Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (anti-evolutionist)

fitz0

Mods feel free to delete if this has been posted before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mLGmPMvls

Quite a good debate, roughly an hour long. It goes round in circles a bit (what evolution debate doesn't?) and Wendy Wright is frustratingly ignorant of some things she talks about. I find Dawkins tries his best to get his point across despite repeated evasions from the opposition. He does his best to highlight the shortcomings of her argument, but to no avail.

Suprisingly its Dawkins who falls foul of Godwin's Law.

I honestly don't know how he stuck it, that condescending little laugh of hers is unbelievably irritating.

EDIT: Crea-TOR... Argh!

Coriolanus

Watching it now, thanks.

ChocolateSauce

No wonder he decided to stop entertaining these views, who wouldn't get sick of this kind of stuff?

The UCD Humanist Society decided at our first AGM to take the non-engagement stance too. I believe debating with creationists, especially when it is done by high-profile biologists, gives the impression they are worthy of having their ideas addressed seriously.

Dades

Even the first scene - introducing Dawkins into where the interview was going to take place was cringe inducing.
Let's all just stand up!

BTW, she reminded me of the butler in "Benson". :pac:

stevoslice

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No wonder he decided to stop entertaining these views, who wouldn't get sick of this kind of stuff?

The UCD Humanist Society decided at our first AGM to take the non-engagement stance too. I believe debating with creationists, especially when it is done by high-profile biologists, gives the impression they are worthy of having their ideas addressed seriously.

which of course, they are...

5uspect

Saw it on pharyngula the other day.
She's like a female Ted Haggard.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

she reminded me of the butler in "Benson"

Looks to me far more like the UK's most famous coprophile, (diploma-mill-doctor) Gillian McKeith:

Eeek!

ChocolateSauce

thebhoy wrote: »

which of course, they are...

I wouldn't have a serious debate with a holocaust denier or a flat-earther, I'd just tell them they're wrong. If they want to hold their opinions and express them, that's their right, but I have a right not to address nonsense too.

robindch

fitz0 wrote: »

I honestly don't know how he stuck it

Neither do I -- the man has patience beyond belief. Ninety seconds in and she's already telling him he's narrow-minded in that frightful, whiny voice.

Nah, I'm inclined to agree with simply not debating with people like her. There are much more fun ways of wasting time.

Borneo Fnctn

She is a remarkably stupid person.

Handsome Bob

Dawkins in a shock move picks a door knob to interview.

blinding

I believe in evolution no prob

But what if god(if there is such a thing) created evolution

or am I just going to big picture here.

ChocolateSauce

blinding wrote: »

I believe in evolution no prob

But what if god(if there is such a thing) created evolution

or am I just going to big picture here.

Well if god created evolution as a natural process, it is pointless to argue it isn't true.

blinding

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well if god created evolution as a natural process, it is pointless to argue it isn't true.

I agree with you there. Its surprising the God people don't go down this line but then they might have to admit that something they said before may have been wrong.

It seems that they are insecure in their beliefs and that any doubt brings the sky down on their views.

From my point of view it is the unwillingness of some religious people to have doubt that alienates me from their views.

If they would acknowledge these doubts then I would have more time for their views.

Turtwig

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well if god created evolution as a natural process, it is pointless to argue it isn't true.

Simple, then the world would no longer be 10,000 years old - a contradiction.

ChocolateSauce

blinding wrote: »

I agree with you there. Its surprising the God people don't go down this line but then they might have to admit that something they said before may have been wrong.

Odd for me to be jumping to their defense, but most educated religious people accept evolution, including even extremely conservative churches like the Catholic one. Creationists are almost always people with little or no formal education, and certainly no scientific education.

I do however think that they are deluding themselves if they accept evolution and also accept, say, the bible. To not be victim of a logical fallacy, they'd have to be deists at least.

Sam Vimes

blinding wrote: »

I agree with you there. Its surprising the God people don't go down this line but then they might have to admit that something they said before may have been wrong.

Most of them do say that. Creationists are really only a small group in the US

Anyway, that was like talking to a brick wall:

Retard: there's no evidence of evolution from one species to another, it's all just drawings

Dawkins: you can see thousands of examples of it in any good museum

Retard: there's no evidence of evolution from one species to another, it's all just drawings

*Head explode*

Sam Vimes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I do however think that they are deluding themselves if they accept evolution and also accept, say, the bible. To not be victim of a logical fallacy, they'd have to be deists at least.

