Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete)

good morning Wendy right yes I'm Richard Dawkins they started you to do this interview yes where should we go then uh well how is this okay concerned women of America I looked up before America I do bigger problem I've looked up some of the things you're concerned about and one of them is something I'm very concerned about too which is which is Darwin and evolution but why are you concerned about evolution yes well what a person believes about how human beings were created shapes what they believe about human beings that if we believe that human beings were created out of love that is by loving creator and has given each one of us not only a material body but a spirit and a soul we then are more likely to treat other people with respect and dignity yes but you have to contend with facts don't you and I mean if evolution is a scientific fact you might as well be concerned about gravity or the milky way like news well there's been a never within the scientific community to censor out information against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many scientists believe there have been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to claim to bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent so what so what we argue for is to teach the controversy don't censor out the facts that go against evolution such as the famous Pink's tooth the the tooth it was claimed to be a an example of a prehistoric man and turned out to just be the tooth of a pig there are numerous examples like that so teach the controversy rather than try and censor out the information that shows that evolution is questionable seriously there isn't a controversy there may be a controversy within evolution about certain details but the fact of evolution is is uncontroversial I mean whether you like it or not we're cousins of chimpanzees we're slightly more distant cousins of monkeys etc I mean pigs teeth are really irrelevant of course you can dig up mistakes and and even outright fraud I mean the Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud but that was never used as evidence for evolution it was just a killer case of somebody in the 1920s who fraudulently made up a fossil there is no evidence of evolution from one species to another there's micro evolution within species but not going from one species to another really and actually your your the way you afraind this and you're very closed mindedness really is a very good example of the kind of censorship that we see within the scientific community that won't even allow discussion about the controversy that says that we can't even discuss any evidence that might show that evolution is questionable where did you study science well see that's the point scientists are now claiming that they're the only ones that can speak on this issue and yet when people who look at the evidence go to the Smithsonian Museum on Natural History and when we look for where's the evidence to show evolution from one species to another all we find are drawings illustrations there aren't the actual material evidence showing it so well there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this what we have are scientists that are then creating a and isolated community and saying that we're the ones almost like it's almost like a religion in which only scientists are allowed to speak and teach on it and to teach everyone else everyone else must believe what the scientists what particular scientists say but the scientists who question evolution are being censored out or being blackballed out of the scientific community and not I'm being told that the rest of the world cannot listen to them yeah in evidence is actually rather substantial it's it's not just fossils you know I mean it's DNA presumably you're not concerned about DNA you accept the existence of DNA do I think DNA helps to prove that each person is an individual created and as distinct from one another if you look at the DNA of all animals and all plants what you find is a beautifully arranged Hannah Rock you'll find that our DNA is close to chimpanzees slightly more distant from monkeys it slightly more distant still from rats like the more distant still from lizards the whole thing falls into a beautiful hierarchical pattern just like a family tree it is a family tree how would you explain that and where is the evidence well we have where is the evidence of evolution from one species to another species the macro evolution it's in the DNA it's in the DNA it's in the geographical distribution you're talking about our commonalities but again where's the material evidence of evolution from one species to another species well we obviously have a different conception in what evidence is scientists accept that as evidence it's overwhelming massive evidence but let me come on to something else it sounds to me as though you've got a some kind of another agenda is it perhaps that your hostility to evolution which by the way is not shared by bishops and Archbishop's and people like that your hostility to evolution perhaps stems from something emotional like me is it is it that you feel that that evolution when I've heard people say for example tell me I'm related to a monkey you know I'm not related to a monkey tell people they're related to monkeys and they'll behave like monkeys tell people they're related to pond slime and they'll they'll behave like pond slime is part of that the hidden agenda behind your rejection of science there's no hostility and there's no hidden agenda we've been very upfront with what it is we believe and the ad hominem attacks that people who have favored evolution use against people who don't buy into that I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence if evolution had so much evidence behind it then those in favor of evolution would not have to be reduced to ad hominem attacks against those who say show us the evidence show us what's lacking well I do I think I'd dispute ad hominem but I think you could understand a certain annoyance it's a little bit is there a teacher of classic son talk about education now in schools and universities imagine that Lattin had to a teacher of roman history had to contend with people coming along and saying the Romans never existed the latter language is a Victorian invention designed to you know and I and I think that's a perfect example of the hostility that those who favor evolution have toward those who don't buy into the idea who say show us the evidence and yet those in favor of evolution well that show us the evidence that were look I'm sorry but we can show the evidence all you need to is read an elementary textbook of biology it's all there well interests that's interesting you should bring out the textbooks on biology we still have textbooks today I needed but malson are going to talk about tackles embryos no no in fact what I was going to talk about is that what they claim to be the evolution of a fetus in the womb yeah based on his drawings which have been proven to be false and yet they continue to be published in science scientific textbooks heckles embryos are just one little thing it's a victorian thing and two people made mistake see and it continues to be published in today's technology no longer actually but but i don't think it's really fair is it to pick on particular victorian mistakes it is a victorian mistake oh but it was carried over into the 20th century yes and that was a mistake and and that's being corrected but look at the massive evidence that there is today i can't help feeling that there's some sort of hidden agenda maybe I was wrong to say it was a thing about tell people that they're descended from monkeys and they'll behave like monkeys is it something else and there's the some L of other worry that you if you're looking you're looking for a so-called agenda I tell you what it is we believe that human beings should be treated with respect and dignity and the reason we agree or the reason we believe that is because we can see that God created each one of us and what we find is that philosophies that are built on evolution oftentimes lead to horrendous horrific abuses against human beings and you can see why because it's drawn on a foundation that says human beings are just material and they should be judged according to your your utilitarian use what think can they provide your society we don't believe that yes we believe that each being whether they can supply something to society or not if they are disabled if they are young that they should be treated with the same amount of respect as you and I should be - yes I mean I I accept all that and I agree with that I mean I also think you one should be treated with respect but what we have here is an agenda it's that you want humans to be treated with respect and therefore if the scientific facts go against what your perception is then you're