For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

Those 10,000 clergy are not leaders, giants even, in the field of evolutionary sciences. If you cannot see the difference, that's your business jar, but it's still pretty obvious.

jar, the problem is with the biased and non-objective thinking of the originators and leaders in evolution.

the problem is with the biased and non-objective thinking of the originators and leaders in evolution.

Now, mind you, they have done some great things such as Watson's work in genetics which he received a nobel prize for, but note how Wilson says at one point that he knows no serious scientists that hold to religious belief. He says that right after Watson says he knows of only one. They both though show that they are referring to one very prominent Christian scientist (whom I believe heads up the human genome project).

Great to have you. Let me just start - tell me, put Darwin in perspective for all of us. When you think of the great scientific and intellectual contributions to the humankind, what was the achievement of Charles Darwin?EDWARD O. WILSON: The achievement was not to present the idea of evolution, but to present the idea of evolution by random genetic change that was then sorted out by natural selection, by the environment. Hence, the origin of diversity of life as we know it on Earth by autonomy, by --you know, independent of any outside force. And this then put humanity in a wholly different light, namely as potentially having arisen by this, you know, uncontrolled or un-designed process on our own on this planet, independently.CHARLIE ROSE: Jim?JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: What would you add or detract from that?JAMES D. WATSON: No, I can`t detract.CHARLIE ROSE: No?JAMES D. WATSON: No. That there was no designer.EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: There was no designer. There was no creator.EDWARD O. WILSON: Well, let me - let me at this point pay my colleague a compliment. I don`t pay compliments like this casually, but it will also help put it in perspective, and I think, you know, every - every era has landmarks. And I would suggest that 500 years from now, 1,000 years from now, there will be two landmarks in the origin of the - of biology, modern biology. One would be "The Origin of Species," 1859.CHARLIE ROSE: The publication of Charles Darwin`s book.EDWARD O. WILSON: And the other one would be the 1953 paper showing the structure of DNA by - by Watson and Crick.CHARLIE ROSE: That`s ...JAMES D. WATSON: It doesn`t seem modest, but I would add a third, which is Mendel in 1865.EDWARD O. WILSON: I disagree. Well, we won`t -- let`s not go into this, but ...CHARLIE ROSE: No, I`d love to hear this. You disagree with Mendel`s ...EDWARD O. WILSON: A truly - a remarkable -- but what it did, Jim, inform me if it`s wrong -- he established particulate heredity and showed us how to analyze it, but what was finally achieved -- and I know you`re modest enough to say that it was built upon the gradual rising platform of basic information -- was to show that - that heredity, the key to life, really has an explicit and relatively simple and analyzable molecular basis.JAMES D. WATSON: Well, it was -- discreetness of the gene. And I think just that way of thinking, which Darwin didn`t have at his disposal ...EDWARD O. WILSON: That`s right.JAMES D. WATSON: ... was an enormous step forward.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: ... so, I would really say Darwin and Mendel, but if you want to say who was more important, I would agree Darwin. But I`d put Mendel up there.CHARLIE ROSE: OK.EDWARD O. WILSON: OK.CHARLIE ROSE: I understand why you would put him there and why you - why you wouldn`t, and why you would. Let me just articulate for the audience the discovery of the structure of the DNA and that paper confirmed and gave what to Darwin`s theory, Jim?JAMES D. WATSON: Well ...CHARLIE ROSE: Immodestly.JAMES D. WATSON: It gave the unit on which evolution acts, and what -- what genetic information is, which was a collection of nucleotide base pairs, a large number of them. So, our discovery essentially told people how genetic information is stored and how it`s copied. I mean, that was our proposal.CHARLIE ROSE: And the essence of what Darwin had said was that, you know, in the origin of the species, it is passed from the fittest, from generation to generation, without having any understanding ...JAMES D. WATSON: I -I ...CHARLIE ROSE: ... of genes or DNA or anything else.JAMES D. WATSON: Yes, that`s why, you know, I mentioned Mendel was pretty important ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: ... because he - it - it wasn`t blending. It was discreet.EDWARD O. WILSON: Actually, Darwin -- the one place he fumbled, that is, he couldn`t really come up with anything following, was in heredity, it`s true. He ...CHARLIE ROSE: He didn`t understand the - he understood that it did have happened, but he didn`t know quite why.EDWARD O. WILSON: Oh, he didn`t have -- you know, he didn`t even have Mendel to look to.