Very well spoken.

I liked him. My experience is that the best of christianity - those who walk the talk - essentially operate the same way. However, unfortunately, so many people focus too much on the "sub-angel" part of christianity (and in other religions as well) that they end up proving the point of those who wish all religion abolished.

Good clip..

kiva

I should of clarified: I mention "the best of christianity" because it is the tradition I know the most about...i don't know enough about the others to comment much..

kiva

I'm disappointed in you Norm. You left out more important bits; the crux of the interview was that science and religion should focus on getting along to fix the planet, not bickering. The segment immediately prior to this bit shows just such a cooperation, something that americans should focus intensely on, instead of bickering and fighting.

PS: I know it's poorly frased, I'm just really really tired.

I'm disappointed in you Norm.

I disappoint someone every day. Today it was your turn.

To P Almada:

I recommended this segment to Norm. I found the "semi-angel" description original and insightful. I suspect I'll be quoting it many times in the near future. Hopefully, the segment posted here will motivate others to view the entire interview. Norm was kind enough to include a link to the entire interview. Maybe others will follow the link and watch the segment that you found more enlightening. In any case, Norm helped widen the audience for the interview by posting this segment.

Thanks Norm.

@BruceInAustin, Norm: Great clip, I was definitely NOT disappointed.

Ed Wilson is a hero of Biology and the environment, in many ways with more real creds than Al G.

We are destroying the earth much faster than we can learn about it. And why shouldn't those of us who are in awe of all life itself as sacred form an alliance with those who envision a deity riding atop the same awesome sacredness?

"...The crux of the interview was that science and religion should focus on getting along to fix the planet, not bickering."

Religion and science cannot get along unless they completely ignore each other, because they are directly contradictory in many areas. Everyone knows that this will never happen, though, so religion must die.

As many of you already pointed out, religion and science cannot really coexist. This idea of coexistence is I think a sort of ruse on the part of religion. The religious leaders know that they cannot win on facts or knowledge, so they do a turnaround and ask "cant we all just get along", while all the while trying to find the sharpest stick to stick it science's eye. I hope/think that faith and science can get along with one another is some ways, but religion (organized religion based on dogma)can never coexist with science, because they are diametrically opposed points of view. Like oil and water, they are apart, even when in the same cup.

Edward O. Wilson is a great man. Did you know he's taught at Harvard for over 40 years? I watched a film of his "The Future of Life" lecture about biodiversity, and it was incredibly inspiring. Thanks so much for this clip. I was feeling down, and now I am up.

I disappoint someone every day. Today it was your turn.

I didn't mean it in the usual "Incredible how you can be so misguided, you disgusting liberal blogger" sort of way; I just hoped it included the previous bit. I thank you for posting the clip, I quite like E. O. Wilson and would've missed the interview.

And allow me to disagree with everyone here (my, my, aren't I ambitious?). Not about the fact that science and religion are mutually exclusive; but about how you didn't get Ed Wilson's point. He's trying to create a national forum for religion and science; the point being NOT to reconcile, but to put differences aside for a while. This, taking into consideration that bickering is only making the religious ignore the great threat of global warming and habitat destruction. THAT'S the point I think you should focus on at the moment. If you don't agree with me, just watch the whole interview, he's far more eloquent than me.

To cite him, if we don't get a grip on ourselves, by the end of the century half of all species will be gone. By the middle of the century, there will be no more drinking water. This is a certain path to destruction. Certainly philosophical and religious debates should be secondary to these very real, very practical issues?

I disappoint someone every day. Today it was your turn.

ha! you must be a family man. as morpheus said to neo, "i know EXACTLY what you mean."

ok, next time you can be morpheus. :)

in many ways with more real creds than Al G

Well...of course...EO Wilson is a scientist after all. But we do also need articulate spokespeople who can organize global concerts for global warming action. I would love a world where EO Wilson yielded such power, but we are not there yet.

As for the reconciling science and religion debate, I will venture that Wilson is thinking about immediate tasks at hand - like saving the planet from what looks like major destruction at our hands if we don't act very very soon. If we can get the religious folks on board with that coalition right now, maybe the other stuff (i.e. their insistence on telling us all what's right and wrong based on a book they read) will come out in the wash.

What I have just staed above is the basic idea behind all coalitions in one sense. Perhaps this idea of coalition building is a bit foreign to the bilateral politics here in the USA.

One final word on Wilson. For those interested, check out the last chapter in his book 'Consilience.' It is the most beautifully written defense of an environmentalist ethic that I have ever read. I always assign it to my environmental studies students in the last week of class, but I often think I can just give it to them in the first week and say 'class dismissed!'

Marriage or Matrix, let me see . . .

whenever you get error messages you should open a new browser window just to check if it went through anyway. It normally does.