2927378 Views
421 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.



421 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 3 4 5 6 7 23
  1. DebonairPibble says:

    Just want to point out something that Wendy brushes over: she was arrested for merely praying in front of an abortion clinic, and then convicted of violating an injunction, but that verdict WAS OVERTURNED BY A HIGHER COURT. The import of that detail is that ultimately Wendy was NOT convicted for simply praying. Yes, initially she was, but that verdict didn’t stand and her recounting (“I was sentenced to six months in jail for praying”) totally obfuscates the entire picture of what happened to her in order to provoke fears about the government and the courts stamping out religious freedom when in fact it is the court system that protected her. So Richard Dawkins was right to be surprised and ask for further explanation; he just missed that the whole story is that the conviction was overturned because some lower level judge just got the law wrong in this specific instance and in the end was corrected by an appellate court.

  2. Lala says:

    i think the man interviewing the woman has a lot of self control by not just killing her

  3. Jeff says:

    These people – ” creationist “, are mentally ill. They are just as mentally sick as the people who wear suicide vest to go shopping and blow everyone up. Both groups are equally dangerous to the human race. They are all around us, you see them every day buying food at your grocery store. They think the Earth is 5000 years old. They honestly believe this!!! They are electing people to run our country! We are all screwed!!!

  4. James says:

    To dismiss them as mentally ill, much of which may be biological and involuntary, seems harsh and counterproductive. They are dogmatic, and choose to believe what they do, and choose to ignore evidence to the contrary. They (fundamentalists of many religions) are taught from a young age that these (often conflicting) dogmas are the ultimate truth. If people learn to view the world in such a way from people, they can also unlearn it–and be taught differently to begin with (which seems to be one of the primary reasons for this FSM movement and website).

    I do worry that many of the fundamentalists (and the political factions that represent them) who also deny the science of climate change, for example, will eventually be convinced otherwise–although it appears most likely too late. While this does seem initially less unreasonable than fanatical suicide bomber, it may ultimately prove even more suicidal and on a cosmic scale.

    350.org states that “To preserve our planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 392 parts per million to below 350 ppm.” We are currently passing the 400 ppm level. Are we screwed? We may be.

    I found this article interesting…
    “Sheldon Whitehouse: God Won’t Save Us From Climate Catastrophe”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/sheldon-whitehouse-god-climate_n_3241330.html

    In it a very religious political leader who believes in a form of creationism–that his god created the nature of the universe and its physical laws–does firmly believe that no nanny old-testament god will intervene to save us from ourselves if we continue on our current path. I disagree with his creationist views and find them almost as difficult to listen to in the article’s video as Wendy Wright’s, yet he does believe in the reality of science and physical laws and the potential consequences of ignoring them in much the same way that a non-religious scientist would. (He focuses more on this in the latter part of the video.) This seems like progress–that the non-religious science-based individuals and the Spinoza style creationists may be able to make common cause on this major issue.

  5. Belynda says:

    After 30 minutes all I could think was “Drink for every time she says the word ‘science’” and for the last 30 minutes it got kinda blurry… But BOY that was the best drinking game EVER!

  6. James says:

    Gallup Poll: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
    Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism

    Another 32% believe the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

    Yikes!

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Sigh..Luckily there are a lot of brilliant scientists in the other 54% who can drag these deluded wretches along into the 21st century.

  7. Michael C. says:

    Oh she is good isn’t she?! No doubt the dodge ball MVP at Sister Mary’s school for the gifted.

    What is really disturbing about this lady (and many like her), is that in spite of overwhelming evidence, they prefer to live in their own Universe rather than accept the truth. I always find it audacious when people who believe in god demand evidence for anything.

    And someone should inform her that there is an “m” at the end of “Ad hominem”, not an “n.”

    • Keith says:

      If she is living in her own universe she must have created it. Ergo, she is being heretical toward her own insanely jealous god.

  8. DA says:

    Wow. Mr Dawkins continually calls evolution a fact when it has been called a theory until only recently.

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Scientific theory is 99.99% fact. About as much fact as medicine, and far more than psychiatry.

    • James says:

      “The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, “theory” can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

      However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.”

      Excerpt from “Evolution as fact and theory”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

    • PaulM says:

      It is a theory, but a theory backed up by overwhelming evidence. Much like the theory of gravity, which I personally choose not to believe in.

    • PaulM says:

      Evolution is a theory, but one backed by indisputable evidence or facts. Much like the theory of gravity, a theory I personally refuse to believe.

      • PaulM says:

        Whoops!! Thought the first one didn’t go through.

      • Keith says:

        I have always found it odd that the “mass consumption” explanation of gravity relies on a setup that requires the effects of gravity in order to demonstrate it. If the marble didn’t weigh anything it would not cause the rubber skin to sag and would not spiral into the centre.

    • Devout Heathen says:

      I can’t believe that at this stage in the discussion there’s still people who go for the “but it’s only a theory” approach. Look up the word in a dictionary, please. Or alternatively, click on my name and do as the man in the video says.

      I only skimmed through the video after the first ten minutes or so. This woman is adding nothing to the discussion. Of course, Piltdown Man shambled onto the stage. A hundred-year-old scam, duly exposed and discredited, which is as tedious as pointing at the crusades for evidence that Christians can be just as evil a bunch of bastards as anyone else. Oh, more recent proof than the crusades? One word: Africa. The atrocities committed there by Christians is beyond belief.

      Basically, this woman is calling Richard Dawkins, and every evolutionary scientist out there, a liar. Over and over again. And then claims the moral high ground by default. Also, there is the characteristic “I believe in a God that’s Good and Loving”. Well, ma’am, the Universe doesn’t care what you believe. It simply is. No amount of wishing upon a star will change that.

      I remember reading Dawkins saying at some point that he no longer argues with creationists, because it is a waste of time. Perhaps he made this 1:06:43 video to illustrate why this is the case.

      • Keith says:

        The “only a theory” response will always be trotted out, along with the “if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes around” absurdity. Every few years there will be new additions to the ignorant masses who read no further than some critique in an insane religious publication. We can only hope that over the years their numbers will diminish but I am not holding my breath.

1 3 4 5 6 7 23

Leave a Reply