I love the way these people just say things without any real evidence. This idea that there is a controversy in the scientific community about evolution is like thinking there is major dispute over gravity. What I find hilarious how both Richard and Wendy obviously have a great deal of contempt for one another, but both try to unsuccesfully mask it. It’s so bad I had to pause it again and again just to avoid all the embarassement at having to listen to them “politely” debate. I would have rather they scream at each other. At least that would have been more honest.
The rest of the videos are after the jump:
August 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Honestly, this woman is the kind of person that makes me want to shove forks into my eyes. I honestly wonder what it would take to get through this level of ignorance. I also enjoy how she keeps ignoring what Dawkins is saying and keeps replying “show me the bones!”. That’s powerful stupid.
I have to give credit to Dawkins, if I were in his shoes I probably would have broken down and punched her in the face.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The pig ignorance that this woman displays really is quite horrifying and her smugness makes me want to slap her across the face. No evidence of evolution?! It boggles the mind.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The entire thing can be summarised rather quickly:
Scientist – Here’s the evidence…
Creationist – You have no evidence!
Scientist – No, HERE it is…
Creationist – You have no evidence!
Scientist – It’s RIGHT THERE!
Creationist – Racism!
Scientist – That’s entirely unrelated…
Creationist – You have no evidence!
Scientist – YES WE DO!
Minds like hers just baffle me. How can someone be so resistant just to go look at the evidence? She continues to claim that she has, and it sicken me that people like this make the argument that they’re the ‘open-minded’ and ‘moral’ ones. Science questions itself and continues to do so, I think the PubMed articles make a good case for this, search for evolution and you get ~250,000 results, for penicillin you get ~80,000 yet for some reason no one seems to be questioning Penicillin’s effectiveness and asking to teach any controversy behind that…
August 5th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I’ve faced something a bit like this recently.
Where’s the evidence?
Well, there’s X and Y and Z
Yes, but where’s the evidence?
Well, as I’ve said, there’s X and Y and Z, also there’s A, B and C
Yes, but where’s the evidence?
These people clearly cannot, or will not, listen
August 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I dunno, she makes a lot of good points.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
maybe if the fossils are so real god would have shown them to her.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I would have showed her the bone.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
This woman is really, really awful and a good example of how religious people will twist all evidence to accomodate their erroneous worldview. My hat is off to professor Dawkins for remaining polite, calm and rational. I myself would have quickly started to scream, swiftly proceeding to smash her head into the nearest wall.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Aarrgh!
Honestly, it’s been a while since I’ve had to endure such a grueling test of my patience. You’ll have to give it to Dawkins for his almost superhuman ability to stay civil and calm in face of that 10-foot brick wall of a woman. She complains about being pounded by evolution all the time. Well, darling, it seems that all the pounding you’ve been getting, plus the pounding that Dawkins did here, is not even nearly enough.
I need to take a walk now before I break something.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
That woman has a beautiful, calming voice.
Too bad it weaves webs of condensed bullshit.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Well this is all very interesting. At times, I did feel the “smack her head against the wall” impulse. I think the most obvious way of looking at all of this is that people may be happier if they believe in religion (even if it is false). Of course she cannot say that because it would be admitting that she is believing in something false. But all the same, I think that is the strongest reason for believing in religion. She sorta tries to bring this up by saying well look how communities work without a belief in god.
Dawkins has a smart response to all of this which is well we should respect the facts. I guess it all boils down to the idea of: should we keep people ignorant and happy or expose people to the harshness of the world. For this, I have no answer.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
She seems quite proud that she was “sentenced to 6 months in jail” for praying in front of an abortion clinic. Richard handles himself quite well although he’s slightly out of his element on the religious issues. He kept bringing up what the “Bishops” believe…which is not going to have much impact on someone from Houston, Texas. But we’ve got to remember…Christianity has had over 2000 years to come up with all kinds of bullshit and science is just beginning to learn how to confront these kind of people.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I really just think evolution is the helio-centric solar model of the 21st century. Christianity took nearly 400 years to admit the earth went around the sun despite overwhelming evidence. This is the same situation except I don’t think Christianity has anywhere near four centuries to sort itself out on the issue.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Evidence for a creationist would be something along the lines of a crocoduck. Obviously, if they understood the theory of evolution, they would accept it. It makes perfect sense!