going to distort the scientific facts now why don't you instead accept the scientific facts and say but we still want to create humans with respect let's look at the evolution and let's see that we can increase humans because when I go back within the evolution thing what I go back to is the evolutionists are still lacking the signs to back it out but instead what happens is science that doesn't bolster the case for evolution gets censored out such as there is no evidence of evolution from going from one species to another species if that if evolution had occurred then surely whether it's going from birds to mammals or or even beyond that surely there'd be at least one evidence if amount of evidence I'm sorry but do people keep repeating that like a kind of mantra because you just listen to each other I mean if only you would just open your eyes and show it to me show me they show me the bones show me the carcass show me the evidence of the in-between stage from one species to another every time a fossil is found which is in between one species and another you guys say are now we've got two gaps weather where previously there was only one I mean almost every fossil you find is intermediate with something else if that were the case the Smithsonian National History Museum would be filled with these examples but instead there is not even when we talk about intermediates between species with course not talking about intermediates for modern species we're not talking about intermediates between dogs and cats who are talking about intermediates between ancestral dogs and slightly more recent ancestral dogs now in the case of humans since Darwin's time there's now enormous amount of evidence about intermediates in human fossils and we've got various species of Australopithecus for example and these are mean some Australopithecus are intermediate between others and ourselves then you've got Homo habilis Homo erectus these are intermediate between Australopithecus which was an older species and Homo sapiens which is a younger species I mean why don't you see those as intermediate evolutionist bear the burden of providing the evidence for those of us who are not scientists to see it and if the evolutionists had the actual evidence than it would be displayed in museums not just in illustrations and so what I go back to though I think there is a bit of a there could be a hidden agenda on the part of those in favor of Darwin in in and in when Darwin's own words in which he claimed that there was a difference among the races and that was then used to promote racism that's Victorian everybody in Victorian that is the foundation though those who are in favor of evolution often refer back to Darwin and he is quite a hero of the evolution but not with respect to racism I just told you about Australopithecus Homo habilis homo erectus homo sapiens a beautify the way archaic Homo sapiens and then modern homo sapiens that's a beautiful series of instances lacking the material evidence that your evidence is there go to the museum and look so when I go back to again is let's look at the what evolution and Darwinism has spawned let's look at the philosophies that have come out of it that have been so horrific to our world so we need to look at the philosophies behind and they have grown out of evolution what we find are the societies that are the most loving and caring those societies that are the most well-functioning are the ones that have a great respect for human beings for others because they recognize that each human being was created individually and is distinct from one another interesting enough regarding the unit you mentioned how the DNA is common among various species but among human beings each one of us has distinct DNA in fact that's the one that's one thing that's quite a way that sorry back up that's one thing that scientists will use to determine who has committed a crime is basing it on the DNA evidence so even DNA helps to show that each human being was created individually DNA shows that each human being evolved individually and of course there are individual differences between human beings genetic differences otherwise natural selection could not happen now I presented you with I don't have them here obviously but you can go to any Museum and you can see Australopithecus you can see Homo habilis you can see Homo erectus you see archaic Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens a beautiful series of intermediates why do you keep saying present me with the evidence what I've done so go to the museum and I have I have gone to the museums and so have so many of us who still are not convinced have you seen how much - have you seen Homo erectus and I think that this this um this effort this rather aggressive effort to try and talk over us and to censor us seems to come out of a frustration that so many people still don't believe in evolution now if evolutionists were so confident in their beliefs there wouldn't be the effort to censor out information that shows that evolution is still lacking and is questionable I am I confessed to being frustrated it's not about suppression it's about the fact that I have told you about four or five fossils and you seem to simply be ignoring what I'm saying and I and I don't you again look at those fossils I and certainly if they were in the museum's which I've been to many times then I would look at them objectively but what I go back to is when I go back to is that those the the philosophy of evolution then it can has led to ideologies that have been so destructive to the human race it's been misunderstood I mean even Hitler could be described as a misunderstanding of of Darwinism and that's a grotesque in Genesis and those in favor of euthanasia and those in favor of infanticide but wouldn't it be a good idea instead of pointing to misperceptions of Darwinism which have been hideously misused politically if you try to understand Darwinism then you be in a position to counteract these wearable means actually done we are oftentimes forced by the aggressiveness of those who favor evolution it's not as if we are hidden from this information that you keep presenting it's not as if we're it's it's unknown to us because we can't get away from it it's it's pushed on us all the time I think your frustration comes from the fact that so many of us who have seen your information still don't buy into your ideology have you seen Homo erectus have you seen Homo habilis have you seen austra differences what I've seen what I've seen is that in the museum's and in the textbooks that whenever they claim that to show the evolution be different one species to another it relies on illustrations and drawings not vo not any material evidence you might have to go to the Nairobi museum to see the original fossils but but you can see it casts of fossils exact copies of these fossils in any any major music let me let me ask you why are you so aggressive why is it that it's what why is it so important to you that everyone believed like you believed well I'm not talking about belief I'm not talking about facts I'm talking about I've told you about certain fossils and every time I ask you about them you evade the question and you turn to something else do you want I can say even if again I say that you can name a few of those but they still don't show they still don't prove evolution from the slime to the intricate human body well there should be if if we're gone from that that broad of an evolution there should be overwhelming tons of material evidence just an isolated but again there is not evidence I happen to pick human hominid fossils because I thought you'd be most interested in them but you can find similar fossils for and from any vertebrate group you care to name of course there I guess I go back to why is it so important to you that everyone believe in evolution what do why do you see you seem to almost feel like it's dangerous for people to believe that human beings were created individually and with a distinctness and created by a creator why I don't like the word belief I prefer to just ask people to look at the evidence and I'm asking you to look at the evidence and I'm asking why is why does it seem so dangerous to you why is it so important to you that people not believe in a creator no that's not the point I mean the point is that as a scientist I'm concerned that children in American schools and in our schools elsewhere should be exposed to the evidence and allowed to make up their minds about the other and we completely agree in fact that's why the the challenge in America whenever this debate comes up is teach the controversy teach the evidence because as it is now in many cases school children are only being taught about evolution they're not being taught about the frauds and evolution and the the lack of evidence in evolution so it's actually us who are arguing for teaching all the evidence