3463670 Views
455 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.



455 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

1 5 6 7 8 9 26
  1. scott says:

    Hope thissound too flippant but, I can just look at her and see her reptilian lineage

    • Keith says:

      I’m sure David Icke would approve.

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Yes, she does somewhat resemble a turtle. The shell of her faith prevents unwanted truths from penetrating her brain.

  2. Georgios says:

    She expects to watch evolution unfold before her eyes, say, during a human lifetime? Does this, then, reflect her belief that God created the Universe in seven days? At the same time she does concede, that as long as her religion/dogma values human beings, she stands by it, no matter how un-scientific it may be. As for “censorship”, a word she repeats tens of times, should rather be attributed to religion…

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      Interestingly, situations are said to exist in which evolution DOES proceed rapidly – a readable and fascinating story of that is in “The Beak of the Finch”, which quite dramatically closes a loop between Darwin himself in the Galapagos Islands, and much more recent studies of life there.

      • Keith says:

        This link provides an interesting article on the Peppered Moth and the change in populations of white to dark during the industrial revolution. Although it deals with natural selection rather than evolution as a whole it demonstrates how rapidly change can occur and what the results can be. Incidentally, the second part demonstrates that science is willing to change its approach and “have another go” at exploring things.
        http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/127.html

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Keith, thanks for the link – very interesting! I wonder whether you’d give good marks to the truthinscience guys in spite of their avowed Christianity???

        • Keith says:

          No I wouldn’t. The article on the Peppered Moth seems balanced to me. Some of their other articles, although they seem quite balanced in some ways, hint at the support of creationism. I read their arguments against the evolution of birds from Dromeosaurs and wondered if they’d ever heard of convergent evolution.

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      She should have been asked when she first heard of SARS, or AIDS. They’ve evolved within her lifetime, as have dozens of other viruses. Larger organisms will, too. It’s just that the sheer number of and smaller life cycle of viruses make it a better example.

  3. Firs' Mate Freddy says:

    I do not see any scientists saying what can or cannot be taught in Christian Lit classes. The audacity of Creationists to try to dictate affairs in matters completely outside of their field… If they have one. Which I doubt. Watching someone who is clearly knowledgeable in a subject debate someone who believes they can divulge useful information, but cannot, was entertaining, but I slammed my computer shut after 15 minutes out of disgust. There is a never ending battle, against the forces of ignorance, and to relent for one minute is to give ground.
    Long live the relatives-of-chimps!
    Long live the divine pirates!
    May we all be touched by HIS noodly appendage.

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Great point, Freddy! If they want to wedge creationism into science classes, why can’t we inject logic into religious studies? What would be the consequences if someone went to a theology course or even a Bible study and pointed out all the scientific absurdities and historical errors?

      • Firs' Mate Freddy says:

        Nay, I say we should lead by example. Show the creationists how scientifically knowledgeable folk have not butted into their precious classes, and hint that they should return the favor. We would promise to never try to encroach on their spiritual grounds ever again… Not that we ever have.
        Regardless, I think creationists think that they have good arguments because scientists are not used to arguing on a religious playing field. Likewise, creationists are not very good at “doing science” and thus cannot understand why scientists hold fast in what has been proven numerous times. They are taking the scientists’ home field (pun intended) and turning it about, claiming it as their own, and asking to play by their rules.
        May we all be touched by HIS noodly appendage.

  4. Luca says:

    Shame prof. Dawkins is not a philosopher or a linguist.
    But he is legend nonetheless.

    He should have asked one question: what would count for you as sufficient evidence to evolution? what are you expecting to find? Why do you reject evidence to evolution? On what ground?

    Leaving aside communism, the dignity of people etc etc.

    The goal should be to show that the believer’s rejection of evidence is itself groundless and inconsistent.
    whereas prof. Dawkins gets dragged into a discourse on agenda, politics, and so on.

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      “Why do you reject evidence to evolution? On what ground?”
      “It’s not what I want to believe!”

  5. Brandonj says:

    I found this unwatchable, though Richard Dawkins was extremely polite. I’m amazed he didn’t ask her if she was an f*&^ing idiot after the first minute of her blabbering. This definitely belongs in the “Nut Watch” section!

  6. Keith says:

    Great! Can you supply us with a neverending supply of male and female strippers? Pirate costumes should not be a problem for you as you as your name says you are fantasy orientated.

    • Rev. Wulff says:

      FSM will provide, if we only believe.

  7. silverspirit says:

    I watched it… her eyes will haunt me for all eternity… So empty… I am a man and I LOVE looking into women’s eyes… But here? I simply couldn’t. I do feel sorry for her.

    May FSM smile at her in his mercy and touch her with an appendage… or clobber her with a wrench… and end her misery.

    • Soba says:

      Hmm, from a woman’s POV, I thought her eyes looked pretty angry – Dawkins was right on target. But not about being compared to a chimp. She gets particularly treacly when she goes on about how scientists don’t want anyone else to evaluate the evidence and form an opinion. She’s angry because she feels that scientists (like Richard) don’t treat her as an equal, so that means they think they’re better than her, and her ego can’t tolerate that. So she resorts to denying that she’s angry at them while claiming that scientists are the ones hostile toward her, then saying that she’s better than them because she respects humanity and they don’t! Take that you elitist snob!

      Heck of a way to deal with her low self-esteem.

  8. Z says:

    In my view, the Pastafarian still have a long way to go to become like established religions. This includes musics for praising, calandars for events, and a campaign to reach more people (a religion that does not reach out to people will not likely to succeed).

    • kelly says:

      If a fondness for beer doesn’t reach most – I don’t know what will. Plus every Friday is a Holiday – no calendar needed.

      • Bluemarble says:

        Pastafarianism doesn’t need an official campaign. It’s a non-profit religion. It relies on it’s members to spread the word. R’amen.

1 5 6 7 8 9 26

Leave a Reply