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.

747 Responses to “Where is the evidence?”

  1. Peyton Nash says:

    I really wish he would have asked her for the evidence behind Christianity and the bible. Consistently she mistakes Darwinism with social Darwinism and states that a Darwinistic state is not one that we would not want to live in but one based on a loving god flourishes. On what were black people lynched? Her constant evasion of questions also shows her lack of intelligence.

    • Keith says:

      Her “evidence” behind christianity and the buybull would probably be “The buybull was written by god and god says it is true. End of story.”

  2. Pope Gregory MCXVIICMMXIJKLMNOP says:

    This woman has severe problems in and around the brain area.

    I noted her argument at the beginning: “why is it only scientists who can opine on evolution?”. Er, well this is why we generally let planes be flown only by pilots, and not by blind epileptic monkies.

    Awful person, she is.

    • Cason says:


    • Keith says:

      Well, she can “opine” on evolution if she wants. I don’t think there is any law in America which stops her from doing so. Whether she is right or not is an entirely different matter.

  3. Jason Brody says:

    great job interviewing and it was fun to watch.

  4. Rojir the Razor-Bladed Dildo says:

    She needs to be shot directly in the face. With an RPG, Tri-mounted M6’s, and a 50Cal. Sniper Rifle simultaneously and then a Nuclear Explosive Device dropped on her remains.

    That was just… awful.

  5. willmaclachlan says:

    How many times did she say “evidence”?

    I must admit that this was hilarious to watch and I feel extremely empathetic for Richard Dawkins on putting up with her.

    Richard Dawkins made some pretty good argument but he may as well have been talking to tape recorder looped on “which really brings me back to the point, what REAL evidence is there behind evolution?”.

    Well perhaps homo erectus?

    • Laurel says:

      In the beginning, I felt like she was making a good point for the people that she represented, but afterward she kept on repeating herself. There were even multiple times where she was like “let’s back up here” and she just evaded the question.

      There was just a point where all of the argument she had to make was already made.

      • James says:

        When your logic is circular (like god is real, because the bible says so, which is dictated by god) what else can you do but repeat and keep going round and round?

  6. horst says:

    There ist a very sad but very true old proverb (that I have just made up, of course) that says:

    “The only true sad fact about stupidity is that it is incurable.”


    • Keith says:

      In the case of creationists it is of irreducible complexity.

    • James says:

      Perhaps the good news is that evolution and natural selection cures stupidity…eventually.

      May Dawkins’ gene pool increase.

    • Oscar says:

      Irreducible Stupidity

  7. Ramenhotep says:

    I’ve been meaning to ask around about an idea of mine concerning biblical creation, whether it was useful or not, especially against tape recorder-type oponents. I wonder what you guys think about it.

    Once upon a time, when I was mulling over the classical “god as watchmaker” argument, I was hit by a very practical question: “How do you make a watch, really?” If you go to a store and order a personalized oldschool pocketwatch, will the maker just have it pop into existence? Of course not. He would have to purchase parts, and make it by hand.

    But this begs another question – where do the parts come from? How are they created? Well, they’re likely made from various alloys, glass etc. But where to these alloys come from? Well… You get my meaning. The point is, whenever we think of “creation” , we’re actually thinking about transfiguration – turning one thing into another. Biblical-style creation ex nihilo has never been observed in reality. Thus, unless the statement of a god creating the Universe is supplanted by an explanation of how and from what he made it, it is void as an intelligent argument, because it has no basis on anything related to reality. There can be no creator, for creation, as such, was never real to begin with. In the same vein that gravity is a phenomenon much more complex than “things go down, you can’t explain that” , so are the laws of generation of matter and energy much more complicated than “god did it”.

    Tell me what you think, especially if there are any logical flaws I should try and fix.


    • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

      Creationists scoff at the idea that everything started from nothing, yet they believe in the same thing. It’s just that they assign a supreme intelligence and a reason for it all, while others accept the fact that it was random chance.

      One thing I haven’t heard Creationists explaining is related to your “parts” theory. If we were made in god’s image, supreme over all creatures, why are we genetically so nearly identical to apes?