They argue against factual evidence with philosophy and morality and religion. They cannot argue with facts, which is why they fail. However, they won’t give up, as this is a part of their religion.
Show me an honest, intelligent, objective atheist who denies evolution in the face of understanding it and evidence, and I’ll kick myself in the ass.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I wish I could say I found this unbelievable, but sadly, it’s only typical. When she thinks she can score points on a purported lack of intermediate species, she asks where that evidence is. When that is answered, she ignores the response and shifts to the “philosophy of evolution” – which is of course utter nonsense as a concept; scientific theories don’t have philosophies. When Dawkins agrees with her that a Darwinian society would be bad, she calls it an ad hominem attack and demands evidence of intermediates…and so the cycle repeats. When Dawkins finally gets frustrated with her dishonest tactics, she calls him condescending.
It is quite obvious that Wright is working from a short list of talking points, and that she came utterly unprepared for a discussion of substance. It’s as if she’s been programmed to respond to certain concepts and to ignore everything else, in a nightmarish display of the very mechanistic determinism she seeks to deny.
Incidentally, parts 6 and 7 are on YouTube, should any of my fellow masochists wish to continue watching this train wreck.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Her façade of nicety is spread very thin indeed. She cannot hide her contempt for Richard and she has clearly rehearsed her lines before doing the interview. Her constantly mock laughter after everything Richard says is extremely irritating. *sigh* I need to lie down.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:07 am
I saw this entire series this interview was filmed for. Quite fascinating. She laughs in his face when he mentions factual evidence and the only thing she can come up with is “I don’t believe in drawings” The bit about “No one can tell how long a day is” also is somewhat boggling. Quite stunning ignorance and blatant refusal to even look at the evidence.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:06 am
The stupid is strong in this one.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
People of this type are completely non-science educated as she clearly states when she ignores Dawkin’s question about where she got her science training. Most creationists are non-science so ANY science proof will be ignored COMPLETELY because it requires to much brain work to comprehend what is against their believe in their unique status in the world. There are no religious texts that deny evolution, it is just their internal delusions of uniqueness that is threatened.
I don’t even waste my time arguing with them anymore. The best we can hope for is to transmit the science to the general public and hope for a brain or two to be engaged periodically.
The only awful part of this is that as a teacher I’m not able to give an ‘F’ to a student who says ‘gOd did it’ on his test.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Dawkins has some incredible mental stamina, unfortunately I’m afraid this interview only served to give her an air of respectability since dawkins treated her as an equal, idiots like her need the H-bomb (hitchens).
I was a bit perplexed by the total ripudiation of darwinism in society, clearly an excess of it would be horrible but a total lack of it results in idiocracy (or texas). What do you guys think should be the adequate ammount of selection going on in society to keep it healthy and how should this selection be applied?
August 7th, 2009 at 12:27 am
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. This whole thing was horrible. I would have dragged her skinny ass down to the museum placed her in front of the fossils and continually beat her upside the head with an eighth grade biology book.
CAN YOU SEE THE FACTS NOW!
THIS IS NOT FACTS JUST DRAWINGS AND REPLICAS.
……WAACCKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
IGNORANT PEACE OF SHIT. I WAS PRAYING IN FRONT OF AN ABORTION CLINIC WHILE THERE WAS PROTESTERS. WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET A BETTER HOBBY. DUMB FUCKING BITCH. JUST DUMB. HAWKINS IM DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR EFFORTS ANY SELF EDUCATED ATHEIST WOULD HAVE DESTROYED HER FROM THE BEGINNING. I CONDONE YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
IGNORANT…..”DNA MEANS WE’RE INDIVIDUALS” UUUUGGGGHHHH DUH?
August 7th, 2009 at 1:00 am
He was a little too polite wasn’t he :/
even lordly english manners have inconvenient side-effects in this world.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Dawkins is clearly an intelligent man, but what an obnoxious, arrogant dick. I just hate him because he’s such a sanctimonious putz.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Dawkins is clearly an intelligent man, but what an obnoxious, arrogant dick. I agree with most of what he says, but just hate him because he’s such a sanctimonious putz.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Sorry about the double post. This blogging software sucks.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I sense some sexual tension, by the way. I think they should dispense with the discussion and have angry sex. They clearly both want it.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Can’t do it. I tried, but I simply cannot force myself to watch the whole thing. That woman is too stupid and Dawkins is too arrogant and pompous. Seriously, they both need to get laid. A lot.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“Ad hominen” attacks. I hate those. Goddamn ad hominists.
