That is very kind of you to acknowledge that I have a larger quantity of
the undesirable trait than you do. Thank you very much. ;-)
The point is twofold, (a) the tape in its final
>form suggests that Dawkins was stumped by the question
>and (b) the transcript shows (IMHO) otherwise. Now,
>I believe you mentioned that that material was presented
>elsewhere in the video. Fine, but if the video leaves the
>impression that Dawkins was stumped, then they included
>this material at the wrong place. Or so it seems to me.
>Let's review the nature of Dawkin's answer on the
>transcript. First he provides a more precise definition
>of what information means in terms of complexity. Not
>as precise as we might like but perfectly acceptable for
>the situation. He then divides complexity into two types,
>an inherent complexity of the structure itself and a
>complexity associated with how the structure is adapted
>to its environment, adaptive complexity. In view of this
>he then says that organisms can be considered to possess
>information about their environment. This in itself is, I
>think, a valuable insight which indicates that Dawkins
>has given some thought to the notion of "information" as
>it relates to evolution. Anyway, Dawkins goes on to say
>that the gradual process of evolution by natural selection
>can slowly build the adaptive complexity (information)
>of organisms.
>
>In view of this, how can it be said that Dawkins was stumped
>by the question?
Because when Dawkins was asked the question, he sat silent. Now, it is
possible that Dawkins was thinking about throwing them out, or thinking, "I
thought I just explained that". The problem I have with that explanation
is that Dawkins expression is not one of anger or frustration, but he looks
like he is waiting for something. One of the things that made me
suspicious in the beginning was that in all other sequences, Dawkins was
obviously talking to someone off camera. He had eye contact with that other
person. In the silence segment, he is looking at the ceiling, then he
turns and looks up to his left a gasp of air is taken which looks like he
is about to say something but doesn't.
I originally thought that this was video of Dawkins watching them set up
equipment. But no one suggested that so I my impression was wrong.
I just looked at it again. Maybe he was mad. Not knowing him I couldn't
say. On the first viewing it didn't strike me as an expression of anger,
but it could be interpreted that way, which would be consistent with
Dawkins version.
>IMHO, the only way his answer might be
>considered unresponsive is if one were to key in on what
>seems to me to be an oddity in the way the question was
>phrased: "...can be seen to...". I would like to suggest this is
>a possible (partial) explanation for the long pause.
I say
>partial because Dawkins indication in his e-mail that he was
>considering terminating the interview seems also to be
>a possible explanation, but perhaps something else was
>going through his mind closely related to the possibility of
>closing the interview. Once again we are taking into account
>here the context of what Dawkins has already said about
>information and complexity. After having said that he gets
>the same question again. Perhaps the interviewer failed to
>understand the question, why? Ah, perhaps its on account
>of the phrase "...can be seen to...", perhaps the
>interviewer suffers from this common misunderstanding
>of evolution wherein they expect to be able to look around
>the world and see our ancestors. They expect to be able to
>see the intermediates between fish and reptiles that would
>enable them to see how the process of evolution has resulted
>in an increase in information.
This is certainly within the range of possibility. But I can't read minds
and don't know many who can. But, once again I wish I could understand how
one could not remember wanting to throw a scoundrel out of your house. As I
noted earlier, Carl Baugh sent a man with a tape to meet with me. I chose
to meet him at a restaurant but still wanted to throw him out of the
restaurant. That was in the early 80s and I still remember it.
>
>Yes, I know this is speculation, but my point is that, given
>the context, Dawkins response may not be as unresponsive
>as it seems at first. But context is exactly what's missing on
>the video.
Which is why I chided Brown for the doctoring job. It removes context, it
removes credibility--even if this is standard video practice.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm