Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (anti-evolutionist)

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    I always thought Dawkins didn't debate creationists?
    I'm almost sure the videos in the OP are for the 200 year anniversary of Darwin. He interviewed her because she didn't agree with evolution not because she was a nutjob/creationist.

    That said he does a lot of debating with creationists for a man who says he doesn't debate with creationists.


  • Options
    #63
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Against my better judgement, I watched it. I'm going to be in a bad mood all day, that was so frustrating to watch. Every time she said "Where is the ev-eh-de^nce?" I just wanted to poke her beady little eyes out. How does Dawkins have any faith in humanity listening to these people? :confused:


  • Options
    #64
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Actually (and please don't punch me), I rather enjoyed that. Yes, I did get the urge to ram my head against a brick wall every time she opened her mouth; yes, she had the strangest, most irritating pronunciation of cre-a-TOR, but I got three things out of it.

    1. I learned a lot.
    2. I now have a huge respect for Dawkins' patience and his faith in humanity.
    3. He completely pwn3d her.


  • Options
    #65
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    I feel sick.


  • Options
    #66
    GothPunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,761 ✭✭✭GothPunk


    "As you mention, what's known to you...". People call Dawkins arrogant. Dear me.

    Was she just quote mining there to make him say that disabled people have no 'soul'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    GothPunk wrote: »
    Was she just quote mining there to make him say that disabled people have no 'soul'?
    She was totally trying to get him to say something about disabled people so she could make him out as a eugenicist or something.

    She's the one that needs to leave the gene pool, tbh.


  • Options
    #68
    GothPunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,761 ✭✭✭GothPunk


    Dades wrote: »
    She was totally trying to get him to say something about disabled people so she could make him out as a eugenicist or something.

    She's the one that needs to leave the gene pool, tbh.
    Up to that point I didn't think she was that remarkable, in terms of craziness. I'm sure we've all watched some of Dawkin's interviews go the same way. But the anecdote about the little disabled girl was shocking. It was quickly followed up by an excellent example of 'molecular biology fail'.

    Also I found the abortion clinic anecdote highly ironic. Persecution complex much?


  • Options
    #69
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Will I learn anything extra from the John Mac video or will he just spout the same rubbish as lady gaga?

    On the point where she brought up the disabled child as proof of a divine 'crea-THOR', is it just me or was she shooting herself in the foot? I mean watching it I was thinking, "Surely an all loving God would not cripple a child like that" and "Surely a genetic explaination is more plausible?"
    Not that it would matter since she doesn't seem to understand genetics very well.


  • Options
    #70
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    GothPunk wrote: »
    Also I found the abortion clinic anecdote highly ironic. Persecution complex much?

    Yes that was interesting, a sob story about being jailed for 'just praying'. I bet if you look into it she was probably yelling obscene bible passages at people nearby.


  • Options
    #71
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Galvasean wrote: »
    "Surely an all loving God would not cripple a child like that"

    I wondered why he didn't ask that, it was the first thing that came to my mind and I'd hazard a guess it crossed his mind too. Maybe he was just trying to keep some sort of focus on the evolution Vs Anti-evolution rather than getting mired in the God debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I wondered why he didn't ask that, it was the first thing that came to my mind and I'd hazard a guess it crossed his mind too. Maybe he was just trying to keep some sort of focus on the evolution Vs Anti-evolution rather than getting mired in the God debate.

    I think that was his motive. In both interviews the other person tries to make it a theism vs atheism debate. In both videos Dawkins tries to steer it back to evolution.


  • Options
    #73
    GothPunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,761 ✭✭✭GothPunk


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Will I learn anything extra from the John Mac video or will he just spout the same rubbish as lady gaga?
    I just started watching the John MacKay video. He uses the term 'orthodox geologist'...
    Galvasean wrote: »
    On the point where she brought up the disabled child as proof of a divine 'crea-THOR', is it just me or was she shooting herself in the foot? I mean watching it I was thinking, "Surely an all loving God would not cripple a child like that" and "Surely a genetic explaination is more plausible?"
    Not that it would matter since she doesn't seem to understand genetics very well.
    Pretty much exactly what I thought. I have always thought that questions about why disabilities happen are more relevant to theists, which is why I thought that the only reason she brought it up was to quote mine.

    At least she was too busy quote mining to start on a "there are no 'positive' mutations" tirade. The evidence for evolution using molecular biology alone is just beautiful, she's missing out. I almost feel bad for her.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Yes that was interesting, a sob story about being jailed for 'just praying'. I bet if you look into it she was probably yelling obscene bible passages at people nearby.
    I was thinking moreso about the fact that she was lamenting threats to her personal freedom whilst protesting at an abortion clinic. I think the less I say about abortion in this forum the better though. :pac:


  • Options
    #74
    Shacklebolt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Shacklebolt


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    I always thought Dawkins didn't debate creationists?

    Maybe he doesn't count interviews like these as proper debates?


  • Options
    #75
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Dades wrote: »
    She's the one that needs to leave the gene pool, tbh.

    Who are you and what have you done with our ultra-mellow A&A mod?


  • Options
    #76
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Zillah wrote: »
    Who are you and what have you done with our ultra-mellow A&A mod?


    This just servers to highlight the danger of this woman.


  • Options
    #77
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    I also liked the way he dealt with her question evasion, that after the third time she changed the subject, he just smiled and calmly said 'I confess to being frustrated...'


