Professor Richard Dawkins’ Seminar at Science World 2011 Part 1

“Should doctors be Darwinian?” Professor Richard Dawkins visited Science World 2011 and presented some challenging new ideas about medicine and evolution to …
Video Rating: 4 / 5


No ping yet

  1. Karl Pokus says:

    Darwinian medicine explained.

    Professor Richard Dawkins’ Seminar at Science World 2011 Part 1?

  2. RedAntLiberationArmy says:

    @ialvarez357 You’d be surprised at the amount of doctors who doesn’t
    believe in evolution, let alone looking at health obsolete from that of

  3. 123backinyerface says:

    @MrDBarch I agree, “accept” is a better word than “believe”.

  4. Brendan Beckett says:

    @ialvarez357 Nope. They are I believe the one field of science where a
    fairly large percentage do not, rivalling the general public rate.

  5. PaulP567 says:

    I think Dawkins is right. But in a sense he can hardly be wrong. Everything
    living must be Darwinian either directly or indirectly, i.e. as part of the
    process or incidental (accidental?) to it, following which even the
    ‘incidentals’ may find themselves with a progressive role. If Darwinism is
    sound, and it would seem that it is, then ‘picking one’s nose’ (if you’ll
    forgive me) is almost certainly Darwinian. Call it the Selfish Bogie (and
    you’ll need to forgive me again).

  6. Nicolò Scalzo says:

    @ialvarez357 It is not a matter of believing, but really understanding.
    Darwin’s theory explains our origin, it is natural that it should be of
    great interest for doctors. The problem is that Darwinism rely on monism
    and extracts design from chaos, so it does not presuppose any duperio
    order. But doctors are educated to see human body as a PERFECT machine….
    they are, in fact, essentialist (in the meaning according to Plato and his
    theory of the forms)

  7. MrDBarch says:

    I find it so frustrating; even Dawkins is guilty of this: evolution is NOT
    an idea we need to “believe in” it is a collection of accepted facts which
    one accepts or does not. Evolution is not religion and has no requirement
    of faith. Therefore, for one to say they “believe” in evolution is to
    reiterate a sloppy assertion.

  8. PaulP567 says:

    @MrDBarch You are right. The ‘tree of life’ can only have been Darwinian in
    growth to the exclusion of all other mechanisms (Lamarckian et al). I think
    Dawkins uses the word ‘belief’ simply to be in popular step with everyone
    else, almost in acknowledgement that it is traditional, or customary, to
    say ‘belief in evolution’ rather than just ‘evolution’. I suppose it jives
    with the continued use of ‘theory of evolution’, which surely must be a
    theory no longer. How can it be other than a fact?

  9. dj2baduk says:

    @ialvarez357 it’s one thing to believe in evolution. It’s another to
    consider illnesses and symptoms in an evolutionary light. This is already
    yielding results where it’s applied in medicine, with targeted gene therapy
    and drugs targeted at people with particular inherited traits.
    Understanding a persons evolutionary history is yielding more effective
    treatments for individuals where blanket treatments fail. Understanding
    viral and bacterial evolution has ended irresponsible use of antibiotics..

  10. Gregor Winter says:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>