[Dawkins] -It, as you say, it'd cost an 
enormous amount of
money and, uh, there've been
three major series that I can think of.
One is Carl Sagan's Cosmos, one is…well,
David Attenborough's entire corpus which is,
which is unparalleled.
And the other is-
[Krauss] -Jacob Bronowski
[Dawkins] -Jacob Bronowski and 
The Assent of Man,
um, and it doesn't look as though
the big television companies
are putting money into these
sort of epic scale science programs now.
[Krauss] -It's just impossible now 
that the money-
the cost has become, so great I…
Cosmos would never be produced today,
I think.
And it's just a- it's sad that the costs 
have escalated.
And uh- but they're great I agree.
I mean Bronowski's series to me is just-
and if you compare
and it's, and it is amazing because 
with out special-
many special effects, it is riveting! 
And I was at a conference
recently of TV producers where I brought that,
a clip from that in compared to a 
clip in a modern science
production that I won't mention, 
on the same subject,
which had all this animation and 
everything else and,
and Bronowski was much more riveting and I,
I just think you know again, 
we have to convince,
it's like politicians.
You can only get them to act if you 
convince them
that the electorate is gonna- cares.
And we haven't really convinced them
the electorate cares about
science issues, okay?
And I think, the only way to
get the networks to act
is to convince them that
there's an audience.
And it's a, you know, it's a
chicken and egg thing
and it's gonna take a while,
but I certainly hope, um, 
that we can do it,
and I'm gonna keep trying anyway.
[Audience member] -Hi my name is 
Mark and I'm a
reality evangelist. Reality changed my 
life and it can
change your life too.
I'm also a seduction-side,
I think pro-reality
is much more effective in converting
souls for Darwin
than being anti-fiction. 
Atheism only gets you
from negative up to zero. 
But if you're pro-reality,
then you go on into positive numbers.
I've found that when I talk to religious people,
that they're much more interested in 
that I believe in,
rather than what I don't believe in.
And I think that um, well you know,
I'm excited about reality.
If it wasn't for reality I wouldn't be here today.
[Krauss] -Well it's not so clear, but anyway…
[Audience member continues speech]
I appreciate this forum, 
this is much better than
other forums where I've seen you, 
Mr. Dawkins,
where the main focus was talking about reality,
rather than talking about what isn't real.
[Krauss] -Okay well that was a comment…
[Dawkins] -I'll take that as a comment.
[Audience member] -Well first I would like to
thank both of you for this 
very interesting conversation.
I would also point out-
there's been mention several times
of perhaps a summer camp
teaching evolution and critical thinking,
and there is such a camp. 
There are a number of camps
across the country called Camp Quest.
Camp Quest is the name of it, and
Camp Quest West is the
California version of it.
You can find it online, and they do teach
freethinking thought. 
My question has to do with the
statement which both of you have used, 
which
is that you don't have to be an atheist
to believe in evolution. I wish you would 
discuss the use of the phrase 'believe in'.
We don't 'believe in' facts. They are facts. 
You pointed out- and most of us do understand
evolution to be a fact. 'Believe' 
has such a theological tone to it,
and allows for not believing.
And so I question the use of that word.
[Krauss] It's a good question. Yeah, in fact
our mutual friend Eugenie Scott is here,
somewhere I think, from the 
National Center for Science Education
and she always reminds me that
I should never use the word 'believe'.
And in a scientific context
you're absolutely right.
[Dawkins] -Yes, I quite agree with that.
I mean, who was the
famous philosopher who,
when informed that a lady had said,
"I accept the universe", and he said,
"By God she'd better!"
[Laughter]
[Audience member] My question is,
when science gets mixed with social issues-
I am a scientist,
I feel the same issues that 
you guys are facing.
You quoted several times-
"good", "bad", "evil",
"consciousness", "belief",
-those are all social issues.
We are human, we are social beings.
[Dawkins] -Could you stand a bit 
further from the microphone?
[Audience member] So, my question to you,
especially to Richard Dawkins-
you mentioned that you want to spread
science education- the question to you is,
how do you spread science to the children,
because that is then the mind is very fertile
and receptive. And I see-
If you consider an analogy to computers, 
their main memories are still empty.
So that's the primary time to give them
education, and also through other mediums.
For example, Sesame Street. 
Why can't you make
popularization of science and give evolution
as a science teaching, not as beliefs, faith,
or this ridiculous stuff.
Now can you comment on that?
How can you promote science and make-
understand science as a science,
not as a social-these aren't even social issues.
[Dawkins] -I didn't really hear, um…
[Krauss] -I think she was basically trying to say
how can you teach science as
science instead of a social issue.
[Dawkins] -It never occurred to me 
it was a social issue,
who thinks science is a social issue?
[Krauss] -Well, I mean, obviously the public,
they view the Intelligent Design 
controversy as something
that's in their daily life and not so much as a 
scientific issue.
[Indistinct murmuring from audience]
[Krauss] -Let me turn it around and maybe 
you can comment afterwards but,
you know obviously I think we should,
science, and that's what's really important
and I've used lots of examples and I won't,
in fact there's one example I used in dialogue
with Richard that I won't repeat here about
the Big Bang as being a scientific issue
and it's not a social one but, uh, 
at the same time
let me put it on the other way and
say I'm worried
that more people don't know
that science, that
some basic literacy in science
is vitally important
for social issues. And the example
I want to use
and the reason that I wrote a piece in the
Wall Street Journal a while ago
calling for a science debate was 
when Mr. Huckabee at the time,
as you remember during the debates,
all of you know that he was
one of the three people that said
"I don't believe in evolution."
But what was more upsetting to me
was the statement he made in the next debate
which was "I'm running for president, I'm not
running to write an 8th grade 
science curriculum
so why should it matter whether I know
the earth is 6,000 years old or not?" Okay?
And what really upset me was not
that statement,
but the fact that a poll the next day 
of the American public
everyone agreed with him.
I mean a majority of the American public 
agreed with him.
And the thought to me that you could be 
scientifically illiterate and yet be prepared
to tackle the problems of this country, 
we couldn't accept someone who
didn't know the Holocaust happened,
for example,
or didn't know enough history to 
know anything about that
as being-having enough perspective to make
rational decisions. 
Yet we're perfectly comfortable
with people proclaiming, not just admitting
but proudly proclaiming their scientific illiteracy
and yet allowing them to make vitally 
important judgements on social issues.
So I don't want a scientist president…
[Dawkins] -It's not just a matter of
needing science in order to
make judgements of things that-
where science is relevant
because of course science is 
relevant all the time.
It's that somebody who is going through
life on this planet without having a
comprehension of why he's here,
how he comes to be here,
what the planet is,
what the universe is, I mean, how can you
live your life in ignorance of 
the world in which
you live and expect to be a full human being
capable of governing other full human beings?
It isn't just that a scientifically 
ignorant president
will make wrong decisions about issues such as
global warming or abortion or 
something like that,
it's more that you wouldn't wish 
to be governed by
somebody who, I don't know,
thought he lived on a flat earth. 
Or, um, was just completely
divorced from reality in that kind of way.
It's an indication that this man is thick,
he's stupid.
[Krauss] -Are you talking about anyone
in particular?