BTW, why do you suppose Dawkins keeps referring to “the Bishops”? What does he care about Bishops? If they approve of evolution, does that somehow validate it? I thought he was Mr. Atheism. Seems sorta hypocritical to cite the Church as an authority. My guess is, he was butt-raped in Catholic school, and that was the start of his illustrious career. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder.
Thanks for the chuckles. 10-4. Over and out.
August 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Bob D,
He kept bringing up Bishops because she seems to have an extremely hard time seeing the fact that there are Christians who accept evolution.
He was trying to show her that she can be Christian without rejecting science.
But, for her to acknowledge that there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus who accept evolution would require her to see that what they have in common is knowledge, and not some “hidden agenda” (because we all know atheists only believe in evolution to reject God).
This was the hardest interview to watch I’ve ever seen. Her inability to debate is embarrassing.
August 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
As a matter of fact Wright is not denying evolution. She’s denying evidence for macroevolution. That happens to be a known stumbling block scientifically. There is definitely lack of fossil evidence for that.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Hmm. Let’s see. Her “loving creator” left behind no evidence that suggests a “creation”. She even admits that not all denominations of her religion will agree, so she expects her very narrow and distorted view to be respected and accepted into the classrooms as a valid option for why we are here? LOLOLOLOL!!! STUPID ASS!! What we do have, is a wide range of clues that are leading us to a better understanding, but she isn’t in the business of understanding. She is in the business of mind/life/emotional control. She isn’t content with just holding to her own beliefs for herself. No,no- it is much better to tell others what they can or cannot do, or what they should or shouldn’t believe– because that’s what she clings to . Makes me highly suspicious of her, she smacks of a hypocrite of the highest degree. Ted Haggard style. You’d need the jaws of life to pull the needle of self righteousness from the flaps of her ass.
Her “loving creator” allegedly inspired a book to be written that details how women are basically worthless unless they are virgins. Also, the book details how rape is to be dealt with- which places a value of 50 sheckles on a rape victim, that doesn’t even go to the victim. It goes to her father, and then she gets to spend the rest of her life with the guy who raped her. She dares to say that evolution would make it seem that we have no real value? Fuck her, just fuck her. I want a debate with this woman, I will rip her a new asshole- and then another one in the hole I just ripped.
Stupid self righteous bitch can’t even see past her own stupidity. And she didn’t even offer him a seat when he got in the fucking room. RUDE BITCH! That’s Dawkins, bitch! You’re lucky he even bothered to breathe in the same room as you!
August 14th, 2009 at 7:18 am
whilst opinions like this ladies have to be challenged it is also incredibly frustrating listening to someone trying to do it.this piece is an example of someone with an agenda based on belief as opposed to hard fact.no one not even the venerable mr dawkins will ever convince someone as indoctrinated and brainwashed as these people that their belief is wrong.my suggestion is if anyone wants to prove evolution and sometimes the lack thereof let these folk speak their unevolved minds.in a world where natural selection is at work these people will be extinct within a generation or two.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
While I am Christian and believe in some aspects of evolution she does have a point of macro evolution but I still don’t think I’ve ever seen a stupider person. Hat goes off to Dawkins for not killing her which at points you could see he wanted to. I’m surprised that he used Bishops that did believe in God as credible sources and was an atheist. But all in all he wins this little debate mostly just because that woman is so amazingly stupid. Way to keep it together Dawkins I would’ve screamed early
August 21st, 2009 at 9:34 am
WHAT IS SHE TALKING ABOUT? It literally boggles the mind! I know she’s speaking English, but I can’t fathom any of the words. It’s like listening to Sarah Palin.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 am
It’s like trying to reason with a drunk … you just can’t! The base issue is a schism between rational thinking and, er, something else.
Watching this made me flashback to psychology & logic 101: if A=B, and B=C, then A must be God!!
Poor Richard sees this broken logic and yet he has patience… (he must be really ‘evolved’ or something!).