not just the ones that are favorable to evolutionists well you could say which controversy I mean there are of course other creation stories than Genesis do you believe that the world is young for example do you believe the world is less than ten thousand years old well I I believe that God created the world and the timeframe it can be unknown as we look in the Bible it's hard to know what a day the length of time that might mean in that context so when I go back to those the human human being because that's like that what I think we really care about are human beings and our human beings created through the loving touch of a creator or just came out of slime well if you were to talk to a bishop the bishop would probably say yes human beings were created by loving creator but he used evolution in order to I mean that mean the position of the Archbishop accountant and that does show that there's a there's a variety of opinions across the board among those who may not buy completely into the hard core ideas of evolution there are those who believe in different levels of evolution within creation and that really shows kind of a creative independence within our movement it seems to be a bit lacking among those who believe in evolution and only evolution but as I've just told you there are bishops who believe in the evolution and realize just about all bishops believe in evolution and I would say you would have to clarify what denomination of bishops to save a rod let's say you're like that but the ones I'm familiar with are Anglican but that's okay I mean there are there are certainly lots of very very senior church people who do believe in evolution and so there is a broad I mean there are those there are there are others or not bishops but who are scientists or also Christian or also Jews and who believe in evolution but to think that the idea of God kind of intervening in this sort of conjuring Creek ways are the blasphemous I mean I I know evolution is colleagues who are who are also devout Christians who think that it's to the greater glory of God to study the way science actually is rather than to try to bring God in as a kind of magician who kind of you know waves a wand and things happen yeah and a meeting I think and and that is a misinterpretation miss framing of what of what we believe we believe that God can and does intervene in it throughout history and in life and we say see that is like a loving father that's involved in his family and his children it's not that the father is dictating everything to to his children what they can and cannot do as a Christian I believe in free will that God created us with the ability to make our own decisions some of those decisions or bad decisions some are good and so to say that God intervenes in our lives even in the creation will perhaps even especially in the creation life is reflecting a belief in a very loving God yes and there are others who say that that God set up the laws of physics the laws of the universe it is such a cunning way that when the time came evolution got going and eventually produced us it isn't that a rather grand and noble vision it is and in fact we believe that as well we believe that that science is unlocking the mysteries of the the laws put in place by God that God created this earth with certain laws like the law of gravity to allow it to function and and that science is actually undiscovered and unlocking the secrets of the laws that God put in place among which our evolution which follows from the laws of chemistry and physics under under the right conditions so it could be the working out of God's purpose and convolution be the working out of God's path and there are many people who do believe that God does use a form of creation where evolution is a part of that the evolution of a back up on that that there are people there are many people who do believe that God intervenes in this this world and uses various laws like gravity or progression to create a more stable world a better world so I don't think that there is much I don't think there's that there should be as much dissension between our camps that we can come to respect to another in fact we do we respect evolutionists for their beliefs what we would hope is that there would be as much respect on the evolutionist part toward us so that we could have a dialogue without being reduced to ad hominem attacks and accusing others of having hidden secret hostile agendas I don't want to be respected for my beliefs I want you to respect the facts I want you to look at the facts don't respect me I don't want respect I want you to go to museums and look the facts and don't believe what you've been told that there is no evidence just go the evidence and yes and I would say I mean really go go I've told you about how many fossils you can learn division of the horse you can go and look at the evolution of the early mammals you can go and look at the evolution of fish you can go look at the transition from fish to land living amphibians and reptiles any of those things you'll find in any good museum just open your eyes and look at the fact and I would say open your eyes and see the communities that have been built by those who believe and a loving God who created each one of us and what I find is that that is the kind of world that most of us would want to live in one in which there is a deep respect rather being other human beings because they are created by a loving God however that creation came about you could have your beliefs we can have our beliefs and both can be based on different on on evidence even the same evidence but I think fundamentally where our differences come down to is whether there was a creator or or whether there was not a creator I liked one phrase you use there you talked about the sort of society in which we wish to live and I'll tell you quite freely that a society based upon Darwinian principles is exactly the sort of society I do not wish to live in it would be a terrible society it would be a sort of them George Bush kind of society if I can put it like that or or Margaret Thatcher kind of society I do not wish to live in a Darwinian world I do however respect facts and I do recognize that the facts of science show that we that we that the world of nature is a Darwinian world it's a very unpleasant world as a thoroughly unpleasant world not the kind of world we wish to live in so let us understand it so that we can construct the kind of society in which we wish to live which will be a non Darwinian society with a sort of society which is which departs from Darwinian principles a disorder that was based on Darwinian principles would be a ruthless free-market economy in which the rich trample the poor in which visit sort of opposite of a liberal socialist society in fact in a way I'm rather surprised if we're talking politics that the right-wing in America so hostile to Darwin if we're going to be naive about applying science to politics you ought to be in favor of darling and I mean I'm against Darwin where politics concerned but you cannot argue with scientific fads are you actually helped to make my case quite well and that is that a philosophy that is drawn out of Darwinism would be extremely brutal and in fact has been that has been the experience i per said that i've agreed with that and that's why the societies that have been built on a viewpoint that god creates one of us however he did it that's part of the science of unlocking of discovering how that was done but recognizing that there is a loving creator helps to build a society that is more than just livable but Pleasant it concerned women for america we have state chapters and even more local chapters and one of the things they're been they've been involved in is the debate over teaching evolution or intelligent design in the school rooms and the position we've taken is teach the controversy teach all the information not to select it information that promotes one viewpoint which most of the times that's evolution but let's teach all the information so the school children can learn how to think for themselves and come up to their own come to their own conclusions nobody could possibly object to teaching children to beautiful I wish I wish that were the case that people would not object to teaching all the information or teaching children in a manner so they can think for themselves but sadly there's been a very heavy-handed effort in the United States to clamp down not allow any teaching that is contrary to evolution even to the point of court orders when you say teach the controversy it would be nice I mean of course scientists teach controversies all the time there's a lot of controversy in science there's evidence on one side there's evidence on the other side in this case however we have a very large amount of evidence in favor of evolution but the evidence on the other side is not evidence in favor of anything