Video: O’Reilly versus Dawkins on evolution. What could go wrong?
posted at 4:00 pm on October 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Food-fight material from the eternal debate for a slow-news Saturday afternoon. Every time we have a thread on this subject, a bunch of commenters end up pointing out that creationism and evolution aren’t strictly incompatible. In fact, O’Reilly takes that position himself. But if that’s how you want to play it in the classroom — teaching “evolution plus,” with the theory of design tacked onto the basic Darwinian syllabus — why don’t we get to teach “evolution minus” too showcasing evidence that there is, in fact, no God? Most biology teachers are content to teach the theory and leave the question of ultimate origin in the air, but if believers want to be aggressive about pursuing that, let’s be really aggressive and teach both possibilities. I’m sure Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris would leap at the chance of putting together a video presentation for America’s many impressionable Christian schoolchildren aimed at showing why God almost certainly doesn’t exist. How about it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15
There is nothing in logic to demonstrate it is any less false or ridiculous to imagine the universe arose spontaeneously of itself several billion years ago, by unique and unrepeated proceses, in a manner as yet undescribed, but which will surely be described and proved by mathematicians unborn.
There may be socially pleasant consequences to imagine it to be so, but it ain’t smarter or more rational.
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Yeah, that’s for sure.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 7:55 PM
you having a bad day sweetie? is it a bad time of the month for you?
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Point proven.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 7:59 PM
.
Yes you are correct but that process exists only in your head.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Well..I never intended to start an in depth discussion of advanced physics or mathematics..so I asked you..someone with knowledge of those things, to simply state what the conclusions of what all that advanced math implies is the source of the original matter.
So what is it?..surely all that advanced math and physics isn’t all a waste of time and empty mental masturbation.
It would seem reasonable to conclude that there is either something tangible or its all a form of faith based mumbo jumbo.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 7:59 PM
What point is that?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 8:01 PM
gosh I bet you think you’re just so clever..isn’t that cute?
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 8:01 PM
what a moron speakup is.
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Not so much.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 8:03 PM
you’re too dumb to know the difference between whining and ridicule…too funny…aren’t you special??
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 8:04 PM
You need to ray about Extra Dementional Wizard stuff…its possible that he is occupying the same “space” as your computer monitor, only vibrating at a different rate…so just ask the monitor.
Just trying to be helpful…no need to thank me.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Leave it to a Religionist to allow the perfect opportunity to pass right over their head or more accurately just outside their blinders.
That’s why of course part of the proof of the blind faithers, they actually do have an inherent need for the prejudice and superstition of the sheep tended by the Shepherd who eats mutton syndrome.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Arguing, like Dawkins, that science WILL prove something as yet uproven, is speaking from faith.
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM
thats all evolution is…atheistic FAITH…the fossil record doesn’t show it…neither does the lab, nor the field…yet they believe it…and when asked to provide some proof, like the mutations that led to the eye…they’ll tell you some fairy tale story…or admit that they don’t know…but will someday…a ‘darwin of the gaps’
we don’t know now…but whatever the question, DARWIN is the answer…praise his name!!
right4life on October 11, 2009 at 8:28 PM
.
Based on past experience not faith. Odd how the faithful denigrate faith though. I’ll call that progress.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 8:29 PM
You don’t seem to be making much sense.
What are you trying to say?
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 8:35 PM
You tripped over a 5 spot to pick up a nickle.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 8:37 PM
A true atheist, for that matter, a true scientist just wouldn’t care where the trial lead or which way the road turned. A scientist should not be about shutting down a discussion. There are always new ideas, there are always new discoveries. No scientist would ever say we have learned all we can about electricity and it’s uses, or about water and it’s uses, or about biology or geology or mathematics. The universe is filled with the unknown. All doors are open to more discovery,, accept the door that may lead to God, or a creator.
I bet if you asked this guy if he believed in the possibility that an alien race with super intelligence seeded our planet,, he’d say it is possible. What about God doing the same thing?? Oh no,, that’s silly.
JellyToast on October 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM
That train has sailed…you’re barking up the wrong canoe.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Then as in any belief is only so good as its tested to be.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/
And no, I know where I’ve barked, and you need to pay attention.
troll4life should visit too, I’m sure he’ll really teach those nasty Atheists a lesson they’ll never forget.
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 9:31 PM
It is quite possible our universe did come into existence from actions outside of it. Thus, there is a possible source for an unimaginable deity that exists outside our universe.
ray on October 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM
.
