Paul Allen's PBS TV Series Rebuttal to Rock Prophecy:

page 3 of 12


Passages from Evolution (2001) appear in RED...

Passages from Rock Prophecy (1999) appear in BLUE:

Paul Allen = RED, and Michael Fairchild = BLUE

EV 2001: In these caves, there is a pattern of ware on the rocks that led [scientists] to speculate that these cave explorers also made music. I have the feeling of being in a cathedral here, a big cathedral, an important cathedral.

RP 1999: [We] found this huge cave filled with the most amazing paintings…Not since cave people discovered fire had imaginations been driven to such overload…Like pre-Christian heathens in dance-trance abandon, American youth of the 1950s became living cathedrals receptive of intoxicating spirits. After centuries of pious abstinence, the tribes were naturemen again.

EV 2001: Charles Darwin was the first to recognize the evolutionary significance of sex.

RP 1999: The world revolves around sex. . . if you can tell me a more human [emotion] than sex then, man, you've got me fooled. - Jimi


EV 2001: From an evolutionary perspective, sex is more important than life itself...sex and genes, driving behavior, driving evolution. Sex generates variation, which improves a species' chances of survival in a world dominated by relentless competition.

RP 1999: Nature, far from being endless warfare among species, is an endless dance of diplomacy…Nature appears to maximize mutual cooperation and mutual coordination of goals. To be indispensable to the organisms with which one shares an environment - that is the strategy that ensures successful breeding and continual survival.

EV 2001: What they don't understand is that science is a rather brutal competition of ideas. It is not particularly a situation where you get to express your idea just because you want to. That sense of fairness doesn't exist in science. In science ideas are supported by evidence, and that evidence has to be peer reviewed, and it has to be repeatable, it has to be testable.

RP 1999: Whatever happens, it should have a chance to be brought into the open, if it's a new idea, a new invention, or a new way of thinking, it should at least be brought into the open and be respected as being new and probably a decent change or a help for the human race. We shouldn't have to keep carrying the same old burdens around. - Jimi


RP 1999: Reality is much more flexible than people realize, even the reality of time [is] programmed by our past belief, which we inherited from our parents and our cultural tradition, and our indoctrination by society - the 'hypnosis' of social conditioning. We remain localized in the boundaries handed down from generation to generation. We refuse to see that reality is open to revision. Nothing has to be accepted just because we inherited it.

EV 2001: Evolutionary psychologists begin by pointing out that, regardless of the culture in which we grew up, we all tend to respond the same way to a surprising variety of things. All, they say, are legacies of our evolutionary past. If we ask, for example, do rotten eggs smell bad? It's just a molecule, it doesn't have a smell…the smell doesn't reside in the molecule; it resides in the evolved brain.

RP 1999: The physical world is made up of information and energy that we experience through our sensors. Our sensors are just transducers that convert information and energy into taste and texture and form and color. You and I give form and texture and color and taste and smell to that field…The body's nervous system is the instrument that gives this space/time experience …We learn how to perceive as a result of our cultural indoctrination, our social indoctrination, our evolutionary history.


EV 2001: A lot of people are very upset about this idea that cultural displays are there to attract sexual partners. They find this somehow demeaning, as if sex is dirty and culture is clean, and the two must be kept separate. I think this is a basic mistake. I think the capacity for artistic creativity is there because our ancestors valued it when they were making their sexual choices.

RP 1999: For what purposes have major world religions "rejected" the human body? Why has so much of the human world been trained to denigrate sex? What happens when people believe that physical life is sinful and inferior to spiritual life? How are relations between men and women affected when religion convinces us that the body is "bad"?


RP 1999: Cultural anthropologist Margaret MacKenzie points out, "The body is closer to nature, and the body and nature are both to be controlled. Who represents the body but women? Women are closer to nature, women should be controlled. They are dangerous, in our historical tradition, in the way that they can distract men from the higher preoccupations of study and scholarship and art."