else it's actually looking for little gaps in looking for things that allegedly evolution can't explain look we found something they can't explain that must mean God did it it's not that's not me doesn't sound like science does it it sounds like if it's in its evidence then those then scientists should be in favor of teaching evidence even if they may discount the evidence even if they think it's an inconsequential as a scientist scientists should be committed to teaching truth but I think you didn't understand what I said I said on the one side there is evidence on the other side there is a looking for apparent lack of evidence there is no that is what scientists science is about science is taking a theory and challenging it to see if it can stand up that's right and so while people may not like when the evidence doesn't stand up to further testing but that's what science is about yes well that is what's out is about but there are no cases known to me at least where science that where it doesn't stand up and there are cases when it's work needs to be done and of course that's flourishes on finding places where more work needs to be done that's how science advances mm-hmm as you mentioned what's known to you and I am I think that's why we need variety of people looking at theories and challenging it because if it's one person who's dictating what can be Challenger can or what evidence is substantial or not then we have a dictatorship in science scientists should be free to challenge theories and not be Hempton not be restricted by the current zeitgeist of those who are they the almost the high priests of science and approaches right and I agree with that but can you point to any positive scientific evidence in favour of creation and I think the fact as you pointed out DNA I think DNA helps to show that each one of us are individuals and they have two distinct resolution to work I mean III don't think that's the case I think that the fact that each one I think that each one of us are distinct and that no two of us are exactly alike that that helps to show that there is some intervention at the point of each person's creation do you know about the Darwinian theory that it's about individual variation being selected there has to be individual variation or Darwinism well what also seems to be shown in the scientific evidence is that mutations died out and we don't have good evidence of positive mutations being the ones that are then built on because of their mutation there alone so in order for something to rise up and have more of it you need to have a good base to choose from for example a recessive gene and a person both parents may have brown eyes and yet a child may have blue eyes and that's because there's enough of the gene in their ancestors to have brought out that recessive gene and that's evidence against evolution I think that shows that helps to show the the individual nature of each person that that God created us with genes with DNA and that he'll even used he used that to to show his creative element in each person the fact that you can have two people a man and a woman could have 13 children 16 children and each one is completely distinct from one another that shows that even though they came from a common parentage that yet there's still a creative element for each one of those human beings do you actually know what Darwin's theory of natural selection is and I think I know enough because it gets pounded into us by those who simply won't allow for other information they don't want a confirmation account we're pounding but just let me tell you what it is there is individual variation every individual apart from monozygotic twins is different from every other individual that's absolutely fundamental to the Darwinian theory now what happens is that among that variety of individuals some survive better than others some reproduce better than others that's how we get evolution you couldn't have evolution unless there was individual variation you must not keep thinking because there's individual variation that some are evidence against evolution so I come back to you and why do you reject the idea that there is a creator who's involved in the creation of human beings whether it was the initial creation and then he left or is involved in the creation of each human being who's ever lived on earth as I've said there there are plenty of ways in which God could be involved in in creation of the universe in creation of life but Darwinian natural selection demands individual variation that's why you must stop using individual variation as evidence against evolution is evidence for evolution once I was going through the Smithsonian history Natural History Museum with dear relatives of mine and one of them was a severely handicapped little girl who can't do anything for herself she can't talk she can't walk she can't feed herself she can barely sit up and when a person that one of the people I was would have turned to me and said do you believe in evolution and I said I think this little girl is a perfect example of why evolution is wrong yeah because here's someone who cannot take care of herself and yet she has a spirit she's not just a material being and that's one difference I find between the ideology of Darwinism and evolution and those who believe in a loving God is that is the idea of a spirit and a soul that is not Material and it's something that it makes us distinct from animals do you think that children should be taught critical thinking at school in fact that is what we argue for is that children to be taught evidence so that they can decide for themselves so they can figure out for themselves what is truth all right do you understand what I was saying when I was explaining about natural selection requiring individual variation I I do but I also come back and I haven't heard you answer whether you have a problem with this idea of God being involved in the creation of each individual human being not just perhaps being the one that got it all started well I do have a problem with that because I've seen the evidence and I know that individual variation comes from genetics it comes from DNA and I know where it comes from and it's a very well worked out story it's in every textbook I mean we differ because we have different genes and do deer in story gun do you believe in a spirit or a soul I believe in a spirit or a soul in the sense of my own consciousness which is a manifestation of my my neurons and my brain physiology I don't believe I have any mortal soul no but that's my personal belief and what about a disabled person who severely mentally disabled and is not able to make choices do they have a spirit are they a human being they're a human being they belong to the species Homo sapiens their ancestry is Homo sapiens so course the human beings yes and do they have a spirit or a song it's not a meaning it's not a meaningful word it's a it's something they have a spirit or soul in just the same sense as I have but I only have a scent the spirit or soul in a very much different meaning that than your and your meaning the way I understood you to say it it's because of your conscious or even your consciousness well it should be different things but for someone though who is not capable of making decisions what they do they have a spirit or a soul well if you mean somebody whose brain is so disabled that they have no consciousness at all then they have no consciousness I've answered your question well no because a spirit or soul is is different that's your word it's not a word that I acknowledge or recognize as a meaningful well then I from what I understand you're saying then if someone does not have the ability to be conscious then they would not have a spirit or soul a human placenta is a genetical identical twin to the baby that it nourished I don't think that either of us would wish to say that it has a spirit or a soul because it doesn't have a brain so if only a being that has a material going back up on that it's the material the matter the brain or the consciousness like well let me back there because those are two separate things I guess I'm confused in what you're saying that a brain means you have a soul a consciousness means you have a soul but someone whose brain is not functioning would they then not have a soul someone who didn't have a brain that was capable of consciousness somebody who was a human vegetable in effect would not have the properties that you call a soul and that I might call a cell for the sake of argument but I don't think it's immortal that's the main difference between us and I think that's very key because that then would work out in how you and I or someone who believes like you do and someone who believes like I do would treat someone who is in what's been called it very I think it's a horrible term but a vegetative state that we would still treat that human being as a person