Update on Chicago Dawkins event

August 17, 2013 • 4:43 am

As I mentioned yesterday, Richard Dawkins will be in Chicago on October 3 to talk about his new autobiography and answer questions from the audience. I’ll be interviewing him onstage before the Q&A.

The announcement has been updated on the Dawkins site, and it now appears that there is a modest admission fee; details are below, and check back at the Foundation’s website for updates on how to reserve tickets.

Here are the details to date:

FALL BOOK TOUR 2013- Northwestern University (with Jerry Coyne)

Pick Staiger Concert Hall
633 Clark St.
Evanston , Illinois 60637 , United States
Tickets will go on sale on Sept 20th.

Students: $5 | General Admission: $10 [I’m not sure if they mean only Northwestern students]

Click here to sign-up for tour updates via email.

Thu Oct 03 at 07:00PM to 09:00PM CDT (GMT -0500)

15 thoughts on “Update on Chicago Dawkins event”

    1. I have no idea. Given that tickets go on sale on September 20, I assume there will be some way to reserve them in advance. Watch the site, as I’ll be out of the country for two weeks starting Sept. 3.

      1. The trip is a bit out of my price range atm. Fingers crossed that some kind soul will record it and upload it.

  2. Meh. Saw him in Seattle; was very underwhelmed. He came across as arrogant and impatient. I’d spend my money elsewhere.

    1. I’m sure your seat will be filled by some appreciative soul…

      Ten dollars is cheap, it’s $25 when he tours the Bay Area (that’s SF for you folks who don’t live here). Plus in Chicago, you get Professor Coyne as a bonus. Good deal. I’d love to get my copy of WEIT signed.

  3. I will be unable to attend, but I wish someone would ask him the question I posed here some time ago after he replied in the affirmative to my question about whether or not species “advance” (improve, get better, progress, etc.) through evolution.
    Is Homo sapiens a superior species to, for example, Homo neanderthalensis?

    1. Suppose that we don’t can restrain global warming and Earth ends up as something like Venus with a sterilized surface, how superior were we then compared with Homo neanderthalensis? How do you define ‘superior’?

      1. I want to know how Dawkins defines superior (advanced, progressed, etc.). Conversely, I would like to know how he defines “primitive.”

        1. This debate always strikes me as political correctness invading biology. The terms as they used to be commonly used had no pejorative implications, merely recognizing simpler organisms from more complex ones. (I suppose those terms are hot-button too, now.)

          1. They are still used and still cause confusion. I agree with you about simpler and more complex, but the elephant in the room is “what is required for complexity?”

            Many people do believe that Homo sapiens is superior to H. neanderthalensis and consider the latter to be “primitive.” Just pick a few people on the street and ask them.

            Which terms would cause less confusion?

          2. First of all, are you really sure Dawkins uses the word “superior,” or are you just substituting a more values-loaded word for “advanced?”

            And secondly, why use your example in particular rather than, oh, say, a paramecium and an elk?

            This is like throwing out the species concept because it’s hard to draw lines in some current taxon. Biology is not always cut-and-dried, but certain terms have to be decided upon for knowledge to advance. (If you’ll pardon the verb.)

          3. Nope. I don’t recall saying that he did. I just asked the question.

            The question reflects the impression that most people have about evolution–that species “improve” with time. Feel free to use any terms you like or any comparison you like, even, say, Treponema pallidum and Homo sapiens, but the impression that most people have is that they are at the top of the evolutionary “ladder” and everything else is beneath them. I believe that art has had a lot to do with this, such as the “March of Progress” drawing in the Time-Life book from 1965 on human evolution depicting “modern” humans at the head of the parade of hunched over critters, a fully erect, bipedal, “pure” white (Aryan?) male. An “improvement” on the rest? Most people still presume that to be true. Attenborough used the term “advanced” with respect to trilobites.

            You can check my original question and Dawkins’ response and the follow-up at https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/david-attenborough-on-desert-island-discs/

            I’d be delighted to hear of terms that more accurately describe what happens as a result of evolution. Adaptation suits me, but that’s not the same as “improvement.” Or is it?

          4. This seems to be your pet cause, but it’s certainly not original. While I don’t really doubt your contention, I do doubt you have actual data on just what “most people” believe. And what does it matter anyway? There are already great data showing that “most people” don’t “believe” in evolution at all. Dawkins has certainly done more to address that knowledge gap than the vast majority of “most people.”

            It still sounds to me as if you’re trying to drag Dawkins into your personal fixation when he’s already answered you. Scientists certainly don’t hold that “[humans] are at the top of the evolutionary ladder and everything else is beneath them,” nor do intelligent nonscientists. Quit quibbling over semantics with those who are already addressing the situation, and go out there and address the problem yourself.

  5. I would be so happy to be there and to bring my copy of his book I bought that my child has enjoyed so much. I came to this site to learn more to be a better parent in guiding my child in life. I found help here, I hope to see both speakers in my hometown.

Comments are closed.