2927658 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 4 5 6 7 8 23
  1. DA says:

    The best Mr Dawkins can do is make remarks about her emotional disposition. Interesting that he accuses her of lying more than once.

  2. ZEM says:

    “The best Mr Dawkins can do is…” are you being serious? That is not the best he did. Maybe she’s not lying, whatever. However she is blatantly ignoring direct questions. Now please tell me that isn’t more rude. She also minces her words so much because she’s floundering. She doesn’t know what she’s saying until she’s saying it. How can anyone possibly expect to be taken seriously when it is quite clear they do not think before they speak 50% of the time. Also, HOW MANY TIMES CAN A PERSON GO BACK!?

  3. MikethePhilosopher says:

    Painful to watch. Like watching a political discussion between rigid idealogs. From the beginning the battle lines were drawn and the painful dialog dragged on. This is why society frowns on political and religious conversation but also shows why these issues should be addressed in a different forum, preferably with an intelligent, inventive mediator. The best arguments were not presented and the rigidity of the participants was palpable. Dawkins was arguing scientifically while Wright was obviously emotionally fixed in her learned dogma and not open to critical thinking. Each seemed to not understand that they were not speaking from the same thinking style and therefor the misunderstanding was acutely painful to watch. It was a no win discussion and would have been better spent if they discussed how there is no scientific controversy. At least then they would have been restricted somewhat in thinking styles and Dawkins may have been better able to argue using critical thinking. The mixture of dogma and science is always frustrating.

  4. Larry Esser says:

    A sibling believes in chiropractic, homeopathy, and not vaccinating his children (or himself.) Listening to this woman is like listening to him–same arguments right down the line. Stephen Law’s “Believing Bullshit” does a great job of looking at how otherwise intelligent people can get pulled into this nonsense. It goes from being funny to being appalling. Dawkins is doing the right thing by fighting against such relentless ignorance. We all have to do it too.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      To paraphrase Mammy Yokum: “Science is better than religion, mainly because it’s smarter.” One has to advocate this position in preference to wasting time with firing rational arguments, evidence, or any of the other pitiful weapons we might have into the face of Almighty God.

  5. Grace Grady says:

    Evolution is real, pretty much most people accept this. This woman is a wing nut. The evidence is DNA. I think if there is a god, god created evolution.

  6. Skitz says:

    She keeps referring to the “philosophies” that Darwinism has spawned, as if somehow a negative impact negates a fact. Ignoring the obvious arguments that can be made involving religion and negative impacts, looking at scientific discoveries that are nigh incontrovertible (let’s face it, even gravity is argued about) this idea shines false. Simply because nuclear physics spawned atomic weapons and all the various travesties that happened after (Hiroshima, the Cold War, the movie True Lies) that doesn’t mean that we can say “Bollocks” to it and toss it by the way side. Yes, Darwin’s writings on Evolution spawned the idea of social evolution, but that doesn’t mean that we can pretend it isn’t true. Simply because people die of falling doesn’t mean you can fly.

  7. Dana in San Bruno says:

    I don’t understand why Dawkuns never turns the tables and ask for the evidence for creationism.

    • Keith says:

      Probably because he knows he would be wasting his time. Wendy Wrong would likely trot out the hoary old chestnuts about the complexity of the eye, the lack of “missing links” and even the crap about the Bombardier Beetle.

  8. Keith says:

    Don’t you mean “FSM bless you”?

    • vocrulez says:

      Lol

      may FSM be with you ;)

1 4 5 6 7 8 23

Leave a Reply