But now imagine a badly designed combination
lock, one that gives little hints, a bit like
the childhood game of hunt the slipper
where you say "getting warmer, getting warmer,
getting cooler, getting warmer, getting warmer."
Suppose that each time you turn the dial
and you get a little bit closer to
the correct combination, suppose that the
bank vault door creaks open just a chink,
and a little bit of money spills out.
Audience: (laughter)
The dribbling combination lock, which
of course, the bank robber would instantly
hone in on the jackpot if he had that
sort of clue. The dribbling combination lock
is a better analogy for Darwinian evolution
than the real bank lock, which offers only
two possibilities, the jackpot or nothing.
And the trouble with Creationist arguments
is that they all think that evolution by
Natural Selection is a jackpot or nothing
argument. Nothing could be further from
the truth. But god, the god theory
on the other hand, really is a jackpot
or nothing argument, because god is
postulated as being there from the beginning
before the process of evolution got going.
I can imagine godlike beings, like the ones
that Crick and Orgel postulated as seeding
life from their planet to ours.
I can imagine godlike beings, such
as if we ever met them, and if they came
here for example, in order to have got
here they would have to be godlike,
because for sure, we couldn't get there.
I mean, they'd need to be technological
wizards of a sort that we would have no
comprehension of. We would worship them
as gods, but they would not be gods,
because ultimately they would have evolved
by a gradual process. But the god of
the Old Testament, the god of the
New Testament, the god of the Muslims,
who's always been there, he
Dawkins: is the ultimate 747.
Audience: (laughter)
Well, why not teach the controversy?
Audience: (laughter and applause)
There are real controversies in science.
They're interesting, and we should certainly
teach them. It's a very important part of
scientific education to understand that
science is not a done deal, that scientists
are constantly changing their minds as
new evidence comes in, that's important.
So let's by all means teach controversies
that really are proper scientific controversies.
But the controversy over so- called
Intelligent Design versus evolution
is just not a real controversy at all.
I hope it's not pure wishful thinking
to suggest that there is a new
"Wave of Reason" sweeping across America,
Britain, the whole of the Western World.
One indication of this, perhaps, is a
wave of bestelling books, which I'm
Dawkins: happy to advertise.
Audience: (laughter)
And perhaps even more significant is the
backlash, and I invite you to count along:
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
Audience: (laughter)
nine
Audience: (laughter)
ten
Audience: (laughter)
eleven
Audience: (laughter)
twelve
thirteen
fourteen
fifteen
sixteen
seventeen
eighteen
nineteen
twenty.
The flea allusion, you will of course
recognize from W.B. Yeats,
"But was there ever dog
that praised his fleas,"
hence the flea powder that just got
Dawkins: rid of him. And a nice little afterthought.
Audience: (laughter)
Audience: (laughter)
You may not have seen the British edition,
but that's a copy of the cover design of
the British edition of The God Delusion.
Audience: (laughter and applause)
I'm not trying in this lecture to teach facts,
and I'm certainly not trying to indoctrinate.
I'm trying to raise consciousness, and we've
all met the phrase "consciousness raising" in the
context of feminism. It's especially powerful.
There's no law against using a phrase like
"the rights of man," or "one man one vote,"
yet because we've all had our consciousness
raised by feminists, most of us feel kind of
uneasy when we hear people use a phrase like
"one man, one vote." And even those who
still use "man" in that sort of sentence,
do so with their consciousness raised.
They know what they're doing. They're taking
a stand for traditional language, perhaps,
or trying deliberately to rile feminists.
But everybody, on one side or the other,
has had their feminist consciousness raised.
And I want to raise our consciousness
about some unconscious assumptions
we all make about religion.
Let me try a little experiment on you.
At Christmas time on year, my newspaper
in Britain, the Independent, was looking
for a seasonal picture, and they found a
heartwarmingly ecumenical one at a school
nativity play. The three wise men were
played by Shadbreet, a Sikh, Musharaff,
a Muslim, and Adele, a Christian,
all aged four. Now my guess is that you'd
probably think that picture's rather sweet.
How nice that four- year- olds, who
belong to different religions, should
come together in a Nativity play.
Audience: (laughter)
Now suppose the caption said this:
Shadbreet, a socialist, Musharaff, a conservative,
Audience: (laughter)
and Adele, a liberal, all aged four.
Audience: (laughter)
Shadbreet, an atheist,
Musharaff, an agnostic, and Adele,
Audience: (laughter)
a secular humanist, all aged four.
Audience: (laughter)
I'm trying to raise consciousness. I hope
that that series of three slides has
raised your consciousness. I hope that
every time from now on you hear
anybody talking about, say a Catholic child,
or a Protestant child, or a Muslim child,
you will protest. You will say,
"You wouldn't talk about a post-modernist child,
Audience: (laughter)
or a Keynesian child, or a Hyakiyin monetarist.
Audience: (laughter)
There is no such thing as a Catholic child,
there's only a child of Catholic parents.
There's no such thing as a Protestant child,
only a child of Protestant parents.
There is no such thing as a Muslim child,
only a child of Muslim parents.
I repeat these slogans over and over again.
Probably too often. Too often? It can't be
too often when you're in the business of
consciousness raising. Please join me in
protesting every time you hear anyone,
ever, referring to a Catholic child,
a Christian child, a Muslim child, et cetera.
I like to think this particular piece of
consciousness raising has had some effect.
I'm now going to play you a short three-minute
extract from a British comedian, called
Marcus Brigstocke, and it's quite funny,
I hope you don't mind if I -
I hope you don't take offense too.
Audience: (laughter)
At the end of this monologue, he-
somebody's put, sort of, pictures onto it
as well, I think it must have
originally been on radio.
At the end, I hope you'll get the same
consciousness raising point that I've
just made. So I'll start it. I hope the
sound will come through.
Brigstocke: I'd like to start this week with a request,
and this one goes out to the followers
of the three Abrahamic religions,
to the Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
It's just a little thing, really, but,
do you think that when you've finished
smashing up the world and blowing
eachother to bits and demanding
special privileges while you do it,
do you think maybe the rest of us could,
sort of, have our planet back?
Audience: (laughter and cheers)
I wouldn't ask, but the thing is,
I'm starting to think there must be
something written in the special books
each of you so enjoy referring to
that tells you it's alright to behave
Audience: (laughter)
like precious, petulant, pugnacious pricks.
Audience: (laughter)