who's deserving of loving respect that should be ferret fed and cared for even though they can't for themselves how would you treat how do you create a chimpanzee who was in full command of her faculties yes and that's where we would differ we believe that human beings have souls have spirits and that animals should absolutely are cared for that's a great teaching that comes from our beliefs that we that we care for animals but we recognize that there's a difference between animals and humans and one of the differences is as spirit when do you use the word we quite often for people who think like you so would it be right that the CW is part of a sort of wider constituency within America yes we represent 500-thousand ourselves but that's just a drop in the bucket of the number of people who believe similarly and we find that as these challenges come up saying school districts that there are a number of parents and families and communities who will rise up in concern over the fact that only evolution is allowed to be taught and noted that not the questioning of evolution so it's a it's quite widespread in the United Kingdom our Keable because evolution has been so heavily taught in the last number of decades and the fact that it's being taught so strongly and and isolated from other information or evidence yet many people continue to believe that God has a hand in creating us I think helps to show that people are using their critical factories they're not just believing what's being taught in the schools and and that evolutionism is going to continue to have a bit of a challenge here in the United States and beyond hmm I've been reading your website and I get the feeling there's almost a feeling of sort of persecution I mean as though as though somehow you feel that the establish between the United States is is-is-is against Christianity that puzzles me of it because I mean you know you've got the White House you've got the Supreme Court you've got well you had both houses of Congress until quite recently how can you feel persecuted in the face of this overwhelming Christian dominance in the United States and many Christians have experienced the hostility toward our beliefs but beyond hostility the attempts to even censor and punish us for our beliefs and the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance and that we must continue to fight for our freedom in order to have it and even though some may believe that the three branches of government reflect our views that's not necessarily the case but let me give you my my own experiences a number of years ago I was praying in public across the street from an abortion clinic and was sentenced to six months in jail for simply praying it's these kinds of experiences he was sentenced to six months in jail for praise for praying could I get a bit more detail sure my judge had signed an injunction stating that certain things could not be done within a hundred feet of abortion clinics in that city in Houston and so four of us knelt and prayed across the street from the clinic and the judge sentence s to six months in jail and a $500 for what law was that look it was an injunction and an injunction is essentially a judge made law it only applies to certain people I was not named on the injunction and yet the judge found me guilty of it thankfully she was overturned by a higher court their experiences like that throughout the United States where certain people are told and punished for acting out their beliefs and it's those kinds of cases that make us very sensitive to protecting all of our liberties I can't help feeling the context must have been had that abortion clinic being being threatened with know exactly how it had none it had not there were protests that were going on during that time now the abortion clinic had argued to the judge that women would be intimidated from going coming into the clinic if there were protesters outside well at the same time that four of us were quietly kneeling in prayer with no signs or anything like that there were about a hundred pro-abortion demonstrators in front of the clinic blocking the entrance screaming and yelling with signs and bullhorns but it was those of us who were quietly kneeling in prayer who were sentenced to six months in jail so I think maybe you can understand then why we are so sensitive to wanting to protect our religious freedoms and the ability to act on our conscience is because we do have cases like this where people have been punished for acting on their beliefs yes I can't comment on particular anecdote like that of course just want to come back one one more time to the the idea of teaching the controversy in science where well used to controversy and it and we we have controversy all the time since Darwin's time plenty of things that that Darwin thought had now been shown to be wrong I mean Darwin was completely wrong about genetics for example and so there are modern controversies in in Darwinism there are controversies between people who think that natural selection is all important in driving evolution and there are people who think that that natural selection is only part of it and that there are other things that drive evolution nobody seriously doubts the fact of evolution but there are controversies about whether evolutions largely driven by natural selection or only partly driven by natural selection for example there are controversies about whether evolution goes smoothly and continuously or whether it goes in jumps whether there are sort of long periods where not much evolution to happen happens and then a rather sudden burst of evolution which represent a kind of step in the fossil record those are genuine controversies and of course it's extremely right and proper that children should be taught those controversies but when you say teacher the controversy by which I think you mean the controversy between science on the one hand and probably biblical creation on the other there are lots and lots of creation myths I mean the Genesis myth is just happens to be the Babylonian Jewish myth which for the historical accident reasons is largely prevalent in the United States but I mean why not teach the Hindu myth that we're the product of a cosmic butter churn or an Australian Aboriginal myth that we come from the green time what why pick on the judeo-christian Babylonian myth well we have argued when we say teach the controversy is teach the controversies in evolution and to teach the evidence that shows intelligent design I'm not aware of people arguing that they added that in public schools it ought to be taught the biblical accounts of creation so what we what we when we say teach the controversy we mean teach the all the evidence the including the evidence that goes against evolution teach the evidence for intelligent design who do you think the intelligent designer was well see that's something that I think scientists would not would can debate but the idea that there was a an intelligent design to the process in fact what you've mentioned regarding even natural selection and that there could be some body or something that put all these laws in place that now the world is operating off of does back up this idea that there it wasn't a being an intelligent being that caused all this the whole world to happen yes I mean that's what a bishop might say I wouldn't say that but but but there are there are plenty of Christians who would who would say that wouldn't your life be not easier if you went along with the bishops and and said but the evidence in favor of the fact of evolution is overwhelming so let's accept it and bring God in there I think one issue is this idea that that we take orders from a hierarchy okay and and there are some bishops that believe like you do and there are other bishops that don't they believe differently and so it's easy to select those who believe like you do and and rely wholly as if they speak for everyone yes but those bishops don't speak all Christian I mean I accept that and I would hate to suggest that you take orders from Authority I don't you look at the facts a bit more they're not actually very interesting would you be fascinated just to write a book I think well I find that to be quite demeaning to claim that we don't read that we don't read books or that we don't know what evolution is when in fact most of us have been through the museum's that you and your folks have put together it it probably would be helpful to the dialogue if the evolutionist were not so demeaning and degrading to others and again I kind of go back to perhaps that comes out of the philosophy of evolution that some people are better than others you said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution and I told you about five fossils would I when I say is if that were the and if those were valid there would be tons of evidence it is because there are so many different species that there ought