Point is that we are missing the point: we are playing by the rules of reason, logic, sensibility, against people who must have this portion of their brains broken.
Him: “Look at the evidence”
Her: “I don’t believe the evidence”
That’s the scary part!
August 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Some of you may think that Dawkins is arrogant, I think he is just confident in what he says, maybe it’s just a British thing.
This woman is just an idiot who is so obviously brainwashed, look at her eyes and the way she keeps smiling! It’s a shame that Richard didn’t go for the jugular over the religious aspects of the discussion and how her religion has made her ignorant.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
The following post regards face to face discussions.
I have a point for all of you with the “smack her head against the wall” response. I must admit, i am not the most patient person when it comes to this (though i try and i think i’m improving). But i believe that when dealing IN PERSON with people like this, that the patience and understanding dawkins shows is the only real chance of converting anyone so profoundly brainwashed. Anger and derision will never convert anybody. Unfortunately she’s had the luck to be both profoundly brainwashed, and born stupid. A powerful combination. While Richard is doing his utmost to bring her to reason, he is probably barking up an infinitely tall (and thick) tree.
As atheists, i think we all need to take a deep, calm breath when dealing with people of faith. The best way for a teacher to guide the slower children in the class is with gentle encouragement. Yelling louder at the slow kid than at the clever kid won’t get you very far.
Those of you who criticise dawkins for his seemingly over-polite approach should consider that. I believe he is passionately devoted to converting as many people as possible to rational thinking, and that he’s trying to do it the best way he knows how; with patience. He could be forgiven in this case for getting frustrated…. this woman is profoundly messed up. But still, if footage of him becoming agitated, angry or insulting spread around the internet, would this not fortify those befuddled individuals doing their utmost to discredit his person?
The “smack her head against the wall” reaction is natural. But it’s not conducive to cultural change. As a group, i think we should take the patient path when dealing with these people face to face. Calling someone like this stupid would be tempting. But what is it going to achieve?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I have to agree with Jim here.
Yes, they’re ignorant. Yes, they’re derisive, insulting and in some cases literally lacking in mental faculty.
We must always keep the high road, here, as science (and its methods) has always done. It’s true that the level consideration to even nonsensical positions afforded by reason (and science) puts it at a disadvantage when faced with a system of logic that observes no such constraints.
But in the end it’s this integrity that steers it, continually, along the most sure course. We can’t let nonsense positions draw us down into a state of nonsense with them.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Oh btw the video’s missing but I found a copy here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs
October 12th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
The nasty comments here all seem to be coming from the atheists. This seriously undermines their credibility and causes me to dismiss them as obnoxious cretins, even if I would otherwise be inclined to listen to their arguments.
It seems as though Wendy Wright is guilty of the thought crime of not agreeing with them.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
// It seems as though Wendy Wright is guilty of the thought crime of not agreeing with them. //
She’s guilty of being a complete and utter obstinate moron. But i don’t see that as a reason to hate her.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@WGB
The issue is not that Wendy disagrees with Richard, but that she will not contemplate what Richard has to say. She asks for evidence, then when he provides it, she brushes it off without giving a reason. That is insane.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Here is a summary of the interview.
Wendy Wright: Show me how 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Richard Dawkins: Well, here are two apples, and here are two more apples. If I put them close to one another, you can count them: 1…2…3…4! Two. Two. Four.
Wendy Wright: (vapid smile) Show me the proof!
Richard Dawkins: Okay. Here are two apples, and here are two more apples. If I put them close to one another, you can count them: 1…2…3…4! Two. Two. Four.
Wendy Wright: (vapid smile) Show me the proof! Not just drawings!
Richard Dawkins: Well, Wendy, here are actual two apples, and here are two more actual apples. If I put them close to one another, you can count them with actual numbers: 1…2…3…4! Two. Two. Four.