      • Keith says:

        Regarding our genetic similarity to apes (or, more closely, chimpanzees) I daresay that somewhere out there in the big wide World are people who “reason” that apes are humans who were debased by sin: in much the same way that the Goblin races in Lord of the Rings are debased Elves. There was a popular belief once that certain ethnic groups were descended from Cain. Ramenhotep, you are not alone in your thoughts: http://publicphilosopher.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-theism/

        • Ramenhotep says:

          I think that Marinara hit the nail on the head with the random chance bit. The way I see it, phenomena such as virtual particles can be considered an example of spontaneous generation, with reliably observable results under reproducible conditions.

          Thing is, these phenomena are chaotic. Unpredictable. Lacking any sign of intelligent intent put into them. And that, I feel, is the whole linchpin of the creationist thinking – it’s not about the designer, but the design itself. That the Universe functions by plan and intent, not by chance and whim. And that this intent conveniently matches the worldview of [insert religion here].

          Consequently, just as no child would like to think of their own birth as a “mistake due to a broken condom” , it takes some courage to accept that the world was not solely created for your own benefit, and that, if there is indeed a creator, he’s not so perfect himself. But, as Epicurus once asked, if god is not perfect, then why call him god?

        • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          The fact that the human body is not wonderfully adapted to walking upright suggests that we have evolved, and that we were not created as is Intelligently, but rather UNintellegently by the Noodly One during a drunken fugue.

        • Ramenhotep says:

          Indeed it does appear that, were we designed, it was not with much concentration and common sense. And strangely, I don’t see a lot of conflict over this with the gods of most religions, really. My question above was far from rhetorical – even if gods do not exist as real perfect beings, most of the older ones still have plenty of cultural representation, even in secular countries. Since we keep using them, apparently they do have some worth. But what and why?

          I mused over this last night, as mighty Thor darkened the sky with heavy rain and thunder. And I was enlightened (or maybe it was the lightning outside) – rain and thunder are real. Their existence is pure, objective fact. And as they are real, so is the god of thunder still relevant, his name worth remembering, his legacy able to live on.

          But intelligent design – how real is that? How often do we see any sign that the world is meticulously planned and flawlessly executed, rather than improvised on a Noodly Bender? Not too often, I reckon. So, as the idea of design is cast aside, so must the notion of a designer fade away. Which leaves us with… nothing? Maybe.

          The problem with the abrahamic god (because lets’ face it, creationism is mainly his ballgame) is that aside from being the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent universal intelligent designer… he doesn’t really have much going for him. The guy is needy, pushy, violent and not too modest, even among other gods. There’s not much for his fans to like, apart from his very particular self-claimed skill-set. And when *that* goes away, he’s nothing. Compare him with other gods, who at least have something real to stand for, symbolize, and represent, and can even strike a Marvel movie deal while they’re at it.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Ramenhotep, welcome to CotFSM. I’m glad to see another thoughtful and erudite contributor to the site. You made a nice contrast between the Abrahamic god and other mythical gods. My personal favorite is Raven, a tribal god of Northwest Indians. Raven stole light and brought it to the People. Before then, the people, who originated when Raven found them in a clam shell, wandered about in a darkness.

          I refuse to accept a god that would design a man’s body so that an enlarged prostate gland would shut off the flow of urine from the bladder to the penis. That’s NOT intelligent design. If we were designed in god’s image, and he’s male as commonly accepted, I hope he has a good Urologist to help him keep pissing.

          Atsap Revol, Bishop of Blasphemy

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          Atsap, maybe that’s *why* “God” created man in the first place: so that thousands of years down the line human society could evolve to the point where someone could go to medical school and *become* a urologist.

        • Keith says:

          As my good old Dad used to say: is he an Episcopalian or a Urinarian?

        • Ramenhotep says:

          I’d like to thank Atsap Revol for the warm welcome, but truth is I used to be an on-and-off contributor under the name of Noodlity back in the not so olden days. Still, it’s nice to be back.