to be tons of evidence even let's say for 1% of the macro evolution that's taken place there should be evidence but there's a reason 1% let alone 10 or 50 or 70 percent there is a massive amount of evidence you just need to go into the books and go into the museums and look at it it's there yes and we believe it we have telling you that I do and again I go back to it some it's very demeaning to say that we only believe what we believe because we've been told that and yet we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what's not fat and to censor out in nation that is inconvenient I'm asking you to go look at the facts I don't want you to believe me just don't look at the first and I and I have and again I go back to the let's look at the differences of what your philosophy lives out the evolutionary philosophy and how does that end up working out in a society I've accepted that it that if we if we worked out society on Darwinian grounds it will be a very very unpleasant right-wing society I've accepted that well I don't know right wing again it seems to be that you fall back on ad hominem name-calling free market and a market even endless trampling on the poor that's what it would be like if I did you know it's a Darwinian society I don't want a Darwinian communism was based on atheistic beliefs beliefs and evolutionary beliefs and communism resulted in a decade that had more deaths over 100 million deaths committed because of communism than all the killings combined of every century prior to that so when you talk about socialism which is a close cousin to communism being a better way of life I look back on what what beliefs was communism socialism based on and the atheistic belief that human beings are not distinct and should not be respected when you say distinct giving distinct from each other or giving when human beings are not distinct from each other that human beings are created as distinct from one another and should be treated and should be treated with respect even if they are not utilitarian you know even if they are not able to provide something to society the atheistic believe the evolutionary belief is that you're unnecessary and unneeded if you cannot provide something for society that's an extraordinary thing to say I mean you equated atheistic with evolutionary that means that's wiping out most of the bishops they would take very kindly to that I know and I recognize that there are varying degrees within the evolutionary believes it's the hardcore evolutionists that reject the idea of a creator that then pave the foundation for very brutal societies well I I have accepted that if we were to base our societies on Darwinian principles they would be brutal harsh and unpleasant I have told you that I want not to live in a Darwinian society I've suggested to you that it might be a good idea to learn something about Darwinism so as to know what to avoid in setting ups and it would be helpful to learn what are the characteristics that make successful and healthy society and let's build on those characteristics I agree adoption among those characteristics would be critical thinking a respect for education and respect for evidence and respect for human beings and respect for human beings very much so regardless of whether they can provide for society or by something to society that's the essence of the liberal philosophy which I espouse that human being should be respected their health should be taken care of even if they don't have a functioning brain juris conscious they should be given that their hospital care should be taken care of by the state that's a liberal principle which I suppose it's an under win Ian and I see I believe that it's not a stake as a state as an institution or an entity it's human beings that provide care for others well ok human beings provide care for others none of that bears on the truth of whether evolution actually happened and that is a matter of fact it's like gravity you can't get away from that study the fact learn the facts and then make up the society that you want to live in on the basis of the facts as they are and the facts that would include what makes the best the better society is one where there is deep respect for each human being and waiting and the way to inculcate respect for human beings is by seeing that they were created why don't you say you would what do I hate distort the scientific fact in order to create there's no there's no need to distort because as I mentioned science is a technique a tactic for discovering and unlocking the keys of how this world works and so we don't need to deny any facts because the facts end up bearing out our beliefs so it takes sometimes it takes time for science to catch up with the the beliefs that have made the best societies sometimes it takes a while for science to they may stumble across something and and take the wrong interpretation from it and build a philosophy on it and then later realize oops that that that wasn't correct so science oftentimes changes its own beliefs based on new evidence that comes forward but oftentimes what ends up happening is as science progresses it backs up the belief that there's an intelligent designer science proceeds by what the philosopher Karl Popper called conjectures and refutations you have an idea you have a hypothesis and then you see if you can refute it and a theory is well substantiated theory is always one that has yet to be refuted so the more a theory has been attempted to be refuted and has yet come through with flying colors the the more accepted it is and after a point de facto it gets called a fact after I mean the the theory that the earth goes around the Sun is only a theory it's only a theory that but it's never been refuted and we all know it never will be refuted that that's how science proceeds it's a it's conjecture and refutation that's the state that evolution is in I mean it's it's a bit like the theory that the earth goes around the Sun it's it is only a theory but to a scientist that can mean in this case does mean that it's never been refuted and the more it goes on from decade to decade a decade and it and and is not refuted the more closely does it approximate to what everybody calls a fact then evolutionist should have no problem with there being questioning of it absolutely not challenging of it and to be willing to teach the challenges to it to be willing to talk about the evidence against it and that's where I find the hard core evolutionist have a bit of a problem it's like an oak tree in a storm because it is so rigid it's more likely to then fall and break whereas those that are more open to being challenged can then Bend with with the facts that come forward so that's why what are many of us in the United States are arguing for teach the controversies in the schools allow the information that shows the flaws in evolution to be taught don't black ball a scientists who may not agree wholeheartedly with the hard core version of evolution to be blackballed out of the profession allow people to have enough respect for people to give to allow them to have all the information so they can make up their own minds a difficult question this thing about black bottom and I would say it's a nasty idea to blackball yes I mean what what about somebody who's teaching geography who believes in the Flat Earth I mean would you blackballed them well always extreme cases are used that's and that's not what we're facing here in the United States what we're facing our scientists who may not agree wholeheartedly with the Hardcore view of evolution who do believe in intelligent design they're being denied their careers are being denied so it's better to argue from the facts of what's happening rather than some hypothetical okay let's take intelligent design I mean the leading intelligent design proponents country believe in evolution they believe that we're cousins of chimpanzees we're cousins of kangaroos etc but what they don't believe is that God is completely absent from the process so they believe in evolution but they believe that God as it were helped evolution over the difficult jumps there are some things that they call irreducibly complex which and scientists dispute that they're introduced ibly complex but the point is they do believe in evolution they do believe that that we're descended from reptiles for example why don't they is just that they think that God helped over certain of the difficult stages so be wonderful to interview them and let them speak themselves present their information in their evidence yes I and and to show that there are a variety of views and that's why the hardcore evolutionist should not have a monopoly on what is allowed to be discussed or researched in science would you would you accept what nobody's going to make any restriction on watch I like to research of course well that's done of course their funding through grants through