Wendy Wright: (vapid smile) Show me the proof!
ad infinitum…
October 25th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
It seems that Wendy Wright takes her name seriously. The more that sycophants swarm round her and pour funds into her organization, the more she will ride on the right of being Wright. She clearly carries many agendas of her own and of others. Religion, as in most cases, is a cloak for the accumulation of wealth and power. In these circumstances any amount of honest intellectual discussion is of no use. Her ears will be closed except to those who agree with the Wright stuff.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Videos removed! The flea is sad,
November 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
All previous posters have it on the money. Wendy Wrong is ignorant, naive and suffers from a delusion. She is proof monsters are not costumes on Halloween but seemingly normal people with dangerously closed minds. Her eyes have a hypnotic look and her smile is unnatural. I can easily see her as a participant at the Salem witch trials. She is disconnected from reality by some religious belief and it is she who possesses the agenda. Different ideas from the her gospel threaten the bubble world she inhabits. She is also low class. They debate for over an hour and she doesn’t offer Dawkins a seat or something to drink. Is this her first professional meeting ever?
Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a champion and a gentleman. He shows her the light and she summarily dismisses what he is saying. She would have some credibility if she listened and would at least consider the education he is giving her. He is enlightening her, but rather than be grateful to him for taking the time, she pursues her own agenda. And while, the debate unfortunately elevates her to the same stage as Dawkins for the moment, he is proving that he is confident in his position and not afraid to entertain dissenting ideas. The sign of an evolved individual.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:35 am
That’s how all Christians look when they’re painted into a corner. Dumb smile, glazed expression, defensive posture a.k.a the “Oh shit now what do i do?” pose.
It’s like i say:
“Getting into an argument with a Christian is like getting root canal work done by a blind gynecologist. It’s messy,painful and ultimately pointless”
November 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I think we need facilities where we can deprogram these kind of people.
She looks like an android with its programming caught in a loop.
‘Where is the proof?”
“Once again.. where is the-e-e- proo-oo-ooof?”
“that’s demeaning, where is the proof? proof? proof?”
bleep
System error.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I’m an atheist and like many respondents here in general agreement with Dawkins viewpoints. However, i thought Dawkins did VERY poorly in this series of interviews. Yes yes, this woman is an idiot. Right? No, she’s not. She managed to hit all the keywords she wanted to hit and score on all the rhetorical points that were likely to resonate with potential fence-sitters. Dawkins came completely unprepared for the hearts (rather than minds) battle that Wright was clearly concerned about fighting. The battle is not for your brain, Family Guy watching internet browsing college graduate! It’s for wendy’s core demographic, and Dawkins came across as poorly as he ever has – unsypmathetic, aloof, and unconvincing. He should has wiped the floor with this woman through excesses of kindness and reason. Instead, he probably hardened her supporters further.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I think that I understand why this women is so extremely frustrating to watch. Creationists, in general, are not interested in facts, evidence, or logical reasoning in the slightest. They believe what they believe because it’s in the Bible, and that’s it. That settles it. There is no thought process at all.
But they PRETEND that they ARE interested in looking at evidence. They act as though they ARE interested in examining facts so as to appear on the surface to be rational people. Perhaps they even fool THEMSELVES into thinking that they are intersted in evidence. They say things like “If you actually had evidence, maybe I would be persuaded…” They give you false hope, making you think that MAYBE if you show them enough evidence, they will start to see reason.
But the truth is, as Wendy Wright unambiguously demonstrated, that no amount of evidence will ever persaude them. Throughout the video, she declares that she would listen if only Dawkins would present evidence. He does this OVER AND OVER again, naming fossil after fossil, spoon feeding her ignorant little smile with all of the knowledge she lacks, like a baby who can’t feed herself. But all that happens is that she spits it all out, dribbling it all over her blouse, and then denies that the spoon was ever there to begin with.
She’s a personification of intellectual dishonesty, and that’s why it’s so hard to watch. Not only are they intellectually dishonest about their beliefs and their agenda, they are intellectually dishonest with THEMSELVES about the reasons and motivations BEHIND those beliefs. Evidence is not a factor for them, and it never will be. It’s very telling that after Dawkins asks her for evidence of her beliefs, she’s unable to answer, and goes back to one of her (two) talking points.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I would have loved to watch it, but every time I clicked play, on all the videos, it said the video had been removed because of terms of violation.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I watched it on youtube and she made me want to pull out hair. Dan i think you nailed it perfectly.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Why is it that whenever I see Wendy Wright I think of my long-departed Afghan hound? Maybe it’s the long nose and hairdo combination. At any rate it should be clear to all that she’s suffering from coitus minimus, the cure for which is that she be soundly and roundly screwed for a couple of weeks until all that pent-up angst dissipates. Who knows? She might then stop asking “where’s the bone.”