Agreed. Most of them would be of the opinion that evolution was guided because they "can't imagine the complexity around us just happening" but if it was guided it's not evolution because evolution requires natural selection, not supernatural selection. Their version of evolution is more like intelligent design, more commonly known as creationism in a lab coat

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Creationists are really only a small group in the US

They're not. Depending on how you phrase the question and interpret the term, between around 40% (bone-headed YEC) and around 90% ("An intelligent designer played at least some part") could be termed "Creationists".

What's interesting from the sociological point of view is that so few people are ring-leading the creationist movement, and -- relative, say, to the US's science budget -- the money they're doing it with is piddlingly small (though the value of the US religious economy itself is truly vast, at over $100 billion per year).

A sad demonstration of the old saw that "A lie can get halfway around the world before truth gets its pants on".

blinding

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Agreed. Most of them would be of the opinion that evolution was guided because they "can't imagine the complexity around us just happening" but if it was guided it's not evolution because evolution requires natural selection, not supernatural selection. Their version of evolution is more like intelligent design, more commonly known as creationism in a lab coat

Just being awkward here

Could god not choose natural selection and hope to make the best of what transpires.

And would we notice a little tweaking here and there if the god fellow did not want us to notice.

ChocolateSauce

blinding wrote: »

Just being awkward here

Could god not choose natural selection and hope to make the best of what transpires.

And would we notice a little tweaking here and there if the god fellow did not want us to notice.

It boils down to this: A deist god who makes the universe and designs physics to exist in such a way as to make evolution possible would be competent enough to make a universe where he wouldn't need to come by and tweak something. The alternative deist god is a god who could do everything except one thing, and that is a chink in the armour and doesn't really follow.

If it were the theistic god and he can just "make things happen" why bother with evolution at all?

Dave!

She makes my skin scrawl, disgusting disgusting woman

CerebralCortex

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It boils down to this: A deist god who makes the universe and designs physics to exist in such a way as to make evolution possible would be competent enough to make a universe where he wouldn't need to come by and tweak something. The alternative deist god is a god who could do everything except one thing, and that is a chink in the armour and doesn't really follow.

If it were the theistic god and he can just "make things happen" why bother with evolution at all?

To follow on from that why bother with the imense suffering he created by proxy through his creation of the universe that everyone of us experiences? Hardly a smart "god fellow" no is he? Intelligent design is ridiculous when you look at the poor job done concerning us.

ZorbaTehZ

Dawkins should be commended for not thumping her across the face tbh.

stevejazzx

Just watched it:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:Oh dear lord sweet baby jesus......

Orizio

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I wouldn't have a serious debate with a holocaust denier or a flat-earther, I'd just tell them they're wrong. If they want to hold their opinions and express them, that's their right, but I have a right not to address nonsense too.

With respect, thats a terrible attitude for any intellectual to have. Shows a stunning lack of respect for other people's belief's, and doesn't further their or your own intellectual development.

stevejazzx

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I wouldn't have a serious debate with a holocaust denier or a flat-earther, I'd just tell them they're wrong. If they want to hold their opinions and express them, that's their right, but I have a right not to address nonsense too.

Orizio wrote: »

With respect, thats a terrible attitude for any intellectual to have. Shows a stunning lack of respect for other people's belief's, and doesn't further their or your own intellectual development.

What?
And whats this thing about him being an intelletual got anything to do with it?

Galvasean

Orizio wrote: »

With respect, thats a terrible attitude for any intellectual to have. Shows a stunning lack of respect for other people's belief's, and doesn't further their or your own intellectual development.

I think it's reasonably fair. Try watching the full hour of Dawkins versus Lady Gaga and tell me you want to do that.

Sam Vimes

blinding wrote: »

Just being awkward here

Could god not choose natural selection and hope to make the best of what transpires.

And would we notice a little tweaking here and there if the god fellow did not want us to notice.

Nothing in natural selection requires a god. Why invoke a god to guide something that does not require any guidance? Sure I could say that God guided the builders when they were building my house but it's an awful lot more likely that they did it all on their own, since it would look exactly the same, or maybe with a brick or two different, had they done it on their own


And again, if he's guiding it, it's not natural selection, it's intelligent design

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

They're not. Depending on how you phrase the question and interpret the term, between around 40% (bone-headed YEC) and around 90% ("An intelligent designer played at least some part") could be termed "Creationists".

Which is what I said in my next post

A lot of them claim to believe in evolution but they believe in their own fictitious god centred version of it

skelliser

i only lasted 3 minutes, i dont know why he bothers tbh.