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.

Orizio

Galvasean wrote: »

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

I'll happily debate with anyone over anything, because debate within itself is a good thing if you enter into with the right attitude, as it helps clarify and improve one's position.

Dawkin's, and other's, positions with this regard stinks of intellectual laziness. Its understandable enough in certain circumstances, but laziness nonetheless.

Sam Vimes

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 she has is not a belief, it's wilful ignorance

Galvasean

Orizio wrote: »

Dawkin's, and other's, positions with this regard stinks of intellectual laziness. Its understandable enough in certain circumstances, but laziness nonetheless.

In Dawkins' defense, if you watch the video in the OP he goes through pretty much every young Earth creationist argument (sometimes more than once). After a while it gets repetetive and annoying, a waste of time and energy.
To put it simply they will keep rehashing the same tired old arguments that have been rebutted thousands of times (check out the creationism thread across the way for proof) before. When they come up with a new challenge for evolution I'm sure the likes of Dawkins will gladly discuss it, but until then why wander the road already tread?

Dave!

Orizio wrote: »

I'll happily debate with anyone over anything, because debate within itself is a good thing if you enter into with the right attitude, as it helps clarify and improve one's position.

Dawkin's, and other's, positions with this regard stinks of intellectual laziness. Its understandable enough in certain circumstances, but laziness nonetheless.

The proponents of intelligent design, etc., do not enter into a debate with the right attitude, so why should anyone indulge them? Dawkins repeatedly points out in the video that there are many examples of transitional fossils, and gives the hominid examples. His opponent refuses to acknowledge the points, and employs into all kinds of disgusting tactics to muddy the waters (eg. talking about eugenics, what kind of morality etc comes from Darwinism, and so on, as if any of that has any bearing on its truthfulness) and paint scientists in a particular light.

It's not laziness to refuse to entertain these people. They have a vested interest -- they have fundamentalist Christian views, and they need the world to confirm their beliefs. Therefore they are not seeking the objective truth, they are seeking the Biblical truth. Why would anybody engage with them when they aren't interested in what you have to say?

You say it's understandable in certain circumstances -- what are these?

Galvasean

Just watched the whole thing. Lady Gaga offered absolutely no new points to the proceedings and kept ignoring Dawkins' valid point about the fossils at the museum.
Of course I could listen to Dawkins all day with a voice like that.
He must have the patience of a saint (if you'll pardon the expression).

One thing I noticed in pretty much every young Earth reationist I've seen in such debates; why do they always seem to have a wide eyed, almost glazed over facial expression as their default?

Dades

Orizio wrote: »

Dawkin's, and other's, positions with this regard stinks of intellectual laziness. Its understandable enough in certain circumstances, but laziness nonetheless.

Did you just not watch the video of Dawkins beating his enormous brain against the wall for an hour? What exactly is lazy about that?

Have a read of The Thread in Christianity and see how long your shiny idealism regarding engaging in intellectual debate keeps you going.

Ostrom

Dades wrote: »

Did you just not watch the video of Dawkins beating his enormous brain against the wall for an hour? What exactly is lazy about that?

Have a read of The Thread in Christianity and see how long your shiny idealism regarding engaging in intellectual debate keeps you going.

Laziness - and pure shameless idiot baiting on Dawkins part.

I hadn't seen that thread before, but its comparable. You cant argue with people such as those (guy supporting creationism above, and woman in the video). She cannot accept the validity of his evidence on belief and faith - the argument was over in two minutes.

What did we learn from the video? What was accomplished?

Galvasean

efla wrote: »

What did we learn from the video? What was accomplished?

I'm going to paraphrase the film Thank You For Smoking in saying "It's not you, I'm trying to convince, it's them (the audience)".
Basically, Dawkins is probably fully aware he can never convince such a well entrenched Creationist, but if someone undecided were to view the video chances are they would side with him due to him making a better case.

Ostrom

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm going to paraphrase the film Thank You For Smoking in saying "It's not you, I'm trying to convince, it's them (the audience)".
Basically, Dawkins is probably fully aware he can never convince such a well entrenched Creationist, but if someone undecided were to view the video chances are they would side with him due to him making a better case.

