Interview s R. Dawkinsem

Jan Hurych

NOTE: Sections marked by brackets ">" are from original letter by jansan, the rest is the response by Dawkins.

From:       Richard Dawkins[] 
Sent:       Thursday, January 09, 1997 2:47 AM
To:         Hurych, Jan
Subject:    Re: query

>Dear Mr. Dawkins,
>I am writing article on artificial life for enzine (AmberZine) in
>Prague, Czech Republic and in it, I am mentioning your work and
>achievements. It would be also nice if you can answer for our readers
>two questions I have written below:
>1) Considering your contributions to the theory of evolution, do you
>consider yourself a neo-darwinist or just darwinist?

Neo-Darwinist just means Darwinist plus Mendelian genetics.  In that
sense all contemporary Darwinists are Neo-Darwinists.  In another
sense, in homage to Darwin himself, we are all Darwinists.  I am happy to
call myself a Darwinist when comparing myself with non-Darwinists.  I am
also happy to call myself a Neo-Darwinist when comparing myself with my
nineteenth century forebears.
>2) Your famous computer program can create new generations of biomorphs
>without further need of external "designer". However, how do you explain
>the fact that even such program once needed it's own designer
>(programmer) and didn't just happen by accident?

The implication behind the question is too stupid to deserve an answer,
but I'll give it one anyway.  Nothing complicated and adaptive just
happens by accident.  They are always either DESIGNED (like computers and
computer programs) or they EVOLVE BY NATURAL SELECTION (like living
creatures).  The person who put the question to you obviously thinks that
Darwinists believe living things come about by accident.  Of course we
don't, that is the whole POINT of Darwinism.  Darwinism is a supremely
NONRANDOM process, but instead of being guided by a designer it is guided
by nonrandom natural selection.  The whole matter is fully discussed in
my books,The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.

Richard Dawkins

>You may notice that the last question is not entirely serious, but it
>was posed to me and I would be interested in your answer, anyway.
>Thank you for your time,
>Yours truly
>Jan B. Hurych