New Scientist - 21.09.2019

40 | New Scientist | 21 September 2019

really push the beauty of science, not just

because it’s true but because it’s beautiful

and an armoury against not just religion,

but superstition generally.

That part of the book is less combative. For

example, it doesn’t even mention the intelligent

design movement or pick holes in its claims.

Yes, I simply put the positive case for evolution.

I want to persuade my readers that this is an

elegant, beautiful idea that explains all

the facts. That automatically undercuts

intelligent design.

What about the wider culture war over evolution,

particularly in the US?

It’s still going on and there are constant little

fracas, and it’s an important fight we have on

our hands. There’s an anti-science culture in

parts of America – I keep coming back to

America – and evolution is on the front line.

We live in troubled times.

We do, yes.

I am interested in your views on why that might

be. Things like post-truth politics, fake news,

the triumph of gut feeling over facts – these are

things you have spent a lifetime arguing against.

You must find it depressing.

Yes, it is depressing, but my views are not

interesting. I think you’re right that we live

in troubled times and I’m as troubled as the

next person. But I’m not a sociologist. I’m not

a psychologist. I would only be able to give an

amateur opinion as a citizen, which is no

more interesting than anybody else’s.

One of the things that frequently gets blamed

for the mess we are in is social media, of which

you are a prolific user.

I think that’s right. Ricky Gervais makes

rather a good point when he says that the

things people write on the walls of public

lavatories you just ignore, and that’s what

always used to happen. But now, instead of

writing in lavatories, they tweet.

These are people who otherwise wouldn’t

have a voice. No editor would publish what

they write. They wouldn’t get a letter published

in the newspaper. In the old days, what they

would do is write on walls. Now, they tweet.

Have you ever considered quitting Twitter?

All it ever seems to do is polarise and inflame...

It does. I mean, if you look at replies, that’s what

you get. But then if you look at the number of

people who retweet and the number of people

who like, that can be very substantial.

Cruise Hawaii with Richard Dawkins

Evolutionary biology, volcanoes and culture

with Discovery Tours

newscientist.com/tours

The Selfish Gene

(1976)

This influential

bestseller popularised

a gene-centred view

of the world and

introduced the concept

of the meme

The Extended

Phenotype (1982)

Through examples

such as a beaver’s

dam, Dawkins illustrates

the ways that genes

interact with other

genes and the wider

environment of the

organism

The Blind

Watchmaker (1986)

An eloquent frontal

assault on the “what use

is half an eye” argument

that the complexity of

living organisms are

evidence of the work

of a creator

Unweaving the

Rainbow (1998)

When Newton explained

the origin of the

rainbow’s colours, poet

John Keats accused him

of destroying its

mystique. In this book,

Darwin argues the

opposite: that science

enhances the wonder

and beauty of the world

The God Delusion

(2006)

Dawkins on why a

supernatural creator

almost certainly doesn’t

exist, and a belief in a

personal god is a

delusion

Some of your tweets have led to you being

called Islamophobic.

I know. What I’ve said is that Muslims are

not culprits, but the biggest casualties of

Islam. They’re the ones who suffer most

from Islam, so I’m anti-Islam but I’m definitely

not anti-Muslim.

People have also criticised you for subjecting

Islam to special criticism.

Not at all. If you look at The God Delusion or

Outgrowing God, Islam is scarcely mentioned.

I  could more fairly be accused of attacking

Christianity and not attacking Islam enough.

You’ve described the word Islamophobia as

“otiose”. Could you explain what you mean?

Unnecessary and actually pernicious, because

it gives an entirely wrong impression. There’s

no word “Christianophobe”. But we shouldn’t be

phobic about people. We should be mistrustful

of ideologies where they have pernicious

effects, which I think virtually all religions do.

GREATEST HITS

CHRIS MCANDREW/CAMERAPRESS