Dawkins and Wendy Wright debate.

[Storm]

OK, we're wandering rather off-topic, so I'll just point out that there are just as many quotes implying, if not outright stating, faith of some sort.

Perhaps another thread is in order?

ETA: Or, we could just move to this old one: Einstein- Theist or Atheist?

 

[kai]

I think the Archbishop of Canterbury is Dawkins' intellectual equal. The two do recorded interviews all the time. Google is your friend here.

Schools should not be teaching the Bible-based version of the origins of the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.


BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Fears over teaching creationism


The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned the teaching of creationism in schools. In an interview with Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Dr Rowan Williams said the Biblical creation stories do not belong in the same category as evolutionary theory.
Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution • The Register

 

[Sunstone]

This reminds me of my own journey into (and out of) religion (not that I could be compared in any significant way to this man, of course). He was an atheist/agnostic who liked to use the word "God" as a metaphor for the intricacy and enormousness of the universe.

I would no more compare myself to Einstein than you would Spinks, but I can easily understand how an atheist/agnostic such as he could use the word god to mean something besides most people's meaning for god. I like to use god as a name for a certain type of experience. Very few other words seem to convey how radically different that experience is from normal experiencing. But I consider myself a nontheist these days. So, in my own way, I'm doing something similar to what he did.

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree with his opinion on atheism



This may be true for some people, but definitely not for me and not for very many atheists i've seen on this forum.

-Q

I agree with Einstein on this one.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I cannot believe that I watched this whole video. Wright makes no valid points, and isn't even talking about evolution (or creationism for that matter). I kept waiting for Dawkins to provide some proof and Wendy to say something like "Well, do you like jam or jelly on your toast?" as if that is completely valid in the debate. She makes no sense at all.

 

[PennyKay]

I think there is a general consensus then I completely agree, but had to put it on here though to see what reaction it got.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It's unfair to Richard Dawkins that so few people can offer him a real challenge. Education takes time, and people are slow to learn.

 

[painted wolf]

It's unfair to Richard Dawkins that so few people can offer him a real challenge. Education takes time, and people are slow to learn.

It is a shame... unfortunately some people don't want to learn anything that makes them uncomfortable... like biology/evolution.
It's easier to just ignore it.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

At first I was kind of surprised that Dawkins' producers chose Wendy Wright for the the show and then he published a transcript of the interview in The Greatest Show on Earth. I mean Wright certainly has no credentials and nothing meaningful to contribute so the allegations of Dawkins picking on a hapless subject popped up here and there. But Wright is a valid interviewee in that she is president of Concerned Women for America and she has spoken out against teaching evolution in schools in favor of Intelligent Design (she is also a creationist of course). The CWA actively influence public policy- mainly focusing on pro-life and anti-gay rights issues- but they are actively engaged in pushing their right-wing Christian ideology onto public policy, an ideology that opposes evolution.

 

[outhouse]

You bias is showing....

to elaborate on my statement, one person would be talking real known science and in my opinion the other is dealing with a myth.

in those terms how intellegent can someone be on the myth side? Theres not one piece of "real scientific" evidence against evolution.

I believe I understand where your coming and I will note that there are smart intellegent people that have faith, my brother is a biology proffessor/author but at the same time due to his location in south america where christianity is heavily influenced. he has faith as well.

 

[painted wolf]

At first I was kind of surprised that Dawkins' producers chose Wendy Wright for the the show and then he published a transcript of the interview in The Greatest Show on Earth. I mean Wright certainly has no credentials and nothing meaningful to contribute so the allegations of Dawkins picking on a hapless subject popped up here and there. But Wright is a valid interviewee in that she is president of Concerned Women for America and she has spoken out against teaching evolution in schools in favor of Intelligent Design (she is also a creationist of course). The CWA actively influence public policy- mainly focusing on pro-life and anti-gay rights issues- but they are actively engaged in pushing their right-wing Christian ideology onto public policy, an ideology that opposes evolution.