Where did the “outside of it” come from?
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Could be, I suppose. The question would still remain though..where did those actions originate?
I think its a waste of energy to spend too much time on it. Life is short. Live it honestly and learn from the experiences.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM
How are you blending belief with “testing”?
Where have you barked? My post was intended to be vague gibberish…yet you believe I was making an observation about you. It seems like you imply more than you present. Just my opinion.
Itchee Dryback on October 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM
A life in pursuit of knowledge, including the origins of the universe, life, etc… is an honest and fun life. What better way to appreciate His creation than seeking to understand it? And in that pursuit, finding things that help your fellow humans?
ray on October 11, 2009 at 10:09 PM
With the math of modern theoretical physics, it is possible for there to be other universes in a reality of multiverses, which continually give birth to new universes. They are developing means to measure and identify the impressions of other universes on our own. Fascinating stuff.
ray on October 11, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Afraid to test your faith?
Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM
.
It never stops though. What’s outside that? Turtles all the way down. Heh!
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM
If you ever get a chance to watch a debate between an evolutionist scientist and a creationist scientist you will be blown away. The creationists consistently win the debates with their logic and presentation of the evidences.
paraff on October 11, 2009 at 11:06 PM
It’s like a dent in the universe.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM
.
You just put the moron in oxymoron.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 11:12 PM
What about religiousity based on past experience of divine grace?
Clearly it is not rational to believe that the human race will correctly describe a material state of the universe that does not recur and was neither observed nor recorded, just because the human race once solved the angles of a triangle. Or what “experience” were you referring to? Styrofoam? Rubik’s Cube? What masterful work of calculation justifies your pompous sneering at anybody else’s blind faith?
Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM
.
Meh. How about the polio vaccine. Penicilin. Moon Landing. Heart Transplant. Steam Engine. Philosophy, Geology, Biology, Mathamatics, Astronomy, Physics.
But I’ll just go with whatever justifies your sneering attitude.
ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Others have recommended the show “Connections”. I suggest you NOT watch it. It will describe these achievements in such a way as to deny you the superstition of humanism. And then, what would keep your head up?
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Lol!
The “moon landing” has been throughly DEBUNKED!
It was faked.
Russian and Chinese space program scientists say that it is impossible to travel through the massive layer of RADIATION that is the van allen belt.
Unfortunately you base much of your “science” on FRAUD!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM&
MaximusConfessor on October 12, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Exactly why the evolutionists keep losing these debates with the creationists they despise.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on October 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM
.
“Ah seed it on them intertubes! It must beh troo!”
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM
.
Losing? Only in your moms basement dwelling reality. Science marches on.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:50 AM
Thank you very much.
Loxodonta on October 12, 2009 at 2:51 AM
.
Saw Burkes programs when it when it came out. As I suspected your entire world view comes from TV.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:51 AM
As usual in these threads you are reduced to the most pathetic conspiracy fantasies and grade school taunts. You certainly represent the Avant-garde of Creationism. My work is done.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:56 AM
I cant resist. This is right up your fruitcake alley.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:59 AM
I’m game. Show me any evidence.
Squiggy on October 12, 2009 at 6:28 AM
It fits you better. Ignoring their own lying eyes is what the flat-earthers do.
Squiggy on October 12, 2009 at 6:30 AM
none of which have anything to do with your hairygod darwin, and his racist eugenicist theory.
so what are those lower races darwin was talking about? and why should they be exterminated? hmmmm??
right4life on October 12, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Not at all. And that’s some weak insult when discussing one of the few items of TV with any intellectual weight.
Since you’re aware of how haphazard any bit of technology really is, your mystical faith in Science is even more irrational. You should stop telling anybody you trust in hard evidence and solid logic, because it isn’t true.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 7:40 AM
It is impossible to either prove or disprove either the existence or non-existence of God, for the simple reason that “proof” requires evidence that will convince a hardened skeptic.
No such evidence exists, because the hardened skeptics on both sides will not accept it *as* evidence. The atheist does not believe in the possibility of the supernatural, so any phenomenon proffered by believers is dismissed, ignored, ridiculed, or explained away.
The believer’s worldview includes a reality beyond that which is measurable by the human senses, so any evidence offered by unbelievers is dismissed as insufficent because it does not include the possibility of the supernatural.
