…and this is a 
Richard Dawkins was 'interviewed' by that awful little peabrain, Bill O'Reilly. It was a horrible spectacle, but Dawkins kept his cool. Look at O'Reilly's arguments:
Hmm, let's see. O'Reilly claims we don't know everything, which is entirely true, so somehow this justifies his belief in Jesus. Dawkins had a great answer to that: "It's a most of extraordinary piece of warped logic to say because science can't fill in a particular gap you're going throw in your lot with Christianity." Another point I like to toss in against that line of nonsense is that science at least has the integrity to say that we don't know yet what happened in a particular gap (but we may be working on it, and have a more useful strategy than waiting for a holy man to have a vision), while the religious wackaloons will instead fill that gap with pious certainty…a kind of clot of myth that we're eventually going to have to rip out in the face of great resistance.
Then we got the usual arguments: science provides no moral framework, but Jesus does. If that's the case, why have Christians always been such a warring, nasty, oppressive lot? They've got this ideal of a self-sacrificing man of peace at their center, but Christianity itself seems to drive in the opposite direction. Please explain to me the opulence of the Vatican, the Thirty Years War, and the Prosperity Gospel, just as a preliminary exercise.
O'Reilly is committing a stupid logical fallacy when he trots out the old "there are more Christians than atheists" argument.
And finally, we get the usual O'Reilly tactic of shouting at his guest that he's a fascist.
It wasn't a very enlightening interview, except in that it confirms that O'Reilly is a blustering moron while Dawkins is an intelligent gentleman.
Comments
Posted by: Prometheus
|
October 10, 2009 9:54 AM
It wasn't as good as the last interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
but it is always entertaining to watch those two in the same room together. In my opinion, the best points scored by Dawkins were those made with his eyes and eyebrows.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 10, 2009 10:02 AM
I loved it when O'Reilly told Dawkins that he was speaking in his normal voice and Dawkins replied with "I know. I've been warned about it." :-)
ps---Your AAI talk is up up on YouTube.
(via)
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
October 10, 2009 10:03 AM
I always question the validity of any interview where the interviewer speaks more than the interviewee.
He wants to discuss all the creation myths in the science classroom? just how long does this moron think people live? The kids would be 106 before they graduated highschool!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 10, 2009 10:04 AM
Why does Dawkins waste his time with a boring blowhard whose audience will neither listen to his reasoning nor read his books?
And why is "'Atheist'" in scare quotes?
Posted by: bonze
|
October 10, 2009 10:07 AM
Because it's a Well Known Fact that there are "No atheists in Fox Holes."
Posted by: Michael
|
October 10, 2009 10:09 AM
I am always amazed at how Dawkins can remain calm in the face of such ignorance and outright idiocy.
The other day I saw about the worst combination on Fox news. O'Reilly was interviewing Glenn Beck. Thankfully the TV was on mute or my head would have exploded.
Posted by: anidaadler.wordpress.com
|
October 10, 2009 10:13 AM
Bill O'Reilly doesn't do interviews. He does monologues with a few brief interruptions from the person he is shouting at.
Posted by: of-the-willows
|
October 10, 2009 10:17 AM
I really love how they tag Dawkins as simply "Atheist" in the previous segment. How about Professor or NY Times Bestselling Author or, fuck, I don't know, British.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 10, 2009 10:20 AM
I wish I didn’t know that so very many people were also shouting at their TV sets at Dawkin’s — cheering O’Reilly on. It’s depressing.
Yes, Bill, if you don’t want mythology in science then you’re a fascist. Dumbass.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 10, 2009 10:22 AM
Our constitution is fascistic now, eh?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
October 10, 2009 10:23 AM
Speaking of "prosperity gospel" have you seen the news about the AZ "spiritual retreat" yet?
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/10/greed-and-woo-kill-two-in-az.html
Posted by: Enkidu
|
October 10, 2009 10:24 AM
Who cares? The real question is not Does belief in a god do any good?, it's Does a god really exist?If there is no god, then religion is nothing but self-delusion.