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: But I -- you know, let me put it this way. I don`t want to start going off in -- on a tangent. But it is relevant to this. The way I see it is that modern biology now has pretty well established two laws. Think, you know, at the level you could almost call laws, they`re basic, well established principles for which there is no known exception.The first is that all organic process, all living process and - and elements are - are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. Now, that was an extremely important step, you know, to finally get established that we could start testing it.The second law is that all living systems and process evolved by natural selection. And that in a nutshell is modern biology. Jim can disagree if he wants to.JAMES D. WATSON: No, no - I ...EDWARD O. WILSON: But that`s the way I see it.JAMES D. WATSON: No.EDWARD O. WILSON: That`s -- I think if we were to teach biology from the top down, starting with those two laws, we would have -- and show what the evidence is and what it`s created, we would have a lot less problems with controversies over biology.CHARLIE ROSE: You mean in terms of what we have -- what controversies are you speaking to?EDWARD O. WILSON: Well, specifically on the right, so - so to speak, a disbelief that evolution even occurs or that it must be guided by God.CHARLIE ROSE: Did I see a poll - I think in an article in "Newsweek" magazine, which wrote about the real Darwin. There he is. That 80 percent of people in America believe in creationism or believe that -- in the Bible`s theory, or ...EDWARD O. WILSON: You`re close. That`s 85 -- well, it`s 51 percent, CNN poll of about three weeks ago, 51 percent of Americans say evolution never occurred; 34 percent said evolution occurred but God guided it. And 15 percent said, well, I guess science is right about it.JAMES D. WATSON: I think - it`s -- maybe 85 percent of it haven`t thought about it at all.EDWARD O. WILSON: I think that`s probably the problem.JAMES D. WATSON: It`s a sort of an off-the-cuff response.EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: I don`t think it means much -- it`s not ...CHARLIE ROSE: What people believe or the - or the way it`s expressed?JAMES D. WATSON: That the worlds are so different that they`re making a remark without any knowledge. And it`s not as if they have seen Darwin`s evidence rejected. It`s just a different world.EDWARD O. WILSON: You know, that`s true. It`s an interesting expression of ...JAMES D. WATSON: Of ignorance.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... overwhelming desire to believe the religion that does not include this idea.CHARLIE ROSE: Let me - let me lay into the scientific and - and Biblical conflict here. Both of you as scientists believe deeply in the law of science and the fact of science, that there`s no way you can reconcile a divine creator and the implications of Darwin`s theory of evolution, yes? And Darwin understood that too because of what he said at the time that he wrote.JAMES D. WATSON: I think, you know, anyone who, you know, a divine thing which interferes with DNA-based evolution, I don`t believe it at all. That`s - yes.CHARLIE ROSE: And Darwin understood it too, didn`t he?EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes, I think so. I ...CHARLIE ROSE: Because he had actually once thought about a religious life.JAMES D. WATSON: Well, everyone, that was your way of living.CHARLIE ROSE: Well, he thought about being in - in the priesthood almost or ...EDWARD O. WILSON: Well, he was sort of -- he was sort of maneuvered into it because there wasn`t anything left for him to do ...JAMES D. WATSON: Yes, he was ...EDWARD O. WILSON: ... after he had left medicine.JAMES D. WATSON: Yes, he didn`t want to be a doctor. And what else was...EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: ... gave you a good living, as he said?EDWARD O. WILSON: And so, but he converted -- I think it was during the voyage of the Beagle.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, this was what - 1831, or ...EDWARD O. WILSON: In `31 to `36.CHARLIE ROSE: `31.EDWARD O. WILSON: Yeah.

