His theory of evolution by natural selection

is one of the most profound and far-reaching ideas in human history.

It's also, alas, one of the most controversial.

Science now has the evidence that proves evolution is true.

Yet today, incredibly,

the opposition to Darwin is more fiercely vocal than ever -

denying plain facts in more and more elaborate ways.

You haven't seen it and I haven't seen it,

so please stop calling it science!

If we had gone from slime to human beings,

there'd be an overwhelming amount of evidence.

You are a teacher of science,

and you think that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Yes, I do.

In this programme, the increasingly aggressive backlash.

"Right now, your destiny is all (BLEEP) up. (BLEEP) atheist!"

The battles that I think really matter...

We can't get into the business of knocking down kids' religions

and the religions of families.

Why not, actually?

Because...

..and how the first man to understand evolution

himself wrestled with religious faith.

For Darwin, the problem was close to home -

his beloved wife was a devout Christian.

Today, we have public battles

as we confront the ranks of religious fundamentalists

eager to attack Darwin's great legacy,

which they just don't understand.

When I was a young boy, I looked to God to explain life.

And then I was introduced to Darwin and evolution by my father.

At first, I didn't get it.

It didn't seem possible to me that something so simple

could explain so much.

But then I learnt, thought about it a bit more

and then suddenly the penny dropped.

I really got it.

This incredibly simple theory

really was capable of explaining everything about life -

the beauty, the complexity, the diversity.

Then I thought, "Well, if science can explain something

"so apparently inexplicable as life,

"who knows what the limits might be

"on what science could explain more generally,

"without any recourse to the supernatural?"

At that moment, I became an atheist and I've never looked back.

Charles Darwin too changed his mind about this biggest of questions.

As a young man, during his voyage on the Beagle,

Darwin still believed that God

had created the world and everything in it.

But then he came across more and more evidence

that showed that life must have evolved.

Fossil ancestors, patterns of anatomical resemblance,

startling similarities in embryos

and the power of domestic breeding

all showed that life forms had changed over time.

Darwin believed there was an entirely natural explanation.

All animals vary, and in the competition of nature,

some variations are more successful

and more likely to reproduce than others,

passing their variation on.

Here in his study at Down House,

Darwin grasped that the religious story of creation

ran against the evidence of the natural world.

With evolution, God just wasn't part of the picture.

But there was a problem for Darwin. His wife, Emma, was religious

and the trouble began soon after they got married in 1839.

Emma wrote him a letter describing her deep faith.

But Darwin was no longer convinced there was a God.

He agonised over the letter and scribbled on it,

"When I am dead, know that many times

"I have kissed and cried over this."

Darwin never criticised religion directly in public.

I think he didn't want to hurt his wife's feelings.

Instead, he let his science do the talking.

He predicted science would bring about

a gradual illumination of minds.

Yet sadly today, it seems harder and harder for people to see the light.

Here, in the 21st century, people are retreating from reason,

trying to turn back the clock to a world before Darwin.

Genesis chapter one says everything that God made was very...?

None of you think kill or be killed, survival of the fittest,

nature red in tooth and claw is good.

Is the world really 6,000 years old?

D'you realise, up till Noah's day,

people lived to be nearly a thousand?

You don't die because you get old, you die because you're a sinner.

Up till Noah's day, there's no record of rain.

The Australian John Mackay

is a celebrity among evangelical Christians.

He's a creationist.

He believes in the literal truth of the Bible's creation story

and attacks evolution on the very crudest level.

I didn't grow up brainwashed with this.

It's the result of finishing my university course,

listening to students say,

"If evolution is true, why can't we see it happening?"

Third-year genetics question to the professor.

You take that seriously?

Oh, yeah! The professor, his answer,

I took even more seriously when he said,

"It happens so slowly you wouldn't expect to see it happening."

All of a sudden I thought, "Hang on!"

And that's true.

Good! In other words, what you don't see happening is not science,

it's unobservable, and you were the first person to admit it on PBS.

You're using the word "see"

as meaning "see within one lifetime".

If a phenomenon takes millions of years,

of course you won't see it.

Which means you have a faith position...

It does not mean...

..and you need to admit it, as you weren't there.

It means you use other evidence than the evidence of one man's eyes.

You have to look...

Oh, sorry, Darwin was only 1859.

That's only 150 years ago almost, right?

And you haven't seen it and I haven't seen it,

so please stop calling it science.

Call what you're teaching philosophy or atheism

if you're gonna really be honest, and my time is up.

That's ridiculous, but anyway... Thank you very much and bye.

The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd.

Think about it.

I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes,

but that doesn't mean Napoleon didn't exist.

'John Mackay can't see a cell or an atom

'or weather systems on the other side of the world.