I'm sure no "creation scientist" or "ID scientist" will get within 100 yards of a Dawkins debate.

But I'd love to see him smite Behe. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm sure no "creation scientist" or "ID scientist" will get within 100 yards of a Dawkins debate.

But I'd love to see him smite Behe. :jiggy:

wa:do

It would be interesting.
I can't imagine it happening except maybe in a public forum where they could play up their martyrdom and cast Dawkins as an arrogant bully. They'd lose the debate when it came to actual content, but win with the sympathetic vote which is in the creationists best interest in the long run. Facts are meaningless when martyrdom can be so much more appealing.

Totally off topic but you reminded me that in the 14 years since Darwin's Black Box and Behe's subsequent hijinks I only recently read that he has 9 kids. All homeschooled by his wife. I wonder if any of the kids will be active in the ID/creationist movement in the future.

 

[painted wolf]

So much for the "Evolution will be dead within 10 years" mantra. :jiggy:

I'm sure at least one of them will... if for no other reason than the sweet paycheck.

wa:do

 

[Gloone]

Dawkins is out of his element in this debate with Wendy. He clung to evolution like it was his religion even when Wendy pointed out some of its flaws and he tried to play it off with his accent. Accents don’t make people smart nor does it make them sound intelligent and this video debate proves just that.

 

[waitasec]

wendy sounds like a normal forum member standing up against a proffessional.

her only arguement is that there are no larger changes between species and where is the evidence

that wasnt a debate, it was a education with one person not listening

i caught myself screaming at the screen...

clearly, she was speaking from an emotional point of view.
truth is truth and it doesn't consider your feelings...

 

[waitasec]

Dawkins is out of his element in this debate with Wendy. He clung to evolution like it was his religion even when Wendy pointed out some of its flaws and he tried to play it off with his accent. Accents don’t make people smart nor does it make them sound intelligent and this video debate proves just that.

what?
you think he made up his accent?
what does that have anything to do with their discussion?

she pointed out the flaws and dawkins admitted the flaws. he was very nice to her.
dawkins said over and over,'look at the evidence' and all she could do was to change the subject and asked him "what is your purpose?" how is that a rebuttal to 'look and acknowledge the evidence that has been provided'?

 

[painted wolf]

Dawkins is out of his element in this debate with Wendy. He clung to evolution like it was his religion even when Wendy pointed out some of its flaws and he tried to play it off with his accent. Accents don’t make people smart nor does it make them sound intelligent and this video debate proves just that.

Were you watching the same vid?

The one where he points out the transitional fossils and accepts Victorian mistakes?

wa:do

 

[gnomon]

It's unfair to Richard Dawkins that so few people can offer him a real challenge. Education takes time, and people are slow to learn.

I agree.

Dawkins is out of his element in this debate with Wendy. He clung to evolution like it was his religion even when Wendy pointed out some of its flaws and he tried to play it off with his accent. Accents don’t make people smart nor does it make them sound intelligent and this video debate proves just that.

I disagree.

 

[outhouse]

He clung to evolution like it was his religion

You dont think he clung on to the truth and didnt want emotional perspective ?

some of its flaws

in my opinion there not flaws, just area's that need more study done.

I believe we have a very large portion of the puzzle put together that shows a VERY VERY clear picture! now you want to say despite missing a few missing pieces that were gray on, the whole picture is incorrect.

he tried to play it off with his accent

Is this your emotions talking? going after the way he speaks??

 

[Gloone]

what?
you think he made up his accent?
what does that have anything to do with their discussion?

she pointed out the flaws and dawkins admitted the flaws. he was very nice to her.
dawkins said over and over,'look at the evidence' and all she could do was to change the subject and asked him "what is your purpose?" how is that a rebuttal to 'look and acknowledge the evidence that has been provided'?

No he wasn't. He kept acting like she had some type of hidden agenda. Dawkins changed to subject a few times and i almost thought he wanted to break down in tears. Did you miss that part? Or maybe that was the start of him having an aneurysm. Hard to tell from the video.