positions at universities there are ways to restrict what can and can't be research funding of scientific research is always a problem and all scientists have a time when they grumble about not getting funding I mean you do have to you're competing in a marketplace and the NSF and other grant giving bodies have to give money where peer review suggests it's going to be most useful minute that that is definitely a problem of course would you accept that that that what you call teaching the controversy should be done in classes of religion or classes of history of ideas well rather than classes of science teaching the controversy refers to teaching the evidence and the facts that help the dispute evolution so it should be taught in the science classes because it's teaching evidence yes I mean when when I asked you about evidence you said there are no fossil intermediates and when I told you about fossil intermediates you change the subject I mean now what I can when I don't change the subject what I say is that if there were if if there had been evolution from slime to human beings that there'd be a massive amount of evolu sorry if there was evidence of going from slime to human beings there'd be a massive amount of evidence showing interspecies from one macro species to another and that's where I find the concept of evolution lacking and so the burden really is on the evolutionists oftentimes it's been thrown back at us that we just need to look at the information but no but let me throw it back on you all to say look this is what you what's needed to convince us so you need to come up with with a large amount of evidence to back up this claim that there's been a large progression of macro evolution throughout the years how are we going to make you look at it there because I mean I dunno we look at it we look at it again when I go back to up it's easy to blame the other person to say and to blame by saying that we're ignorant but what I'm saying to you is if there were enough evidence it would convince even it will convince those who are open to the information there are such there's such a vast number of people in the United States and elsewhere who do believe in an intelligent design there's a creator if there was a vast amount of evidence solid evidence to back up evolution that would influence a significant number of the vast number of people who believe that intelligent that seems to be close to despair because because the evidence is there I mean I could tell you but just let me tell you some of up some of it there is there is evidence from example the transition from fish coming out of the water onto the land it's beautiful evidence it's elegant they're lovely fossils go to it go to Philadelphia and have a look at the wonderful fossil they've got there go to I'm sure they have replicas in there in them in the Smithsonian here um just just look at that evidence it's beautiful the evidence for the transition between the reptilian jaw and the mammalian jaw the reptilian jaw has several bones the mammalian lower jaw has only one bone and the other bones that were in the reptile have now moved into the inner ear it's a beautiful transition so what is your what is your cause in life it I would think that if your cause was to convince others that evolution is correct not just a theory but a fact then you'd be devoting yourself to finding this information and making it relevant rather readily available what I find is that you're spending a lot of time arguing with me trying to convince me instead of instead of showing the evidence or spending your time producing evidence what was I not just telling you about fish that are intermediate about that between the sea again when I go back to is if if this were if there was a large enough amount of evidence which there should be if we have gone from slime to human beings there should be an overwhelming amount of evidence not these isolated cases it could be interpreted differently and see the problem one problem that evolution is have is that in the past when there's been great a claim of a discovery the show from one species to another it's been proven to be fraudulent so evolutionists have a problem in their own history the fact that there have been so many cases of fraud or misinterpretation of information that now we have a problem believing what you say there was the Piltdown man in the 1920s I suggest we forget about the 1920s and look at today go and look at some some modern paleontology Labs go talk to some modern paleontologists go and talk the people who are looking at the transition from fish to amphibians go look at the fossils about the human transition look at the evolution of the horse look at the evolution of the elephant there are evolution of the whale there are so many beautiful stories I mean you'd be fascinated you you would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God is so what it what would it make you happy if we were to agree and that there is some evidence regarding macro-evolution with that alone make you happy or would you still be unhappy and feel that your cause is unsuccessful if many of us still believe that there's an intelligent being who caused this to happen it wouldn't make me an obviously happy I would love it if you if you said yes yes yes evolution is obviously a fact I accept evolution but God did it I mean that that wouldn't I mean I wouldn't agree with that but it would make me hugely happy at least I don't know study guidance and I don't understand why that's so important to you that I believe exactly like you believe no no it's not important to me um I am an educator I'm a scientist I'm a university professor I teach I love it when people see the beauty of nature the beauty of evidence and and just in look at it and appreciate how elegant it is it really is beautiful they look at it what is the danger in believing in an intelligent designer I don't think that's a danger that's that that's a simple as an atheist which I am a very strong atheist I have quite a quite separate agenda that is an agenda but it's not my agenda as a scientist as a science educator I'm not talking purely as a scientist and a science educator and I am distressed that somebody is intelligent as you is refusing to look at the evidence and um what is your agenda as an atheist because that that is going to influence the work that you do well I like to think it's not actually but for whatever I might say about that I've done another television program about that and I was very strong atheist in that in that program this program is about Darwin and there are many Darwinian who are not atheists and all I'm talking about now is the factual evidence and I'm suggesting to you that you might do a better job for your religion if you would open your mind to the factual evidence and realize that actually you could use the genuine scientific factual evidence to the greater glory of your God rather than running away from the evidence uh but again that's where we differ we don't believe we are running away from the evidence and what we are seeking to do is to help people to understand who God is that he's a loving God and part of his love toward us is that he created us the fact that he wanted us to exist maybe he did it by evolution though and um the the helping people to understand that there's a God who has created order in this universe and that there are certain as you've mentioned laws in this universe and that even includes moral laws moral laws of how we are to treat one another then the work that we're working toward is helping people to understand these moral laws and live according to these moral laws because not only will they benefit living healthier and happier lives but our society will as well and so each of the work that we do through concern women from Erica is toward that end now you have your own cause you're going to devote your life to that and I would hope that you could respect and appreciate the work that we're doing to help make society a better place by helping people to understand the moral laws not only exist but they're the best for each one of us and as a society and you can go to sleep at night happy hopefully knowing that we're being successful in our work because it will make a better society one that Darwin's beliefs would not have made yes well I've gone into that haven't I I agree with you that Darwinian beliefs would not make for a good Society I've said they'll make for a bad what's lacking as you've mentioned what's lacking is the what's lacking in Darwin needs to be made up with somewhere else the fact that Darwinian is such a heart would lead to such a harsh and brutal life means that there's a great need for other people to be making this world a better place and that's true that's what we are working on and even though I may not agree like you do hopefully you can appreciate the work that we're doing to make society a better place