Hitches, Dawkins, and Harris clearly have no respect for those who do not share their position. The sneers, insults, and ad-hominem bombs they lob show that they are fundamentally unserious and non-responsive with prejudice.
skydaddy on October 12, 2009 at 8:36 AM
Proves the point. Scorn, ridicule, and taunts make poor arguments.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on October 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Did you even watch the videos? Of course not..that is the extent of your “scientific research”..absolutely nothing.
I just proved scientifically and without a doubt that NASA NEVER went to the moon and that it was impossible for them to go in the first place.
All you can do is throw insults because you are unable to refute the facts and too lazy to even bother researching whether these many BS “scientific theories” that you believe, are true or false.
But then again, lazy mindedness,inability to do any research whatsoever,extreme gullibility and bitterness are all traits of the typical atheist sheeple anyway. Why would I expect you to be able to hold a normal and logical conversation using FACTS? You’re far too emotional for that.
MaximusConfessor on October 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Presenting the atheist religion as science is a straw man. Most of mankind rejects pseudo sciences like phrenology and astrology. If dawkins faith were true you could demonstrate it in a lab. He is a science fiction writer like Hubbard or Asimov. The evolutionist religion should be drummed out of the schools and any teachers caught teaching this heresy should be locked away. If no creationism can be taught then dawkins atheist religion and its creation myth evolutionism can not be taught either.
Jerricho68 on October 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM
You are correct that Atheism is a sort of religion, in that it professes to know an answer to a metaphysical question, just as the various Theisms do. I submit the correct perspective is igtheism, in which metaphysical questions are regarded as inherently neither true nor false, as they are by definition immune to empirical investigation. There is no conceivable test for the veracity of either Theistic or Atheistic perspectives.
The confounding thing is that genuine scientific endeavors to understand evolution, which is an inherently empirical investigation, gets tied up in debates about Atheism and Theism (which are both metaphysical concerns). This makes no sense, and confuses two wholly unconnected realms of discourse. While there is empirical evidence for an evolutionary process, ultimately the detailed, step-by-step, empirically-backed answer as to how life came to exist in its current state on Earth is “we don’t know,” and it’s almost a certainty that we will never know with any great precision.
However, there is not, and can never be, empirical evidence for a Theistic claim such as the one endorsed by O’Reilly. So his perspective that, since “We don’t know” is ultimately what science has to offer, he’ll side with some metaphysical perspective, is on a par with saying that, if he can’t fly to Hawaii on a supersonic scramjet, he’ll stay home and do some push-ups to solve the problem of getting to Hawaii. That’s to say, it’s entirely unsound reasoning that results in no solution to the problem, as the first part of the conditional is completely unrelated to the other. If he can’t eat apples, he’ll crush oranges with a hammer. I won’t call it insanity, but I will call it evidence of profound confusion (from which Dawkins also suffers, in a typically equally belligerent fashion).
The bottom line is that “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable answer. What leads O’Reilly to assume he can or should know? Indeed, “I don’t know” is the very statement that drives the entire field of scientific endeavor. It’s good to admit when one doesn’t know.
Blacklake on October 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Atheism is also an illogical and arrogant faith. The only absolute way you can know that there is no God in the universe is to have viewed every part of it. But then that would make you God. Atheism is like an ant crawling out of his hole and traversing the limits of his ant hill and concluding, “There are no people. I walked around my ant hill and didn’t see any”. This demonstrates the limited perspective of the atheist. It therefore is more honest to say, you don’t know.
Rudemeister on October 12, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Its not called holier than thou for nothing.
Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Typical Freemasonry. The clergy does not exist to foment revolution, and “in no instance” outside of the US was a government founded on a guarantee of liberty. For the bulk of Christian history the common folk did not want independence, they wanted the protection of the most powerful warlord against despoiling warlords, in which the Church most certainly did cooperate.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Careful, you’re only just portraying Christianity as a more accomplished, articulate, oppressor.
Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM
having a good day, sweetie?
right4life on October 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
There were a lot of Freemasons involved in founding and running the country over the years, so if one believes Madison’s ideas stem from there (I don’t) then it is likely that those ideas provide much of the foundation of our country.
Churches in Europe were involved in government and controlled great amounts of wealth in nations long after they had advanced beyond a warlord environment.
dedalus on October 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Even that wouldn’t be sufficient. All you’re talking about is compiling all possible empirical evidence. There is no such thing as empirical (i.e., physical) evidence for the metaphysical. So even if one had observed everything there is to be observed, one could still neither confirm nor refute the proposition “God exists.” (Unless you’re suggesting that God is actually a physical phenomenon that can be observed, which doesn’t seem to fit the common useage of the term.)
