness of restricting the idea of the phenotype to apply only to the phenotypic expression of an organism's genes in its own body. Genes do not affect the organism's body only[edit] It is commonly suggested that there are three types of EP. The third type of EP refers to an action at a distance of the parasite on its host. Dawkins summarizes these ideas in what he terms the Central Theorem of the Extended Phenotype: Nests are typical examples of extended phenotypes. Gene-centred view of life[edit] See also[edit] Inclusive fitness References[edit] External links[edit]
To My Fellow Skeptics (and Believers Too) | Raptitude.com The first few times I heard about God, I was already suspicious. My earliest clear memory of it was when I was five, leaning against the screen door of our small town home with my older sister, watching a midsummer thunderstorm unfold. We were in awe, like I have been at every thunderstorm since. I don’t remember if I asked, but my sister said it was God who made the lightning and thunder. Not that she was ever religious, that’s just what her eight-year old mind told me that day. At that point, nearly all of my ideas about God had come from Family Circus comics. Seriously? Later on, in my teenage years, I would recognize the Family Circus to be a conservative, unapologetically fundamentalist cartoon, but at the time I wasn’t aware of the play of politics in the things I read and watched. Before then I thought God was meant to be something like Santa Claus. By eight, Santa Claus was dead to me, and so was God. The The God Delusion Delusion On that level — logic — he’s right on. ~Nietzsche
Эгоистичный ген (1976) The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins used the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group, popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.[1] "Selfish" genes[edit] "Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. Genes and selection[edit] Power struggles are rare[edit]
As I didn't say to the archbishop… | Victoria Coren | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk 'A watermelon!" I shouted at the Archbishop of Canterbury. "She said that she carried a watermelon!" Yes, it was a standard Wednesday night out for me: explaining the plot of Dirty Dancing to the leader of the Church of England. I think Dr Williams has seen the film anyway. Having been invited to a reception at Lambeth Palace (in error, I assumed, as I hurriedly accepted before the mistake could be rectified), I had been taken aback to see the archbishop actually standing in the doorway. "Well done," muttered my friend Charlie as we finally moved through the doorway and into the reception. Sympathetic, perhaps, to my star-struck awkwardness, the kindly Dr Williams came to talk to us again. Instead, I apologised for my random opening remarks by way of a rambling soliloquy about the moment in Dirty Dancing when Jennifer Grey sees Patrick Swayze in a nightclub and fancies him so much that she can say nothing more sensible than: "I carried a watermelon." Oh yes. "Oh, nonsense," I said. Why?