3595465 Views
469 Comments

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.



469 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 10 11 12 13 14 27
  1. peter franzen says:

    Why is Richard Dawkins wasting his time talking to that stupid woman whose mind is closed to the facts of human and animal evolution?

  2. Quinn says:

    I find it interesting how she talks in way almost like someone who’s trying to sell you something, and how she laughs at what he’s saying like she thinks he’s a two year old trying to convince his parents a lie is true. It’s just outright rude.

  3. Jim Larsen says:

    She seems to be inflicted with a severe mental illness. What’s more disturbing is that by putting the mental illness into the packaging of religion, it can be spread/evangelized.

    There is no socially viable way nearly as effective as religion/superstition/faith/staffordshireterrier to instill directed anxiety in children. It’s hard to find someone in a mental hospital that is not deeply religious. I believe Nietzsche mentioned that in a more artful way.

    PS: It takes a special form of disturbed individual to inform any minor about a lake of fire that they and/or everyone they know will boil in for all eternity. That idea is not sane, and could easily be argued as mental abuse.

  4. Cyprien Marc says:

    This video is fascinating !

    I wish I had my NLP courses and “The art of being right” from Schopenhauer at hand to spot all the mechanisms she uses. She is using about all the tricks from the book and has a lot of interesting quirps. Is there a transcript of the discussion somewhere so that I can actually do it ?

    I am under the impression that Richard Dawkings is playing too fair with her, and that she is wery well trained in debate, avoiding, distorting and outright ignoring what he says. I admire the patience he shows : I would have rubbed her face in all the nasty aspects of religion and right-wing politics halfway through the debate but he is not playing the same game as she is, and will not descend to the kind of attacks she does.

    If she wasn’t dead serious, she would be really hilarious, now she is just scary. What is fascinating is how she victimizes herself for being treated as incompetent in the matters of science, wich she is ! She also explains that a society needs to be religious to care for others, whereas some of the most caring societies in the world, namely the northern european states, are mostly atheists/non-religious and some of the worst places to live on earth are run by religious freaks.

    All her discourse is contradicted by facts brought upon by Hawkings and she goes in autopilot mode several times during the interview, recitating what she has learned by heart even if it makes no sense in the current discussion, or has been rendered moot by previous Hawkings arguments. They do not play the same game and therefore for a non-critical point of view it would be hard to designate a clear winner (although if she does one day go to a museum, Hawkings might finally have made his point).

    By the way, as a non-religious person, I feel it as an insult everytime someone claims that you need religion to be good and behave and that if you do not have that, you’re basically a beast going unfettered among peacefull, god-loving citizens…

    PS : If some of you are willing to play nasty in an argument with people that disagree with you, you should totally read Schopenhauer’s book, “The art of being right”, it also helps in spotting other people using the tricks therein and countering them.

    • Rev. Wulff says:

      Totally agree with you about needing religion to be moral. Here’s a two point morality code that’s all anyone should need:

      1) If you wouldn’t like it if someone did it to you, don’t do it to them.

      2) If you keep doing to others what you would like done to you, and keep getting in trouble for it, you’re probably a masochist and/or in need of therapy.

      • Cyprien Marc says:

        Well that basically sums up any decent moral code…

        The interesting fact in it is the part about getting in trouble for your behaviour : it induces that moral values are heavilly dependent on the society you live in, which I think is true.

        I’ve recently read a Jack London book wich was filled with casual racism, “The Elsener mutinees” : any book with such content would have been refused now (and the author probably would have ended on trial, or at least not recognised as a great name in litterature) or any time after WWII, but as it was written in the early XXth century, it went published and, to my knowledge, unnoticed. I even finished the book to see if there was a plot twist denying hero status to the white man or making the racially mixed villains redeem but it was straight racist (and sexist too), in the exact likes of the arguments given later by Hitler. I even wondered if the boy Hitler had read that book and shaped its mind on it (one self-awarded Godwin point).

        The point is it did not shock the audiences at the time the way it shocked me : our values have shifted since that time. As they may (will) shift again in the future in directions we can only guess. The things we would or not like others to do to us may change, and the very notion of others (people of a different nation/colour/sexual orientation ? animals ? robots/AI ?) may change too, as it has changed before.

        So one of the reasons you could keep getting into trouble by doing to others what you would like them to do to you might well be that your values are not adapted to the time/place you are in. Wether they are intrinsically better or not is a very high-end debate that I gladdly let to philosophers.

      • Keith says:

        That should be the basis of any law. One of the “golden threads” (thanks Mr. Rumpole) of the Westminster system was the question “What would a reasonable man do?”. Of course, the whole thing falls flat on its face when there are unreasonable people making the laws.

  5. Rhoy says:

    She really is just trying to deny the undenyable, showing that she has good debating skills.
    He has simply just been too polite, an easy question to knock her down would have been: ” can you show me the evidence behind the creationist theory? Only what comes out from a book written by men with devious purposes”.
    She might even not recognise the heliocentric theory, going back to the 16th century when the people of her believes used to kill and torture whoever thought in a different way from them. Science has evidence, they only have believes. It makes me sad seiing that in America you have so many “bigots”. In Italy we do have a really strong influence from the church but the evolution is well accepted and recognised as true.
    Poor kids.

  6. John says:

    It’s even more of a shame that she is actually a majority.
    Religion has, and is continuing to ruin humanity.

  7. adidas オンライン says:

    アディダス ジャージ 楽天 adidas オンライン http://www.adidasonillnessjp.org/

  8. Michael W says:

    I lasted for less than half an hour – too painful, too repetitive, to much of a waste of time. I was disappointed that RD appeared to agree with the woman that a “Darwinian” world would not be a good world to live in and he – like she – preferred a non-Darwinian, moral world. But we DO live in a “Darwinian” world, and our morality, for better or for worse, is equally a result of evolution as our bones are. Where else could our social sense have come from than through natural selection? Surely the instinct to look after our tribe is so pervasive and ubiquitous, that it could not just have been “invented” by some prophet or philosopher. No, Richard, let’s embrace the “Darwinian” world that we live in and not be ashamed of it! As parents and teachers, we can – knowingly or not – convey reciprocal altruism to our children and students, that is to teach them the right balance between looking after yourself and after your neighbour. Evolution has given us – most of us anyway – a good sense for that balance, one that will best pass our genes on to our children and grandchildren.

    • Keith says:

      I’d prefer to live in a Pokemon world. Hatch them from an egg, send them into battle: level them up and Bang! advanced model. Pity they trade cuteness for power.

1 10 11 12 13 14 27

Leave a Reply