EDWARD O. WILSON: You`re close. That`s 85 -- well, it`s 51 percent, CNN poll of about three weeks ago, 51 percent of Americans say evolution never occurred; 34 percent said evolution occurred but God guided it. And 15 percent said, well, I guess science is right about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Tell me about that voyage and what it did because ...EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: ... there is where he had the observation that gave rise to his theory.EDWARD O. WILSON: Yeah. Well, he -- I`ll try to be brief. The voyage of the Beagle was an epic voyage. It was around the world. And it was conducted at a time when biologists were just beginning to explore biological diversity and also studying the fundamentals of geology. And young Darwin was thrown into this opportunity, and he had all that leisure time to - to study and to observe.He changed from an ardent Christian believer during that voyage to most of the way out -- not because he was discovering evolution. He really didn`t figure that out until after the voyage.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: He was doing it because, as he said, if the Bible is correct -- and it says right there that those who do not - not believe in - you know, in salvation by Jesus or - or obedience, and the Old Testament says, will go to hell. And he said, if that`s true, my brother and most of my friends are doomed forever. And he said, and that is a damnable doctrine. Now, so he certainly rejected it.But anyway, I meant -- I must finish your question quickly. He accumulated an immense amount of information up here.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, as well as shipped stuff back to ...EDWARD O. WILSON: And when he came back, he had his notebooks full, but he also had all these impressions and all of them fit evolution. So ...CHARLIE ROSE: And what kind of impressions did he have? What had he seen that was so compelling for him?EDWARD O. WILSON: He saw a number of things, which are, you know, well exhibited in the Darwin exhibition.CHARLIE ROSE: Which we`ll talk about ...EDWARD O. WILSON: You know, we can talk about that.CHARLIE ROSE: We can talk about that later.EDWARD O. WILSON: But what he saw were things like when - when you find a certain kind of a species, like a rhea, common rhea, the big ostrich-like bird in one place, and you go down the coast, it`s typical to find another species very close to that. As though, you know, one -- they evolved from some common stuff.He observed fossils from a bygone era, which were all extinct, but they still - they resembled the modern forms that live there, as though there had been ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... some evolution or change in that direction. And then he had pointed out to him after he got back to England, but he -- then he realized that this is true -- was that the same species in places like the Galapagos differ and are differentiated into races.And all those things came together. Now, he only needed one more piece. And that was how it happens. He believe -- came to believe in evolution. But now how did it happen? He got that pretty well figured it out by the 1840s.CHARLIE ROSE: OK, but then, even then he didn`t write until 1859, didn`t publish until 1859. Why did he - what was ...EDWARD O. WILSON: `58 when he wrote his first essay ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... with Wallace.CHARLIE ROSE: But if he had it figured out by 1840s, why didn`t he write until 1859?JAMES D. WATSON: Well, I guess conventional saying is that he didn`t want to upset his wife. That`s right.EDWARD O. WILSON: Basically.JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: He wouldn`t upset his wife? Why - why would she be upset?JAMES D. WATSON: Because she wanted God ...CHARLIE ROSE: And she was a religious person.JAMES D. WATSON: Yes, she was a -- and Darwin knew that this was a very explosive idea.EDWARD O. WILSON: It would humiliate -- it would embarrass his family, and it would also mean that he might lose his position in that country aristocracy he belonged to. So, that`s - was -- I think historians agree that this was the reason why he worked and worked and he piled up more and more of these -- more and more evidence. And he was aiming toward a huge book.CHARLIE ROSE: Right. And it -- but some people will argue that it got -- now, two things I want to say. Whether this is in your book and you believe this is fact or fiction -- these are both anthologies -- do you believe that he accelerated his process because he believed there was somebody else who was going to write a book that would - that would steal some of the thunder?JAMES D. WATSON: No, I think - no, without a doubt.EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: If Wallace ...EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: ... this sort of scared him, you know. He had this idea, and suddenly someone else had it who was going to publish before him unless he did something.CHARLIE ROSE: Right.JAMES D. WATSON: So he had to work fast.CHARLIE ROSE: How have people come to reconcile religion and evolution?JAMES D. WATSON: Well, I think it`s - you`ve got to define religion. If it`s a personal god who interferes with our lives and listens to our prayers and aware of our existence, I really -- I can only mention one person that I know who believes that, who`s a serious scientist. Once you see ...CHARLIE ROSE: Only one serious scientist you know believes there is a personal god who listens to our prayers?JAMES D. WATSON: Yeah. That`s about it.EDWARD O. WILSON: I don`t know a one.JAMES D. WATSON: Well, you know...CHARLIE ROSE: This is -- I don`t know who you`re talking about.JAMES D. WATSON: Francis Collins.EDWARD O. WILSON: Well, I guess I know him, yes.CHARLIE ROSE: Francis Collins.EDWARD O. WILSON: Collins, yes.CHARLIE ROSE: He is often - Francis Collins is often quoted...JAMES