Posted by: heironymous
|
October 10, 2009 10:24 AM
This horrible week was punctuated by an almost-all-day wait at my company's "PC-clinic" showing Fox news the entire time.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
October 10, 2009 10:27 AM
Somebody should try to calculate where Mr Everybodysafascistbutme fits on the RWA scale.
Posted by: Sonja
|
October 10, 2009 10:46 AM
Since Bill O'Reilly believes that science "doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way", I think he should be denied antibiotics next time he gets an infection.
Posted by: maggotpunk
|
October 10, 2009 10:50 AM
O'Reilly is right. If it wasn't for Jesus' moral teachings I wouldn't know how to properly mark and beat my slaves. Science doesn't tell me to drive a nail through my slaves ear and science doesn't tell me to not beat my slave to death. Therefore Christianity is superior. Suck on that you immoral Atheists.
Posted by: GeralCorasjo
|
October 10, 2009 10:50 AM
I found it funny that he went on to talk about his book about Evolution, and Bill said he accepts evolution. But instead of talking about the merits of the book, it turned to a useless argument over Christianity.
I also like how his title was "Atheist". Does Bill do that for other Authors, label them as Christian, Muslim, etc.?
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 10, 2009 10:55 AM
It might have been on Virginia Postrel's blog; some years ago, somebody did a graph of the volume of O'Reilly's voice through one of his "interviews." It was quite revealing.
Posted by: Thorne
|
October 10, 2009 10:58 AM
Since O'Reilly is so keen on teaching about God in science classes, I wonder how he would feel about being required to teach evolution and cosmology in Sunday school classes? Just for balance, you know.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 10, 2009 10:59 AM
Watching this segment was like watching a gnat with a really, really big mouth buzzing around a confident, quiet owl. O'Reilly really is just a brainless ideologue - he has no idea how ignorant his statements sound to anyone who isn't uneducated or willfully ignorant.
Posted by: jolo
|
October 10, 2009 11:00 AM
Have you been reading Conservative blogs again? Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs posted this last night, he said pretty much the same as you, but a little less nice...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34863_Bill_OReilly-_Creationist
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 10, 2009 11:15 AM
Bill O'Reilly comes across as a little man with a mind of purest concrete - completely ossified in thought patterns from a couple thousand years ago. I'm sure he's not the stereotypical muscle-headed jock, peaking their scholastic careers somewhere in Middle School, but he certainly sounds like he's regressed to that point.
What DOES that loudmouth bass have against intelligent discourse?
Posted by: Tad Pohl
|
October 10, 2009 11:16 AM
I thought Dawkins did a wonderful job in the interview and came off as very scholarly.
A quick google shows Bill's dirty talk recordings.
Posted by: Dust
|
October 10, 2009 11:18 AM
bonze noted "Because it's a Well Known Fact that there are "No atheists in Fox Holes."
Good One! But I would argue, "No atheists in Faux holes."
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 10, 2009 11:23 AM
O'Reilly was of course terribly inconsistent. Is the existence of God a scientific explanation, or isn't it?
If he wants to say that it's a scientific explanation, then he has to concede that it needs to do the same work as any theory. It can't just be shoved into gaps in our understanding, so that we worship our ignorance by calling it God. "I don't know" is not scientific evidence for God.
If he wants to say that evolution occurred, but he prefers to believe that God was behind it all in some vague way that can't be measured by science, then he has to concede that this needs to stay out of the science classroom. His 'explanation' isn't explaining any facts: it's something he uses to jolly his life along, and other people will use different stories to jolly their life along. That's not science.
The "fascism" charge was simply stupid. What's fascist is insisting that political expediency and ideology trump honesty and reality when it comes to what we teach children.