December 29th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”
probably another false DMCA claim
January 11th, 2010 at 5:59 am
Does anyone know of a website where I can READ the full transcript? I’m overseas and the videos just won’t load because of the internet connection. Thanks!
January 15th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
my comps slow. can you show me some of the evidence they had on the vids.
ty.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
When approaching these crack pots I give them examples of the evolution of human vestigial organs. As in our tailbone, wisdom teeth, etc.
If they deny that, I refuse to talk to them any further. You cannot talk to someone who knows nothing about science about science.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Ah, Dawkins could have done better.
Here’s what I would recommend for next time:
Wendy: Show me the evidence.
Dawkins: (Hit on her head with a massive fossil bone). Here it is.
Wendy: No, you have to show me the evidence
Dawkins: (loud thwack heard). Did you see it?
Wendy: No, you have to show me the evidence
Dawkins: (resounding bang) Now, did you see the evidence?
Wendy: No, you have to show me the evidence
Dawkins: (crack, and her skull breaks)….Did you see the evi…?
Ladies and gentlemen, we now have proof of evolution – this is how the human species becomes more intelligent. By showing proof to the stupid
)
February 15th, 2010 at 2:47 am
I wish Dawkins had invited her, on air, to go visit some museums – like’ OK Wendy, I will show you plenty of fossils. Let’s make a date right now. When would suit you?’ With such people you have to get down to their simple level. How would she have replied? Interesting speculation.
Anyway if I said to my dog ‘ Hey Suzie let’s go to a museum and see the evidence!’ ‘Woof’ would have been her reply. My dog has more intelligence that that woman because Suzie would have come with me – because of the bones – clever dog!
February 15th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Can’t watch any. Go to play and get “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation”. Wassat mean, folks?
February 15th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
I am reminded of that bird beak that has changed as a result – but I want fossils of the transitioning of that beak to prove that it works like that!
Too much cynicism?
May 21st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I believe that Wright probably does have a hidden agenda, I do not believe someone can possibly be this stupid in debating a topic.
Dawkins: “Here’s evidence of evolution..”
Wright: “I believe you are wrong however, show me the evidence.”
May 26th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Wow, Dawkins and his intolerant hateful followers just can’t seem to understand that others thoughts, minds, values and beliefs are not theirs to manipulate and bully. I guess this new crop of missionary anti theist fundamentalists can’t accept the approach of agree to disagree.
I hope Dawkins finds something less meddlesome, totalitarian, and meaningful to do with his life. How this woman managed to stay friendly and kind and not take Dawkins bait is astonishing.
Merely pointing out that evolution IS just a theory (and not a scientific one at that) really is becoming the new heresy.
BTW I’m an agnostic and ad hominem and profanity don’t work on me, neither do arguments from authority or conformity.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am
“Merely pointing out that evolution IS just a theory (and not a scientific one at that) really is becoming the new heresy.
BTW I’m an agnostic and ad hominem and profanity don’t work on me, neither do arguments from authority or conformity.”
It’s not heresy. It’s fallacy. You claim to have the facility to see the logical merits in agnosticism, but fail when you describe the theory of evolution as “not scientific” and imply that since it is “just a theory” that its value is reduced. You are in error, on both counts; The concepts defined by the term ‘theory of evolution’ are clearly exceptionally scientifically sound for a multitude of reasons which should be patently obvious, given the immeasurably vast body of evidence in support of it. Furthermore, the word ‘theory’ in association with ‘evolution’ is used in the scientific sense; an established model that explains observations and makes predictions. Natural selection is irrefutably a real phenomenon. To refute such is abjectly denialistic.
You may be agnostic, you may be immune to ad hominem attacks and profanity, arguments from authority or conformity, but you’re certainly not immune to basic logic, and your comment was absurd, as well as being apparantly unashamedly hypocritical.
All of this makes me wonder: are you perhaps a sock puppet trying to undermine credibility? Or just a sophist? It’s one or the other.
June 19th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
The only “sycophants” and “sophists” I see are the Dawkins fan boys on here. Atheists really aren’t as educated or intelligent as they self-righteously insist, as evidenced on this hate site.
