Where is the evidence?

Published April 7th, 2013 by Bobby Henderson

Here’s a video that has been making the rounds.   Richard Dawkins shows great patience in interviewing Creationist Wendy Wright.  I find it painful to watch but also fascinating.

567 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 27 28 29
  1. supernova says:

    Wendy’s an idiot. She is dangerous to the human race and should be locked up. She got arrested because there was an anti-stocking order against her and her ilk and she disobeyed it. She should be able to pray anyplace on earth to get the same effect as disobeying a 100 foot ordnance to get as close as possible to the clinic. What a disgrace to the human race.

  2. Mark says:

    Wow. I couldn’t even make it past 5 minutes. This woman is completely delusional and like so many absolutely refuses to THINK. That being said, even if she were to examine the evidence, she lacks the basic education to understand it. Her and others like her are a distinct danger to a progressive, modern society and should not be given any type of forum to spread this type of childish ‘magical thinking’.

  3. Thomas says:

    I see two ignorant people. While I would argue that Richard Dawkins is an extremely intelligent, well-educated man, he fails to accept that unnatural phenomena (while no evidence based on natural causes supports the notion) could exist even in a spiritual realm. I do agree with the theory of evolution because it can be observed and tested based on natural causes. Thus is the hallmark of science. It is not to say that the theory of evolution and the idea of a creator cannot coexist. Wendy Wright fails to accept what science is. Although science is not 100% fact, it seeks to explain the physical universe as simply as possible. Religion and science can coexist in some aspects but not others. People have to accept this fact. Public, state-funded schools should be devoted to that which can be observed. Religious freedom allows for churches to educate in whatever way they see fit. Please stop debating the issue. I respect other’s opinions and agree to disagree.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      “Religious Freedom” is a slightly unfortunate choice of phrase this week, at least in Indiana – its use having created hilarity for skeptics and embarrassment for sincerely religious folks. The debate isn’t about religion vs. science, it’s about the behavior of religionists, and nobody is gonna stop *that* debate; unless your eyes are crossed, you should only be seeing one ignorant person.

    • Rasputin says:

      Dear Thomas, you’ve missed the point. No Pastafarian denies the existence of a divine creator. He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose existence is proven by “super string theory”. Science is on our side. Whereas the stuff about Adam and Eve and Noah’s flood and walking on water is clearly mythology like Jason and the Argonauts or Odin or Zeus, the FSM truly exists.

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Thomas, first of all science IS 100% fact. It may be incomplete because all the facts aren’t known, but science nowadays is based on the facts as known. Secondly, perhaps Dawkins is only concerned with the physical realm. Has anyone even proved a “spiritual realm” even exists? What exactly does that mean, anyway? Prove something we can’t see, hear, smell or feel doesn’t exist? Good luck with that one!

      “Religious freedom allows for churches to educate in whatever way they see fit”. Yeah, that’s a problem. There are madrassas in the Middle East (or in New York City and London, for all we know) preaching that being a martyr in a terrorist attack is a great thing.

      • Rasputin says:

        A spiritual realm exists, only in as much as science doesn’t yet understand it. Big whales were formerly believed to be monsters. Lightning was believed to be the wrath of gods. Maybe there are beings out there like Q from Star Trek The Next Generation. Just because human minds don’t have the brainpower to understand aspects of the universe, it doesn’t mean that there must be an old man in a white robe called God who sent Jebus to save us. If there was a God, who says he loves us? Maybe He’s like a scientist, and we’re no more important to Him than bacillus on a Petrie dish. Or that’s what I used to think until the FSM touched me with His noodly appendage.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          I just read an article by Deep Pockets Chopra where he says “But the implication that faith is irrational and only science knows the truth has no basis in fact.” Wrong! Science is all about facts, whereas faith is all about…faith. He also said “I feel for people who get stuck in any belief system, including rigid skepticism.” Hey, I’m not stuck! I would LOVE to find out the people I loved and have passed away are in some eternal paradise, and I have a chance to join them. What could be better? But you’ll have to give me some fact first, and let’s face it: for thousands of years millions of people have made finding proof of god their life’s quest, and no one has found anything, until Bobby found the original sketch the FSM (pesto be upon him) made of the first midget and mountain.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          @tFtPtM, as always, your points well-taken. But I do think we should cut Chopra (Robin Williams called him “Six-Pack Chopra”) a fair amount of slack. He really does decry ideology and religion per se. He can certainly defend himself, but it seems to me that “faith” might mean something as simple as taking a position that something is good without needing to justify it with word from a Deity. I think that Chopra – as well as most Pastafarians – would believe that facts – as part of scientific inquiry, and however incomplete – are all the certainty we have, and a commitment to advancing the boundaries of those facts is “good” and more moral and valuable than Wendy’s position. She doesn’t even think that one can be moral unless one is afraid of her God.

1 27 28 29

Leave a Reply