RP 1999: The birth process itself is the central event associated with physical life, and it is exclusive to women. This fact makes men appear more removed from nature than women, according to the thinking of ancient men who wrote biblical myth, especially during prehistoric times when the male's role in procreation was still unknown. Men are less connected with creating physical life than are women. A female in labor is an obvious vessel for life. Males could therefore point to childbirth and proclaim how relatively unphysical men are by comparison. Among ancient people, whereas the physical body appeared to be the creation of women exclusively, men claimed the spirituality of the mind as the province of males. The battle between the sexes thus produced a mythology of physiology.

EV 2001: Eggs are more complex than sperm and take a larger investment of energy; females make only a limited number of eggs. Fewer eggs mean fewer chances to pass on genes, and that means females, unlike males, do better if they are choosy. At a deep biological level males and females want different things, regardless of how things appear on the surface. Small sperm versus large eggs, quantity versus quality, these are the evolutionary roots of the war between the sexes. This war is a lot more than fodder for poets and philosophers and soap opera writers. It can explain a lot about how species evolve, and why they look and act the way they do.

RP 1999: Anthropologists theorize that the menstrual cycle of human females is what encourages one-partner mating, but geneticists point to other factors that encourage promiscuity. For example, in environments where food and safety are plentiful, women can raise children without help from men. Instead of bonding with one woman to procreate, it is more effective for men to have sex with as many mates as possible. Through widespread distribution of his genes, a male increases chances that his progeny will survive. "The female of the species had no such biological carte blanche," claims Tannahill. "Her genes could be propagated only in the children born of her own body; the result, regardless of climatic conditions, was a powerful genetic urge toward protectiveness." Natural selection favored women who were strong nurturers of healthy children.

EV 2001: For all of their downside, males are worth the trouble. Think of them as a female's insurance policy against losing her children to rapidly evolving threats, like measles and the flu…So here is an evolutionary revelation about gender: male and female roles are not set in stone. They are largely determined by which sex competes for mates, and which sex invests in the young.

RP 1999: As living conditions fluctuated from good to indifferent to bad during the long ice-scarred millennia of mans early history, there may have been a slow pendulum swing from near-promiscuity to near-monogamy, and back again. And it may have been the women, not the men, who were promiscuous - for it was they who were in the minority. Males of pre-history outnumbered females by three to two, and men, on average, outlived women by eight years. This larger population of males, men who lived longer and were more aggressive than females, created a situation where males were able to force upon weaker members of society the beliefs and customs designed to restrict sexual options for women.

EV 2001: Darwin saw two strategies at work in the courtship idiosyncrasies of different species. For males it's competition. For females it's choice. Males fight for access to, or control over, the females themselves, or a resource females need, like food or territory…Female choice is that part of sexual selection that has to do with females choosing particular males over others. You would expect that the female, who invest more per egg, per offspring, should be much more choosy about whom she has offspring with, who she combines her genes with. Whereas the male, who is investing so little, you would expect that he wouldn't care so much.

RP 1999: Professor Kim Wallen…reported, "Male interest in the pair bond wavers after some period of time…this probably reflects a fundamental difference between males and females in the way they approach sexual behavior. It is characteristic of males that they have been selected to be interested in sex on a relatively continuous basis. Females on the other hand have been selected to be interested in sex on an intermittent basis. When females are interested in sex, they are as intensely interested in sex as males are, it's just that it's not as frequent as the case for males. So I think this tendency for pair bonds to split up after some period of time really reflects this tension between the male approach to sex and the female approach to sex."

RP 1999: Compared with humans, the mating habits of most other primates are influenced more by hormones. Whereas most primates are usually capable of mating at any time, hormone levels typically trigger fertility periodically in females and thus determine when mating actually occurs. For example, Wallen has found that in the 28-day mating cycle of Rhesus monkeys, sexual desire is greatest in females during their three-day period of fertility. During the days furthest from ovulation, there is no sexual interest or activity.

Go to page 4 of 12