How dare anyone not let the lofty Dawkins tell them how to think and what to believe. Really.
Why should mere mortals even be allowed to debate with Dawkins anyway?
And I doubt the lovely Wright has any interested in this limp wristed old pompous effete. He’s clearly in love with himself anyhow.
BTW, I’m an agnostic (regarding bot evolution and religion), so your supposedly great minds will have to think of new strawmans in your five minute hates of me.
June 19th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Jim, below is an online definition of “sophistry”: (World Encarta)
- flawed method of argumentation: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest.
Somehow that sounds like an objective, rather than adulatory, evaluation of Dawkin’s very dogmatic self-congratulatory preaching of macro evolution. Notice how Dawkins and his worshippers start his speeches with cute mocking of those with whom they disagree-this is called pandering. (Dawkins is so absolutely devoted to Darwin and atheism, or more precisely anti-theism, that he doesn’t even approve of religious proponents of evolution, such as the last pope-don’t know if he was waging a publicity stunt campaign against Jean Paul the way he is this Pope, along with warmongering neocon Hitchens of the hate campaign against mother Theresa; that’s right Mother Theresa. Gotta love militant Atheist tolerance. He puts the inquisition to shame. [that was hyperbole btw.]) (I have no problem with live and let live atheists, some of whom are unimpressed with Darwinism as well.)
If you’re interested in keeping an open mind to what I’m saying, which I obviously have reason to doubt, check out the times he’s condescended to debate the other side or rewatch the above video with a grain of salt. He debates Palin style: Never actually responding to his opponents’ counter arguments, merely repeating and superimposing his same memorized talking points/propaganda. He also assumes that he’s bringing some sort of brilliant light to these benighted souls, not realizing his side enjoys a public school monopoly and is at this point in time the unthinking mainstream view. Wendy Wright laughs because she’s heard again and again what he’s over confidently shoving down her throat; she’s laughing at the condescending notion that she hasn’t reasearched all of his information for herself already and made up her own mind.
Then it just gets ridiculous when this atheist proselytyzer starts telling her how she should be in her personal religion: how it would be good for God if she was indoctrinated into his politically correct views. He even uses the term “Glory of God”! Hmmm. I thought he was an atheist! But yes, he’s losing the debate, so he desperately appeals to her religion. This says a lot about his manipulative nature for one. Wouldn’t that be a kind of sophistry?
Keeping an open mind-which is why I am an agnostic-thinking independently, you are going to HONESTLY say that’s sophistry?!
I also suggest, Jim, that you do a refresher on debate, esp. logical fallacies, with an emphasis upon the ones involving metaphors and analogies. (Evolution is NOT comparable to gravity.) You are showing a very poor grasp of such fallacies. In your desperation to push Darwinism, and the so often self-inflated intelligence of Dawkinites, you’ve lost your ability for self-observation and self doubt. Moreover have you noticed what clones of one another the majority of the participants of these discussions are? It’s disturbing.
I might also suggest a little refresher on Darwin himself, who at the end of his life had many doubts about evolution. Darwin himself considered evolution a theory which had yet to be proven by the fossil record,-and in how many years has macroevultion STILL not been satisfactorily proven? This is WHY the first opposition to Darwin’s work was not from the crazed religious fundamentalist strawmen, BUT from paleontologists.
Since I don’t wish to spend any more time on this hateful close minded site, (I’ve only visited twice after being repeatedly horrified by the abrasive Dawkins and his violent followers on Youtube, “i.e. remove her larynyx!” and do not care too again.) I’m at a loss as to the “sock puppet” coment. You’re very invested in evolution, I am keeping an open mind. I am however concerned about how in presumably free societies, with free speech, there are more and more things we can’t question. The defensive pushng of Darwinism in fact makes Darwinism look very vulnerable and flawed indeed. Confident people don’t get bent out of shape and emotional. Nor do they bully, as, open your eyes, seen on here. No one likes know it alls, and Science is not based on consensus or name calling.
June 20th, 2010 at 2:31 am
Sock puppet
1: A fake personality, usually a ‘friend’ or ’sister,’ created by a drama queen/king for the sake of defending him/herself against others in an online forum.
2: Someone who might be an actual person but behaves like the above, defending someone who really deserves no defense.