Posted by: amandakcampbell
|
October 10, 2009 11:43 AM
"They've got this ideal of a self-sacrificing man of peace at their center, but Christianity itself seems to drive in the opposite direction
I think the underlying logic is that because Jesus already did the self-sacrificing for everyone, it's actually ok if you "fall short of the glory." You know: "A for effort," and all that. In a religion where you can self-flagellate and/or self-absolve, why bother to learn how to interact ethically and responsibly with your fellow humans? Why bother to learn from your mistakes if SkyDaddy is there to give you cookies and juice that make all the bad things you did go bye-bye?
Posted by: formosus
|
October 10, 2009 11:43 AM
Wow, Billo really toned it down. He was much less shouty than he usually is. I'm impressed. I guess he took some of his crazy and gave it to Glenn Beck.
I mean, he's still wrong, but at least he wasn't resorting to the tactics he usually does. No talking over, no cutting Dawkins' mic.
But yes. The whole concept of "science doesn't know about this, so I'll fill it in with shit that sounds good." It's back to Dara O'Brien: Just because science doesn't know something doesn't mean you can fill it in with whatever horseshit fairy tale you like.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
October 10, 2009 11:54 AM
O'Reilly is one big Fox hole. He is a stranger to logic.
Posted by: The Skepdick
|
October 10, 2009 11:54 AM
No big surprise about O'Reilly's behavior. He a bully and a loud mouthed idiot. There's no arguing with the likes of him and the ditto heads.
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
October 10, 2009 12:05 PM
Painful as it is, I'd have to add some balance to these comments: O'Reilly CLEARLY had the better haircut!
(Is there NOONE out there who dares to tell the great Dawkins that he's too old for that 'long hair' look? Who does he think he is? Einstein? ;-)
Posted by: Pew Pew Lasers!
|
October 10, 2009 12:13 PM
LOL!
"If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, we would have peace on Earth."
Sure.....
Posted by: Somite
|
October 10, 2009 12:23 PM
I loved it how when O'Reilly says that science has not contributed anything to society and Dawkins gives him a wide-eyed look followed by doing his best not to laugh.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 10, 2009 12:30 PM
Dutchdoc at #31:
Painful as it is, I'd have to add some balance to these comments: O'Reilly CLEARLY had the better haircut!
(Is there NOONE out there who dares to tell the great Dawkins that he's too old for that 'long hair' look? Who does he think he is? Einstein? ;-)
Dutchdoc, are you kidding? Bill is going bald. And Dawkins looks awesome with that hair! Seriously, with the hair and the eyes he reminds me of a hawk.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 10, 2009 12:36 PM
Sorry, I said dutchdoc's comment was #31 when I meant #30.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 12:43 PM
Here we see another example of O'Reilly's . . . 'alternative' approach to interviewing. Allow me to create a fictional, but representative, scenario;
Professor Dawkins; " Science should be taught in science classrooms, not superstition . . ."
O'Reilly; "FASCIST! YOU DAMED LONG-HAIRED, COMMIE FASCIST! YOU . . . YOU ATHEIST YOU!"
Professor Dawkins; *facepalm*
One wonders how O'Reilly ever manages to complete one of his nauseating propaganda Faux News shows at all. After all, to one so backward as he, it is obvious that the video camera is a hellspawn creation of satan powered by evil 'majiks'.
It is trying to steal our souls! Burn it! Burn the demon-beast!
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 10, 2009 12:44 PM
dutchdoc #30 wrote:
At least Dawkins' hair is better than Steven Pinker's. I don't really notice with Dawkins. Pinker, I want to take a scissors to. Dude. The 70's are over.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 10, 2009 12:45 PM
You see, O'Reilly got so mad he said 'damed' when he meant 'damned'.
That's what happens when your blood pressure gets too high.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 10, 2009 12:45 PM
Why all the hate? Did a bald man once do something to you and now you take it out on all of us? None of us should have to tollerate this sort of blatant epithophobia!
Posted by: Harry Varty
|
October 10, 2009 12:52 PM
"... science provides no moral framework, but Jesus does."
