menu Home chevron_right
PHILOSOPHY

Evolution, Genes, and Atheism – Richard Dawkins’ Final Tour

Alex O'Connor | October 12, 2025



For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: https://www.alexoconnor.com

To donate to my PayPal (thank you): http://www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic

– VIDEO NOTES

During his final tour, Richard Dawkins joined me for a thought-provoking discussion at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles on September 28th. We discussed a range of topics, including his latest work, The Genetic Book of the Dead, as well as his views on religious studies and evolution. The conversation concluded up with an engaging Q&A session.
The original video is available on The Poetry of Reality’s YouTube channel: @poetryofreality

– LINKS

Buy The Genetic Book of the Dead: https://amzn.to/426QYYc

– TIMESTAMPS

0:00 Introduction
2:13 Alex and Richard in Conversation
1:01:26 Audience Q&A

– CONNECT

My Website: https://www.alexoconnor.com

SOCIAL LINKS:

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/cosmicskeptic
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cosmicskeptic
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic

The Within Reason Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/within-reason/id1458675168

– CONTACT

Business email: contact@alexoconnor.com

——————————————

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , .

Written by Alex O'Connor

Comments

This post currently has 47 comments.

  2. @davidberry791

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    final tour you say WRONG his final tour will be upstairs facing our wonderful triune God , groveling for forgiveness , you still have time richard dont wait until its to late , pass the message on to alex as well please

  3. @ALavin-en1kr

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Another point, RD is still focused on the material; matter; the elements. The four beasts of the Apocalypse (lived life, not end times) were Motion; Time; Space; and the Atom. RD focuses on the atom, which is all right if considering biology only but not if considering the nature of reality. Now atheist disciplines are attaching the august word Philosophy to what they do, so now the elements; matter has a philosophy? It likely cannot get any more ludicrous but it can, as trans humanism is up next. The Church will defeat it as it did The Dark Occult before The Age of Reason and Communism in modern times.

  4. @IvanTheSociopath

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    I absolutely love how you let Richard get his entire point off. You let him talk until he feels he answered the question. That's amazing host work. The urge for so many people to butt in either either another question or there own ideas or beliefs seems to be far more prominent in decisions like this. So to be able to hear his entire answers was greatly appreciated I believe. Thank you.

  10. @Nh-bc6wj

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Sadly all nonsense. As a man person that values science you cannot intellectualize spirituality. Once you feel the oppression from low beings and the overwhelming love and peace of Jesus Christ you
    Just don’t have a choice but to believe.

  11. @mygraduatetutor

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Darwin solved what?

    The premise that Darwin solved the design and LIFE itself – the big one, is utter blind faith on Darwin's primitive understanding of science. In Darwin's time, people have limited understanding of cells yet and now this clown Dawkins dare say that Darwin solved the mystery of life? Discovering scientific laws only point to God's existence. Discovering the beauty of how cells work, how DNA is so complicated and how the information gets stored, replicated and used to self-heal and repair cells and broken tissues points to an intelligent designer and these are not yet understood in Darwin's time.

    So one more time, Darwin solved what? He thought he did but he solved exactly nothing.

    I only see two clowns talking here. The one on the left says he understands Dawkins claim on Darwin as 'Darwin solved the complexity of blah blah' when in fact Dawkins is saying 'Darwin solved the design' alluding to how simple celled organism can evolve to higher forms of life, and not by God's creation.

    Modern scientists today are amazed at how advanced, complex, sophisticated the workings inside the nucleus of cells are that concluding these (material and the information) go about by random chance is truly a mathematical impossibility and hence call to the conclusion that an intelligent design is inevitable.

    Then the quest of how life began is another thing. These clowns and all the 'little learning is dangerous' type of scientists who claim to know they are or were close to figuring how life came to be, and by the way they have been claiming these since the past century, is still struggling to know and now that they are old they simply replace their failure to understand with blind hope on their methodology.

    Put it another way. Suppose someone claims that they figure out how life of ONE CELL came to be and that God is not a part of that. Then he can show that in an experiment. He could make one living cell given all the life-conducive environment we have right now. I mean if the primitive earth was able to produce life, surely it can be done now. Now the next problem is how the information gets used within a cell in a molecular level, and then how the information is passed from one cell to another, just as it does when repairing broken tissues, then from organ to another organ just as how brain controls your hand, then from one organism to another just as in ecosystem.

    Now all these complexities points to supremely intelligent designer – God.

    Now let's get to the argument that the universe is immensely vast and immensely old that it is possible that there is life elsewhere at sometime given that the materials needed for life on Earth (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) are also abundant in the universe.