After mskyootie44 left the board in a snit, she made a sock puppet claiming to be her sister that told us we should all be ashamed of how mean we were because mskyootie was cutting herself in the bathroom.
Hilarious that you should reply to the accusation of being a sock puppet…. with…. another sock puppet. Have some integrity, or does your sense of righteousness allow you to overlook your own puerility?
I’m not talking about Dawkins, but I don’t think he acts particularly scientifically, he certainly has a clear agenda… One I somewhat agree with, but certainly not one that justifies some of the unscientific comments he occasionally makes. That’s neither here nor there, however, i don’t know why you mentioned him five times in reply to me, and i struggle to fathom how you can indirectly imply i’m a “dawkinite” while simultaneously denying your own sophism. That’s a straw-man right there. At least you’re giving a good “what not to do” demonstration for people out there who perhaps aren’t quite grasping how to make sense when making a counterpoint.
You’re talking about open-mindedness and whatnot… There is a great saying: “If you open up your mind too much, your brain will fall out.”. On one hand, there is open-mindedness. On the other, there is denialism. Macroevolution, evolution of life forms beyond the species level, has been observed and documented multiple times in controlled laboratory conditions. You can deny it until you’re red in the face, but your huffing and puffing, in conjunction with your laughable continued efforts to make it look as though you are actually several people, and not just the same hypocritical sophist repeatedly misrepresenting him/herself as being “agnostic” and without an agenda regarding either religion or evolution, don’t lend you a great deal of credibility. Sorry, but you’re transparent.
If you don’t want name calling, don’t be immature, and it won’t be warranted. Be honest with yourself, and you will end up being a much happier person.
As for being invested in evolution… of course i am, it’s completely scientifically sound. I’m invested in it until it fails to model and explain the behaviour of the world and the living things in it. Any claim of it being incongruous with nature is just rooted in denialism and/or sophistry. There are mysteries of life, certainly, just as there are mysteries in every branch of science, which current models are yet to be able to explain. That does not nullify the existing theory. In fact, it’s quite exciting, unexplained phenomena are the fuel for scientific study. it shows that existing solid theory still has room for expansion. Which is wonderful, i am guaranteed to be continually excited by developments of theory in the coming decades.
But in the current environment with current knowledge, you cannot seriously attempt to refute the basic scientific tenets of evolution and not expect to be laughed at. Have some intellectual honesty, and if you truly do want to have a discussion on a level playing field, then drop the impetuous and obtuse façade and behave like a rational human being. If you’re lucky, the only people likely to have read this so far are you and me, friend. You can take my advice and behave with some dignity, or continue to embarrass yourself. I hope you choose the former.
June 21st, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Dawkins was so patient. I really like how he drew attention to the link between social darwinism and free market economies; a union that ought to make religiously incline right-wingers slightly uncomfortable.
June 24th, 2010 at 4:14 am
darwin probably smashed a stapler through her skull at the end; why else would the video have ended so abruptly?
June 26th, 2010 at 2:09 am
I also suggest, Jim, that you do a refresher on debate, esp. logical fallacies, with an emphasis upon the ones involving metaphors and analogies. (Evolution is NOT comparable to gravity.) You are showing a very poor grasp of such fallacies.
When did i ever mention gravity? What are you talking about?
June 26th, 2010 at 2:30 am
If you want a lesson in sophism, look no further than the following quote.
Darwin himself considered evolution a theory which had yet to be proven by the fossil record,-and in how many years has macroevultion STILL not been satisfactorily proven?
Firstly, The construction of this sentence implies that the period-accurate opinions of a man who died in 1882, but happened to be the original author of the first scientific publication describing what’s now known as evolution, are actually relevant in a modern evaluation of the merit behind the theory itself. It isn’t. The 128 years in the intervening time period has seen not just a huge expansion of the known fossil record, but a the agglomeration of a vast body of evidence and observations in general in support of the theory of evolution.
Secondly, to re-iterate… Macroevolution, evolution of life forms beyond the species level, has been observed and documented multiple times in controlled laboratory conditions.
Sophism… Seems clever, but you’re actually just being misleading and dishonest.
A flawed argument superficially correct in its reasoning, usually designed to deceive. An intentional fallacy.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:14 am
Hello!
July 10th, 2010 at 2:31 am
not bad !