D. WATSON: Yes. But I really don`t know anyone else. And I - I think when you -- now that we`ve carried it forth, where we actually can look at DNA and see what it`s like in a chimpanzee, and you see all these things ...CHARLIE ROSE: And ...JAMES D. WATSON: ... the thought of anyone interfering, oh, boy. It just - it seems whacko.CHARLIE ROSE: What did Darwin say about these ideas of intelligent design? Because he anticipated arguments, did he?EDWARD O. WILSON: Not that I know of.JAMES D. WATSON: No, I don`t think so.EDWARD O. WILSON: No, he wasn`t thinking of that.JAMES D. WATSON: You know ...CHARLIE ROSE: He must have been thinking about the controversy?JAMES D. WATSON: No, it now sort of only has come up, you know, after we have DNA and can see what`s happening, and people say, well, you know, evolution couldn`t have come up with the bacterial flagellum. Well, to me that`s actually rather an easy thing to come up.EDWARD O. WILSON: And the eye - the eye is another ...JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... one offered that I think it was -- we had already saw that before even -- even before on the (INAUDIBLE).JAMES D. WATSON: So, it`s more or less saying you can`t explain it. And, you know, until DNA came along and we saw that ...EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: ... people would say, well, you can never explain heredity on the basis of physics and chemistry. Now, I think that was the big emotional thing when we got the DNA structure. Heredity was now explainable in terms of physics and chemistry.EDWARD O. WILSON: I was there. I was a graduate student. And I remember the scales going off my eyes ...CHARLIE ROSE: Do you really?EDWARD O. WILSON: ... as a graduate student. Yes, when -- I was at Harvard as a graduate student ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, right, right, right.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... listening to talk - Carter (ph) talk about, how, well, we`re going to be -- hundreds of - 100 years, anyway, before we finally untangle this immensely complex code of proteins and so on. And - and we don`t know where that is going to lead us and so on. And here came, bang, DNA structure - replicable. So, let`s not get into that.JAMES D. WATSON: No, but ...EDWARD O. WILSON: The point is that - that this was an immense ...JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... made a huge difference in how you viewed possible divine intervention.JAMES D. WATSON: But in my childhood, my father was an unbeliever. And, you know, very early on, and Darwin was ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: ... talked about in our family. So I was raised as a Darwinian. And I`ve never seen the need for anything, what is -- and Darwin gets better and better. Now that you ...EDWARD O. WILSON: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: You can read him and you could - now ...EDWARD O. WILSON: It does ...JAMES D. WATSON: There are things that Darwin really couldn`t understand.EDWARD O. WILSON: But this guy could come into one of our seminars and take on immediately ...CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: ... I think a lot of the - a lot of the material.JAMES D. WATSON: And - but, you know, Darwin really cared for people. I think there`s the sort of idea we only care for ideas and we really aren`t people.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.JAMES D. WATSON: It`s about as false as it can come.CHARLIE ROSE: Why is it that the phenomenon of rejecting Darwin -- however large it is in America, Jim, however large or small it is -- is more pronounced in America than anywhere else?EDWARD O. WILSON: We`re a frontier country.CHARLIE ROSE: A frontier country?EDWARD O. WILSON: Yeah. That`s my interpretation.CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think?JAMES D. WATSON: I (INAUDIBLE).EDWARD O. WILSON: OK, let me - let me just say a word further, and then let Jim respond. This is just my personal conception. It`s that when we -- you know, we`re still a frontier country. We - we still have people around who live -- or at least have parents who were frontier people. And we came -- when we came, our forbearers, no matter when they came over, but they came over from a structured, hierarchical society, in which everything was set for them, and if you had questions of morality, belief and so on, you just went down to the nearest cathedral and everything was pretty much in order.We came -- they came to this country, and they didn`t have that. They had to form tight communities to survive. And in order to do that, they have to have -- had to have a moral system, a belief system, and they - they had to have an authority. And that authority came from holy scripture.CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.EDWARD O. WILSON: And that`s why they became literalists, many of them.JAMES D. WATSON: Well, I think people -- there`s something in our brain that wants to understand things. And human beings 3,000 years ago wanted to understand things and so - and to have rules. And so, I think developing religions was a very natural thing to do.Now, for those of us who are trained in science, everything seems much simpler without God. And you know, you don`t have to worry about why did God let a child be born autistic.CHARLIE ROSE: It is said that what Darwin did is that it - it helped human beings -- remember, this was published in 1859 -- understand their place in nature.JAMES D. WATSON: Yeah.CHARLIE ROSE: That`s obvious.JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: We got it ...JAMES D. WATSON: Yes.CHARLIE ROSE: ... in terms of -- now, is "The Origin of the Species" more important than "The Descent of Man?"JAMES D. WATSON: Well, right now "The Descent of Man" interests me more, because, I - you know ...CHARLIE ROSE: Explain the difference in the two, Jim, I mean, for an audience here ...JAMES D. WATSON: Well, one...