    The problem here is their math. The universe according to their estimates is 13.5B years old, which is 4.3 x 10^17 seconds and has a diameter of 92B light years, which is 3 x 10^18 light-sec. At 300,000 km/sec, this is 3x 10^26 meters. A small cell is 0.1 micro meter hence we could fit (3 x 10^26) x 10^17 = 3 x 10^43 cells in the length of the universe. We can say that there are 9 x 10^ 86 cells in the area occupied by the universe. If we say we have one chance to develop a living cell per millisecond, then we would have (9×10^89)(4.3×10^20) = 9 x 10^109, or say 10^110 chances since big bang.

    Now, a modest short protein in a DNA of 150 amino acids long and each site has 20 possible amino acids would have 20^150 possibilities. This is 10^195 possibilities in each of that short chain of 150 amino acids and clearly this is much much bigger than 10^109.

    So even if we argue that in every millisecond, there is a chance for life (even just a viable functional protein of 150 amino acids long) to happen anywhere in the universe and this happens with probability 10^109 / 10^195 = 1/10^86. Now look, the chance of this randomly happening is so small, and that calls for an intelligent designer.

  18. @Ata.RMusic

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Isn't aquagenic wrinkling another subtle sign of evolution? It’s not just skin soaking up water; it’s a neurologically controlled response that likely helped our ancestors grip wet surfaces better. Evolution leaves traces everywhere, even on our fingertips.

  21. @BojanglesBonanno55

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Id argue back countering the atheist viewpoint but i cannot be so selfish as to deny myself the humility i have expressing grief for others like those killed in horrific tragedies such as 911

  25. @ballistic32

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Sad to see Dawkins devolve from a brilliant evolutionary biologist asking the tough questions to nothing more than a right wing grifter riding the islamophobia wagon and a part time internet atheist on X.

  26. @DocReasonable

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    If the Bible/Quran's true, then there's no such thing as science — we live in a world where supernatural magic is behind everything and literally anything can happen with no natural laws or controls.

  27. @BanditBandit-q5x

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Randomness is by definition unquantifiable ! It is factually a non explanation yet the foundational catalyst for evolutionary theory is " random mutations"😂😂😂 i mean the scam is on the front page of the theory for all to see!

  29. @TrevorLee-x2f

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    You know, it’s not just Christians who find Richard Dawkins off the mark. Even fellow atheists and agnostics have pushed back against his narrow view of religion. People like historian Tom Holland, for example, argue that Christianity shaped Western morality far more deeply than Dawkins admits. And philosopher Michael Ruse—who isn’t religious—once said Dawkins makes atheists look intellectually lazy. Sociologist Elaine Ecklund found that many scientists think he misrepresents both science and faith.

    Then there’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who turned from New Atheism to Christianity, precisely because secularism lacked moral grounding. Even feminist atheist Ashley Miller called out Dawkins for dehumanizing religious believers instead of engaging with ideas.

    It turns out being clever doesn’t mean you’re always right. Sometimes humility opens more doors than pride ever could.”

  30. @yusuf8938

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Christianity is just as bad as Islam as extremism goes. We just don't label them as "Christian" when they shoot up a school or are serial rapists.

    I agree they don't always use their religion as a backbone but that has more to do with extreme government than an extreme religion.

  32. @estellesstories7467

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Alex is a worthy rhetorical protégé to Dawkins.

    Wonderful to see the next generation of rationalists emerge.

    Dawkins will forever be a rationalist giant and intellectual pillar in evolution alongside Darwin.

  41. @astarothnyarlathotep3815

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    My theory would include areas of high grass, white stone, and water in a sunny landscape. One less suited for the the conditions of today, but perfect for that sort of enviroment. Although that is ofc just guesswork, based on just an inkling of understanding of evolution.

  44. @Andrew-p3f1u

    October 12, 2025 at 12:45 pm

    Hey Richard. Read locke, Berkeley and hume again. Berkeley fucking amazed me when i was young. His principals and his three dialogues. Berkely was on my mind for so long. Not just hume. Think about it❤

Comments are closed.

Related
What Is Nostalgia & Why Is It So Important?
Pursuit of Wonder | April 17, 2026
Related
Steven Pinker on Language | Big Think
Big Think | April 17, 2026
Related
4 Ways of Thinking About Abstract Objects – Philosophy Tube
Philosophy Tube | April 17, 2026

This area can contain widgets, menus, shortcodes and custom content. You can manage it from the Customizer, in the Second layer section.

 

 

 

Go to album
  • play_circle_filled

    92.9 : The Torch

  • play_circle_filled

    AGGRO
    'Til Deaf Do Us Part...

  • play_circle_filled

    SLACK!
    The Music That Made Gen-X

  • play_circle_filled

    KUDZU
    The Northwoods' Alt-Country & Americana

  • play_circle_filled

    BOOZHOO
    Indigenous Radio

  • play_circle_filled

    THE FLOW
    The Northwoods' Hip Hop and R&B

play_arrow skip_previous skip_next volume_down
playlist_play