'Does that mean they don't exist?'

Darwin didn't just trust his own eyes.

He checked his theory against evidence gathered

through extensive correspondence with naturalists across the world.

Mackay, it seems to me,

misunderstands science at a deep level.

Science is precisely not limited

by what we can see with our own eyes in one lifetime.

'The whole wonderful endeavour of science

'is to investigate phenomena beyond human experience,

'from far-off galaxies to microscopic bacteria.'

'from far-off galaxies to microscopic bacteria.'

'Creationism's next best strategy is not flat denial

'but to claim there is evidence against evolution

'and that a genuine debate is yet to be had.

'This is the creationists' favourite claim in America,

'where the battle between faith and science really rages.'

Charles Darwin's struggle with religion was private.

'Today, the battle has become public.

'In my lifetime, opposition to evolution has grown,

'particularly in the United States.'

50 years ago, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik

and the space race began.

In response, the Americans made science priority number one.

The Government poured money into science education.

For the first time,

evolution was taught in every classroom in America.

But the religious fundamentalists hit back.

Tell me, Joe, how does he explain away God?

Well, why don't you come to the science club meeting?

Let him tell you.

'To defend their Bible against the biologists,

'they developed creation science,

'a bizarre fusion of scientific language and religious doctrine

'that they touted as a real alternative to evolution.'

Our eyes are amazing little instruments.

But they're only one part of the wondrous body that God has given us.

'I worry that this is brainwashing, not science.

'And I've felt compelled to take a stand.'

'40th floor.'

'My book, The God Delusion, has put me firmly in the front line

'in the battle between religion and reason.'

Can I sign in? Richard Dawkins.

Hello.

I'm one of your biggest fans.

Can I speak to the number one British intellectual?

I've read all your books.

That's very kind. Thank you.

Can I touch the hem of your gown?

LAUGHTER

'The most powerful nation on Earth is polarised.

'At this conference of atheists, I'm treated almost like a rock star.

'But there are sections of American society

'that would happily lynch me.'

Are you religious at all? I mean, do you pray?

No, of course not.

You're not religious at all?

Do I look religious?

"I hope you die slowly and you (BLEEP) burn in hell,

"you damn blasphemy.

"And you should realise that your entire life has been a delusion

"and that right now your destiny is all (BLEEP) up. (BLEEP) atheist!

"Go (BLEEP) yourself. You, sir, are an absolute ass.

"Your feigned intelligence is nothing more

"than the fart of God.

"You suck. Go burn in hell.

"Satan will enjoy torturing you. Christian living for God."

"There is a God. Her created all of us.

"The only one who is blinded are the unsaved and stubborn.

"Everything Darwin said is wrong and evolution has never been proven

"and nothing is evolving now. The Bible is the best book.

"Nothing even comes close to its accuracy

"and if you think God's judgment is bad

"the devil has worse in store for all unbelievers."

No punctuation at all in that one.

'It doesn't scare me. I mean, I rather pity these people.'

They react in a way that sounds defensive

and, actually, really rather pathetic.

"Ha-ha, you (BLEEP) dumb-ass.

"I hope you get hit by a church van tonight and you die slowly."

(LAUGHS)

'But there's also an entirely different kind of opposition -

'slick in style and with a more polished line of attack.

'Wendy Wright is president of Concerned Women for America.'

Wendy Wright, yeah.

'She represents half a million evangelical women

'concerned about issues ranging from lesbians on TV to poor old Darwin.'

Hi.

Hello. I'm here to see Wendy Wright.

I'll take you right in.

Thank you very much.

'I worry that her organisation

'would condemn American children to ignorance

'by attacking sound, scientific evidence.'

Why is it so important to you

that people not believe in a creator?

That's not the point.

The point is that as a scientist,

I'm concerned that children in American schools

and in schools elsewhere

should be exposed to the evidence

and allowed to make up their minds about the evidence.

We completely agree. In fact, that's why the challenge in America,

whenever this debate comes up,

is teach the controversy, teach the evidence,

because as it is now, in many cases,

school children are only being taught about evolution,

they're not being taught about the frauds in evolution

and the lack of evidence in evolution.

So it's actually us who are arguing for teaching all the evidence,

not just the ones that are favourable to evolutionists.

You could say, "Which controversy?" I mean...

'Teach the controversy. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

'And it would be if it was a controversy

'between equally valid points of view.

'But it isn't.

'I doubt if Wendy Wright would "teach the controversy"

'about the Earth being flat

'because the evidence for the Earth being a sphere is so massive.

'There's also massive evidence in favour of evolution,

'but she doesn't seem to want to know about it.'

Oh, really?

And actually, the way you frame this and your very closed mindedness

really is a very good example of the kind of censorship we see

within the scientific community that