Classroom Media
http://classroommedia.com/ddi.html
A single great idea: The Theory of Natural Selection. With it, Charles Darwin shattered existing notions of the natural world by demonstrating how complexity could arise as a result of a blind and mechanistic sorting process, without an “intelligent designer”. Now, join Daniel Dennett as he illuminates the radical nature of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
Source
I remember about the shift in 1967 because my dad bought a Volvo that year and had it shipped to Japan which had and has left hand driving.
I am not sure what the Sweden example has to do with anything. It was no great or dangerous idea of the Swedes to change. The whole of Europe had been driving on the 'right' side for more than 50 years. Except GB, but the tunnel had not been built yet.
So for the Swedes it was a benefit to change. From any standpoint, driving on the left side of the street is not more justified or right than driving on the right side. One just chooses the side on which the majority drives, because that transition is a lot easier than trying to get everyone else to change.
What darwinists wanted, and still want, is the exact oposite, to have everyone drive the way they do, But there are no roads in science, one does not have to belive in one view out of two possible. Science is not a simple true or false question, and it is not a choice between A and B.
Most importantly science is not about truth, and it is not about choosing the right explanation. Science is about finding explanations that best fits observations. Sceince is not true or false, like mathematics or logic, it is just a collection of explanations that seem to describe natue as good as we are able to, at a given time.
Darwin's idea originally found no major opponents. Many in the Church already found it probable that life might have evolved somewhat. The problems started when his Ideas were shown to be in contradiction to scripture. That was when the Church reacted and started to opose darwinism.
It is today little reason to doubt that social darwinism and much of the tragic history of the Western world in the period from 1870 till 1945, cannot be explained in full without including the impact Darwin's ideas had on society, and people's view on their role in nature and amongst eachother. That is one of the reasons Darwins ideas were and still are dangerous: there is no distinction between human beings and other animals in darwinism.
So therefore human beings are animals, and are a cause of an evolution that by happenstance created them as they are. This releases humans from moral responsibility, and places us in the animal kingdom, as such, with no special role or God-given purpose.
This is dangerous because we do know that human beings are something completely different from other animals. We are unique. A frog cannot destroy the world, it cannot invent the H-bomb. A frog can not be held responsible for environmental damages, and it can not be prosecuted for murder. It makes no sense to discuss with a frog the idea of life on other planets. Frogs do not have science, they do not play music. They cannot understand differential equations,and they cannot derive the 'laws' of optics. A frog could not have come up with the idea of ecolution, it could not invent the electron microscope.
So there are fundamental differences between animals and humans. If we start to indulge in the idea that we are mere animals, we should know by ourselves, intuitively, that this is not at all the full truth, or even the best explanation we have come up with, that is: Human beings do not fit Darwin's formula. They did not fit in 1859, and they still don't.
That is maybe the main reason why the Church and many others came to opose the ideas of Charles Darwin so much as they did. That is why so many of us could and still can not drive on the same side of the road as the darwinists.
The skeptics followed a very good rule of science: If an idea does not adhere with observation, with experiment or with experience, maybe it is not such a good idea in the first place?
So if darwinism fails to explain human beings, which we are, and as such are a subject matter each and every one of us are most aquainted with, why believe in it in the first place?
This philosopher talks in a present tense over something that was disturbing 150 years ago. He does not tell whether he is against Darwin’s discovery (not a IDEA) or not.
Totalitarianism compared to traffic regulations… well I would say Dennet is more dangerous then Darwin.
What's the idea?
We lost a great teacher today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
RIP
DDD is a great book. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology, that and genetics. Origin of Species is good but i like The Descent of Man better. Excellent example of a guy who did his research, includes footnotes.