          I feel that the main problem of the Abrahamic god is that he doesn’t symbolize anything. Unlike Mars or Odin who can immediately be followed with a “god of X” descriptor, with X standing for a principle or force of nature, the Abrahamic god doesn’t have a specific domain to be aligned with. Not a positive one, anyway – while we’ve had Mercury as a brand of cars, invoking the fleet-footed one’s speed, and use the staff of Apollo as a symbol for medicine, most comparisons to the Abrahamic god tend to be reserved for self-aggrandizing madmen – “he thinks he’s god” as the saying goes.

          Devoid of symbols to bind him to reality, his fans make him a god of the gaps, filling whatever niche is considered out of reach for modern science and rational thought. Unlike the Raven, which even outside of myths is still a very clever birdie worthy of respect; unlike Zeus, whose lightning strikes just as hard and unpredictable whether you think of him literally or figuratively; and unlike our Noodly Lord, whose taste is equally felt by believers and non-believers alike… once science fills these gaps, such a featureless god has no place to reside in.

          Which is why these fans keep insisting that there are gaps to begin with – missing links in evolution or physics-defying creation antics – they have little else to credit him with.

        • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Ramenhotep: The Abrahamic god USED to be needy and violent and vain, but for the last couple thousand years – after the death of his son-himself-his son (Damn you, Chinatown!) he’s gotten as warm and fuzzy as a Care Bear, but now lives the life of a hermit.

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          TFTPTM, I’ve joked about this for years. ‘God’ in the Old Testament was jealous, angry, vengeful, violent; all the hallmarks of a substance abuser. Then, suddenly, this New Testament comes along and he’s suddenly a warm-and-fuzzy, loving, tolerant god who just wants you to ‘find Jesus’. Basically, ‘God’ went to AA.

          I prefer a deity who does his drinking out in the open and doesn’t care if he has a problem or not. All hail his noodly goodness.

        • James says:

          “Episcopalian or a Urinarian?”

          Now you’re really going to piss them off!

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          You know what they say: it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on. (I can’t believe I wrote that.)

        • Ramenhotep says:

          So, if the OT Hebrew god is an alcoholic, and the NT Xian god goes to AA, if we take the Quran as a further continuation, what does that spell for Allah? I mean, he’s no longer a trinity, so there’s the dissociative identity disorder going away; sacrificing a family member has turned into “almost” killing the next-to-last prophet, and having one of his subordinates rebel is made out to be an unrelated riot by a completely different race of beings. So, there’s some logical inconsistencies out of the way.

          On the other hand, there’s the whole “rule the world as one islamic nation” bit (OF COURSE!) , the “great prophet marrying a pre-teen girl” sex-scandal, and the rather tasteless habit of his new fans to issue death warrants on anyone making fun of him.
          So, all in all, he’s out of AA and into the music industry.

  8. Oscar says:

    “You are categorically wrongy wrong wrong wrong…pigs teeth blahedy blahedy…You’re close-minded because you don’t consider other viewpoints”

    These people!

    • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      All this “other viewpoints” came along much too late for me. If it’s a good thing, why limit it to science classes? I could have used that concept in my college math courses. “Do you have any evidence that your solution to the equation is correct??” Of course, they did, but I could have stuck my fingers in my ears and said “lalalalalalalalalala” until they stopped. Ms. Wright would have been proud.

      • Edgekoski says:

        That woman dodges questions like a pro. Every time the guy gives her evidence she says she hasn’t seen any the goes back on what she says amending that she has seen but it proves nothing. If you asked her for proof she would probably say there is none but that is just how it is and to accept it. Science clearly proves evolution through dna what could she use to prove herself correct the Bible? She uses hand drawn pictures in textbooks to try and prove science wrong and she wants material evidence, where could you put material evidence inside a book, would you hollow out the section on biology and replace it with molds of incredibly old bones. She refrences Victorian era science to prove science wrong, how many times has the Bible been proven wrong? I may be young probably less than half the age of this woman but i see things a lot more clearly than many people like Ms. Wright who cling to there beliefs like they are the only thing keeping them alive. RAmen -Edgekoski

    • Ramenhotep says:

      Well, our own church has pretty conclusively managed to demonstrate how hostile Xians actually are to the idea of “other viewpoints”. As in, other than theirs. Historically speaking, the three Abrahamic faiths are rather infamous for that.