I hope so, but I cant help feeling it was more spectacle than informative

fifth

While I love Dawkins work ,watching his interviews sometimes makes me feel a bit sick, like i'm having years taken off my life, they are so stressful to watch!

Some of these people are real nut jobs.

Sometimes feel like being an Atheist is the biggest of uphill struggles. *sigh*

Dave!

I don't like how he deals with the point of 'a society based on Darwinian principles would be horrible'. He's concedeing that that is the case, and saying he wouldn't like that, but what he should be doing IMO is differentiating scientific theories from social/societal ones. Perhaps facetiously giving an example of a business based on gravitational or atomic theory, to show that it makes no sense. Evolution is a biological theory.

ChocolateSauce

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.

In Dawkins' defense, if you watch the video in the OP he goes through pretty much every young Earth creationist argument (sometimes more than once). After a while it gets repetetive and annoying, a waste of time and energy.

That's the problem; if you debated once, made your points, and got somewhere, it would be worth it, but with people who actually believe things as amazingly ignorant as flat earth and creationism, you can't actually debate with them because no matter how much evidence you show and no matter how good your logic, they won't listen. It is pointless, and when a respected scientist gives time to moronic ideas, it lowers him and his position. And for the record, not only do I not respect such beliefs, I don't think they should be respected; they should be treated with ridicule, incredulity and mockery.

Do not debate with fools lest ye become one.

jill_valentine

Didn't Dawkins himself argue against engaging these folks for exactly that reason? That by affording them the chance to fight their case, it offers them the notion that they've got a case to begin with?

gamgsam

Boooo! Get off the stage!

She doesn't seem to understand what evolution is, I think that's the main problem!

This reminds me of someone I knew, She just kept repeating, show me the evidence show me the evidence... So I did. Threw a load of material together discussing evolution

Did she read it? Of course not!

Zillah

I'm two minutes in and I already hate her. This...is...insufferable.

EDIT 1: No, I'm done. Let's have some of Dawkins' critics describe him as brash or rude after watching this. I'd have been screaming at her in disbelief. The moment at which I gave up was when he once again told her about the different ancestors of modern humans after she demanded the intermediate examples...and her response was to ignore him and try to talk about what 'evolution has spawned'.

Ahahaha.
Dawkins: I...confess to being frustrated...

Edit 2: Ok I kept watching. She just used the expression "People use their critical factories".

Edit 3: Apparently this is turning into a running commentary.

Wendy: So if there is evidence for inter-species evolution it would convince us!
Dawkins: *explains that there are examples of evolution from fish to land animals, and evolution from reptiles to mammals, especially in the jaw bones, the extra bones from the reptile ending up in the mammalian ear*
Wendy: So what is your cause in life?

Naz_st

I had to stop watching after 15 minutes or so. Couldn't take the frustration and constant facepalm. I think it was after an exchange along the lines:

Dawkins: "So then, what are your scientific qualifications?"
Wendy: "Well, that's the thing [aka 'I have none']... It's unfair that only scientists get to decide what's scientific and only they get to teach science."

Unfair? Yes Wendy, it's a big conspiracy where scientists only allow other scientists to do science stuff. And the fact that science is only taught by people who know stuff about science is just crazy!

Fookin' idiot.

Galvasean

Naz_st wrote: »

Unfair? Yes Wendy, it's a big conspiracy where scientists only allow other scientists to do science stuff. And the fact that science is only taught by people who know stuff about science is just crazy!

I wanna be a plastic surgeon but cant because DA MAN says I need to get qualifications first. BOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Notice how she kept saying 'crea-THOR' a freudian slip? :pac:

Zombrex

Naz_st wrote: »

Fookin' idiot.

Hardly surprising, this is the woman who thinks that planned parenthood clinics try to convince women to not use contraception so that they have abortions and abortion doctors get rich.

Genghiz Cohen

Wicknight wrote: »

Hardly surprising, this is the woman who thinks that planned parenthood clinics try to convince women to not use contraception so that they have abortions and abortion doctors get rich.

Sam Vimes

hotlinking fail :P

It's a conspiracy against you