  • Options
    #78
    thecornerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 204 ✭✭thecornerboy


    What a terribly ignorant and passive aggressive woman. Laughing at Dawkin's points shows a complete lack of class. How did Dawkins resist punching her in the face? Anyone?


  • Options
    #79
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    thecornerboy wrote: »
    What a terribly ignorant and passive aggressive woman. Laughing at Dawkin's points shows a complete lack of class. How did Dawkins resist punching her in the face? Anyone?

    Because he is intelligent, educated and civilised. ;)


  • Options
    #80
    thecornerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 204 ✭✭thecornerboy


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Because he is intelligent, educated and civilised. ;)

    Thanks for that. It was a little bit of humour. Sorry you missed it.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Zillah wrote: »
    Who are you and what have you done with our ultra-mellow A&A mod?
    I got him very drunk last nite making him cranky this morning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Jesus H.

    The masochist in me made me watch all 7 parts of that. The woman shows an appalling understanding of evolution, natural selection, the scientific method, communism, morality, and bizarrely, even the term 'right wing'.

    I actually thought Dawkins gave her far too much leeway. He basically allowed her to try and bait him into saying the mentally handicapped are soulless non-humans, let her get into a bizarre Communism is a Darwinian philosophy rant, and worst of all, he let her off the hook whenever she started harping on about how scientists ignore the evidence that disproves evolution (in a couple of places anyway). Still though, kepping his cool was an impressive feat in itself.



    What a creepy smile, too.


  • Options
    #83
    DS
    Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭DS


    I actually thought Dawkins gave her far too much leeway. He basically allowed her to try and bait him into saying the mentally handicapped are soulless non-humans, let her get into a bizarre Communism is a Darwinian philosophy rant, and worst of all, he let her off the hook whenever she started harping on about how scientists ignore the evidence that disproves evolution (in a couple of places anyway). Still though, kepping his cool was an impressive feat in itself.
    I got the impression that he is now so used to meeting these retards and hearing the same arguments that he is completely immune to it, and far from having to keep his cool, he is just calmly allowing her to spout her sh1te, and moving her along in whatever direction he feels would work best once she is finished. See how he never once interrupts her at times where the rest of us were trying to jump through the monitor.

    He's not really arguing with her so much as probing her with particular questions so as to paint a picture of her crazy beliefs for the viewer. He knows before he begins the interview that beating her in a debate is not the goal.

    Also her facial expression and general demeanor is so unnatural and hideous, it's hard to even look at her.


  • Options
    #84
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    DS wrote: »
    Also her facial expression and general demeanor is so unnatural and hideous, it's hard to even look at her.

    Yeah, she moves like someone who's been taught public speaking, but hasn't actually mastered hand gestures.


  • Options
    #85
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Her mouth was smiling but the eyes.... the eyes.... :pac:


  • Options
    #86
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    DS wrote: »

    He's not really arguing with her so much as probing her with particular questions so as to paint a picture of her crazy beliefs for the viewer. He knows before he begins the interview that beating her in a debate is not the goal.

    Interesting style of debate. Let your opponent talk as much as they like so the viewers can see for themselves just how bogus your opponent's ideas actually are.
    Dades wrote: »
    Her mouth was smiling but the eyes.... the eyes.... :pac:

    "Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'"


  • Options
    #87
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    I just found it strange that she perceived a religious society as the only humane society. It seems to ignore the horrors of what has been done in religious cultures and suggest only a society exposed to Darwin would come up with such social issues.


  • Options
    #88
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    I just found it strange that she perceived a religious society as the only humane society. It seems to ignore the horrors of what has been done in religious cultures and suggest only a society exposed to Darwin would come up with such social issues.

    It's a very common religious position. A lot of people are unwilling to even consider the possibility that morality is not passed down from God because they think that if it's not it has no value, there is no right and wrong and we'll all go out eating babies for breakfast.

    To quote Nietzsche
    When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands.

    Which is of course nonsense. The morality in the bible is evident across most religions and most secular ideologies. It most certainly is self-evident except for the bits about keeping women silent, owning slaves and stoning homosexuals to death. I can see why Nietzsche appeals to a certain donkey related believer because it reinforces his belief that you need to believe in his particular version of the creator of the universe to be good


  • Options
    #89
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    I guess what I found strange about how she talked about society was that it required the absence of history. I get the belief system she is supporting but just how she could ignore history on top of scientific evidence is hard to get.

    She holds her own quite well but simply does not engage anything tricky other than to express her beliefs again. There have been many circular argument on boards and I always wonder how they would play out in real life. There is prime example but I am sure people are out there stating she showed him and I 'd be curious what they think of the questions and answers.


  • Options
    #90
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    I guess what I found strange about how she talked about society was that it required the absence of history. I get the belief system she is supporting but just how she could ignore history on top of scientific evidence is hard to get.
    Because she really really really really wants her version of reality to be the real one :D
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    She holds her own quite well but simply does not engage anything tricky other than to express her beliefs again.
    :confused: She most certainly does not hold her own. Ignoring everything Dawkins says and changing the subject whenever he asks a difficult question in the hopes that no ones notices she can't answer it is not holding her own, it just keeps the debate going around in circles in perpetuity


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    :confused: She most certainly does not hold her own. Ignoring everything Dawkins says and changing the subject whenever he asks a difficult question in the hopes that no ones notices she can't answer it is not holding her own, it just keeps the debate going around in circles in perpetuity

    Hm, sounds familiar. Wonder why...


Advertisement