      Funny thing is, I really can’t think of other religions that are so xenophobic. As pagan gods are either symbolic of natural forces and/or defined characters in their own right, the standard in the olden days was either to equate related deities of different religions with one another (i.e. the Greek Hermes was treated the same as the Egyptian Thoth, the Buddha is considered an avatar of Vishnu etc.), or to simply add them to the existing pantheon. This penchant for syncreticism has saved a lot of lives in the past, and still does so today.

      What’s even funnier is how Xian logic often dismisses rational explanations for their own miracles, but suddenly becomes utterly skeptical (read: in denial) when it comes to the wonders claimed by other faiths. It becomes obvious that their rhetoric is not at all about opening your mind or accepting other, seemingly irrational possibilities, but rather the same regurgitated apologetics over and again – thy shalt have a lord, yet no lord save their own. In this way, however, their hypocrisy and arbitrary “skepticism” alienates both the more rationally minded folk, and the various pagans, from both traditional and currently (re)emerging faiths.

      They’ve placed themselves between an atheist rock, and a lot of pagan hard cases.
      They can’t fight both at once. Not for long, anyway.

      • Rev. Wulff says:

        Actually, Ramen, not to dispute your other points, but it’s been my experience that only two of the Abrahamic faiths get so bat-crap crazy, at least in the modern age. I’ve had many meaningful, spirited, and well-received debates with members of multiple Jewish sects, including one rabbi who thanked me profusely for engaging with him when it was over.

      • Ramenhotep says:

        Good point, Reverend. The above was me speaking more in terms of scripture canon, seeing how pagan religions don’t really have a definite “no other gods before me” restriction. Indeed in practice I’ve noticed an interesting trend – the more earthly rituals and traditions a denomination has, the less concerned it is with taking scripture literally. There are even such things as Catholic Atheist, or Jewish Atheist, where religion is an element of culture, rather than personal belief. In contrast, evangelical Xians tend to have less emphasis on tradition and ritual, less grounding, as it were, and so are more prone to literalism. The extreme version are the Wendy Wrights of the world, who haven’t been to church for years, yet spout the word of god to anyone in range.

        As for rabbis, there is an ancient quote which has always impressed me for its enlightened view:

        “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.
        That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.”

        Who knows, maybe rabbi Hillel was touched by His Noodly Appendage after all?

        • Revivalist says:

          I think that’s called the Golden Rule and is common to many earthly philosophies and theologies. Many Pastafarians subscribe to the Golden Rule.

        • Ramenhotep says:

          Well, we do have an additional provision on things involving a lot of lubricant/leather/Las Vegas.
          But otherwise yes, you’re right.

          Thing is, in Xianity, the Golden Rule is not enforced by admission of self-evidence (and in some bible chapters, it’s not enforced at all) , but by the promise of a divine post-mortem reward, and the threat of eternal punishment. Strictly speaking, it’s a carrot-or-stick moral mentality.

          However, as atheists simply deny the existence of the stick, and even the need for the carrot; and pagans opt for a whole garden with not so aggressive security; what then is to become of Xianity? Its claim of monopoly has turned against it. If there really is no sign of a creator, no promise of heaven, and no threat of hell, what are the incentives to be Xian, or for that matter, Jewish or Muslim at all, as opposed to an atheist, pagan, or a “Life of Pi” free-form believer?

          As a Pastafarian, I find the holidays fun, the rituals amusing, the gospels interesting, the community friendly and the non-exclusiveness liberating. I need little more from any religion. If the abrahamic faiths went this way, I’d gladly support them. But I feel they largely won’t, and the Wendy Wrights are drowning whatever merit they once had.
          Good riddance, perhaps? I dunno.

Leave a Reply