Channel: CIIReligion

Views: 2,168,448

Rating: 4.809351 out of 5

Keywords: atheism, atheist, christian, theist, mormon, moron, muslim, bible, god, jesus, christ, Richard, Dawkins, Darwin, Interview, Intelligent, Design, Truth, Logic, Creationism (Religion), Proof, Theory, Reason

Id: -AS6rQtiEh8

Length: 66min 42sec (4002 seconds)

Published: Sat Mar 23 2013

Reddit Comments

[u/suluamus]

To be fair to her, he didn't bring his personal genetics lab with him. Or his personal fossil collection. Get it together Dawkins.

[u/BMXPoet]

"Show us the evidence."

"Ok, HERE is the evidence."

"Ok yes, but besides that where is the evidence?"

[u/ThelightsWinning]

creaTOR

[u/count2infinity2]

I wonder if the way that I feel anger toward her for not being able to see what's obvious with all the evidence and fossils is the same feeling that Christians, Muslims, etc. feel when trying to convince someone their religion is right just by pointing to a holy book.

[u/ragnarmcryan]

it's not like she's even giving viable retorts. She is asking for evidence and straight up ignoring the evidence he gives.

[u/[deleted]]

I appreciate the general dialogue and discussion, but that cameraman constantly moving is driving me bonkers bananas. (evolution puns!)

[u/breadbaker22]

Self confidence... delusion does that to a person.

[u/saxmanatee]

That way she does that smile all the time as if Dawkins knows absolutely nothing is terrible... could hardly watch more than 10 minutes

[u/charliemcad]

He should hold the next discussion in a museum.

WHAR IVEDANCE??/?? eh .... there?