Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on December 28, 2009 at 1:05pm

I cannot even listen to her .... eewwwwww ... I know - not very scientific - but she says "Cree Ay TOR" like "Skele TOR". Creepy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prasanna Deshpande on December 28, 2009 at 1:50pm

Evolution has so much evidence even if not all. Creation has none. Just because you don't have evidence for just one particular gap does not mean it makes Creation true. You cannot fill that gap with God.
Also, it so ironic that she calls Richard Dawkins close-minded. Wendy Wright is just outright stupid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FreeThinker on December 28, 2009 at 9:25pm

I watched the whole thing, but it wasn't easy. I wanted to strangle her every time Dawkins would point out specific examples of transitional fossils and she would say "But let me go back to..." and completely change the subject. Furthermore, I wanted to smack her every time she insisted that every human having different DNA was somehow proof that they were created by an intelligent designer. Also, she kept implying that one needs to believe in a creator to be a moral person.

I know the program was focused solely on evolution, but I really wish Dawkins had challenged her on the existence of a deity. Where is the evidence for that?

Dawkins out to make a video showing thousands of examples of transitional fossils (showing the original fossils) and explain what species each fossil is a transition between and send it to her. Of course, she'd still deny it, saying that a few cases of fraudulent fossils is enough to discount all fossil records or something.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Catherine on December 31, 2009 at 6:03pm

"I wanted to strangle her every time Dawkins would point out specific examples of transitional fossils and she would say "But let me go back to..." and completely change the subject. Furthermore, I wanted to smack her every time she insisted that every human having different DNA was somehow proof that they were created by an intelligent designer. Also, she kept implying that one needs to believe in a creator to be a moral person."

On the other hand, that would probably make a great drinking game.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on December 28, 2009 at 9:49pm

Why is it that museums only have drawings of species that have been extinct for 1,000s of years? Why don't we have time lapsed photos of evolution from one species to another? Really? Really?!
I could only handle 3 minutes. "Only scientists can teach science, that seems so unfair. I think 2+2=7, we should teach the controversy, math isn't just for those educated to understand it.
O.K. sorry about the rant, I'm done now.
wait... One .. more
REALLY?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kalypso on December 29, 2009 at 4:17pm

Was anyone else reminded of the Stepford wives?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by unholyroller on December 29, 2009 at 4:35pm

How does anyone this stupid live to adulthood?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on December 29, 2009 at 7:45pm

The fallacious notion that trusting in evolution as a historical fact yields lesser morality is a popular misconception. I'm astounded at how many can be so stupid with regard to how a human's mind works. This is no super-esoterica like Freud's penile fantasies, but simply how people react to certain conditions--no more complicated to understand than whether someone will like the decor in a certain room or not. Despite the simplicity of reality, these people continue to engage in this perverted solipsistic insistence that saying, in a tone of voice that makes it sound like you've got a bundle of toothpicks sticking out of your butt, that you think that reality is a certain way makes reality more that way.

• ▶ Reply