Blacklake on October 12, 2009 at 2:25 PM
.
The hallmark of an uneducated HA troll seems to be the use of the word “logic” which seems to refer to the strange mixture of “sciency” terms, disturbed use of ALL CAPS and bold type to smear their paranoid delusions all over the walls. More funny still that they think they are the first to discover them. Scratch an ID Troll, find a Moon Truther. Go figure. Best of luck with your great scientific work on You Tube.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Like most elementary school food fights, after a few minutes of flying chipped beef on toast, it’s difficult to remember what the fight is actually about.
My question is, what is the point of all this? All these “arguments” end up at the same point in time/space (assuming there is such a thing), speculating that the Universe came from something rather than nothing (assuming, again, that we know what “something” and “nothing” are) so that there had to be a something there to start with — ends up seeing it’s own tail, whether or not it chases it. So, the something is not only an X of matter, it is an all-knowing something with the ability to calculate, design, plan, ordain and finger-snap into “existence” (whatever that is), the billions up on billions of collected masses we call planets, or stars or _____ (fill in the blank) and all that lies in between.
Okay, and… the point?
If all these debates regress to the “beginning” of the Universe (sorry for all the quotes but we take the meaning of so many of these terms for granted), then why are we so vehement in attacking those who disagree about the origin? What specific difference does it make?
It’s only when the debate is brought into present day and takes form of, in the worshiper’s view, doctrines and rules and faiths and pages upon pages of things written down by very old men (which somehow gives them weight greater than the ink and paper upon which they are written), people worshiping cows, people stoning women, people condemning others to “Hell” (whatever that is), that the debate seems to have any relevance to daily life.
If you read Dawkins in depth without pre-judgment (which I have done — and it’s not always easy — some things he says as a result of his belief are outrageous IMO), you will see that the thing to which he most objects (and the reason that he’s so passionate about his position) is the amount of harm that is done, many times throughout our human history, in the name of “religion.”
And, on that topic, I agree with him.
I’m not so concerned with whether the first spark came from a spontaneous explosion or implosion about which we know so little as to not even have the basis for the question, or whether it came from the wave of a wand of a being already so advanced, despite the existence of nothing else other than itself, to decide to create, design and create this cool thing called a Universe. I’m more concerned with what we, as people, do to each other (and to ourselves) while we are here, as organisms occupying this speck of space.
We can disagree about whether there was a bang, big or otherwise, or there was a long-bearded wise man with a gold stick back there at the start of all this. And if you want to believe that you’re going somewhere with cream puffs and soft jazz all day long if you’re good, that’s cool. Just don’t tell me I have to believe it or I’m going to burn for eternity. When you start telling people that they should go blow up a cafe full of innocent people, children and infants, in order to go hang with some dozens of hot virgins in the ever-after — that I have a problem with. I don’t care who or what created you.
We might disagree about the beginning. But, we can all agree that we’re here now. Don’t you think we should make the best of it.
A final point. Dawkins makes one interesting point. Why do we give a name to someone for not believing something? Do we have a name for people who don’t believe in Santa? Then what is this thing about “labeling” someone an atheist. It’s prejudging and prejudicial, don’t you think. They’re just people who don’t choose to believe something. That’s every human’s right.
The point being. Someone who doesn’t believe in Santa, or someone who we call an “atheist” because they don’t profess a belief in a divine being who created the Universe, is not inherently evil or psychopathic or likely to kill us in our sleep. They’re just people. And professing a “faith” in a supreme being, one of the dozens of gods worshiped around the world, does not make someone any “better” than one who does not, or any less likely to do harm to us or others.
Seems we should stop looking at the label and look at the person. That’s my forth cents’ worth.
IndieDogg on October 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM
It is typical Freemasonry, if you would look up freemasonry.
But not as agents of the state in that period, but as contenders.
I’m not saying what Madison says is not true. It is true the Church did not promote liberty in the medieval world, for the same reason it is true that the Church did not promote radio in the Middle Ages.
So what? You cannot show that oppression is wrong in and of itself. “Greatest good for the greatest number”. It’s not as if the tax-units had a sacred individual value, a “soul”; that would be inimical to the whole project of the scientific state.
By all means let us have the guillotine and the collective farm instead.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Just mandatory outrage.
Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Evolutionists = Racists
Evolution would necessarily indicate that some humans are more evolved than others, which in turn encourages racism. Undeniable logic.
scotash on October 13, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15