Even if I were to accept that the Bible contains a useful moral code how do the believers know that it is a 'good' code? They must have a non-biblical standard against which to judge it, interpret it and for filling in the gaps. Similar to the one the rest of us use.
Posted by: frankosaurus
|
October 10, 2009 12:54 PM
Dawkins didn't have a convincing answer to one of Bill's question, I regret to admit. Bill said we don't "turn" to Christianity, but use religions to talk about things that fill in the gaps. (And I imagine most classes have passing mentions anyway for the curious student who raises the question). Dawkins is right to say that there is a logical fallacy to say "it's not that, so it must be this", but Bill wasn't implying it MUST be anything.
But as I said it's a moot point, as religion does find its way into the science classrooms anyway. The debate is to what weight of credibility should it be presented -- too much and you disservice students, too little and you risk creating reactionaries.
Posted by: edwbaker.myopenid.com
|
October 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Interview completely missed the point (RD's latest book), O'Reilly is really bad at interviewing people. My take on the interview is here.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 10, 2009 1:01 PM
Don't pick on the hair. I think it's simply scientist syndrome -- we tend not to care about the stuff. My hair tends to just grow and grow until it gets in my way, and then I go in for a haircut every 6 months whether I need it or not. Or when the Trophy Wife gets fed up and starts dropping subtle hints.
Posted by: Standard curve
|
October 10, 2009 1:07 PM
Do O'Reilly interviews ever "hit" the point?
He is obviously not interviewing people to understand anything about their point of view. He is there to push his own point of view, which is mostly about keeping his regular viewers happy in their little cocoons, so that he continues to be on the air, highly paid, and sell his own books etc.
He, (as do most of his type,) does the equivalent of a push poll, sort of a "push interview" if you will.
Posted by: nerdheroine
|
October 10, 2009 1:26 PM
I'm confused. I don't watch Bill O'Reilly (what would be the point?) but does he always refer to distinguished PhDs as "Mr"? Or was this honour reserved for Dr. Dawkins?
I only ask because he seemed to be stressing the "Mr" part of "Mr Dawkins" at the beginning.
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 10, 2009 1:28 PM
O'Reilly uses the opportunity to lecture, not to interview. Typical.
O'Reilly's brain is lithified.
Richard Dawkins, I don't know how you put up with it. I thought you did very well considering the hog-the-limelight approach of Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: KathleenTurnerOverdrive
|
October 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Ugh. What a sad interview. I wish Dawkins weren't so restrained. He needs to channel Carlin.
If skepticism is ever to attain nation-wide acceptance, its advocates will need to appear calm, reasonable, and knowledgeable; and that's exactly what Dawkins is. However, I hate to see these idiot Christians walk on him and shout over him.
Bill's only salient point was the one about the origin of the universe. This has always been an issue for me too. I won't fill it in with whichever deity seems most pleasing to me, but I won't entirely rule out the possibility that there's a Creator behind all this (at least not yet).
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
October 10, 2009 1:32 PM
Maybe I should set an example here myself:
PZ: Go get a haircut! Who do you think you are? Richard Dawkins?
Don't wait for the Trophy Wife's subtle hints (like being locked out of the house?)
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
October 10, 2009 1:37 PM
#33:
I've never seen a hawk with long hair!
(You shouldn't have used the word 'hawk'! That confuses people, and they'll start calling the great man 'Richard Hawkins'. Can't have that!)
Posted by: amandakcampbell
|
October 10, 2009 1:39 PM
"Don't pick on the hair. I think it's simply scientist syndrome -- we tend not to care about the stuff. My hair tends to just grow and grow until it gets in my way, and then I go in for a haircut every 6 months whether I need it or not. Or when the Trophy Wife gets fed up and starts dropping subtle hints."
As the wife of a physics grad student, I can whole-heartedly affirm the truth of this statement. Luckily for my husband, I happen to like the "mad-scientist," "absent-minded professor," look. :-)
Posted by: Foggg
|
October 10, 2009 1:41 PM
No thread on BO'Re would be complete without mentioning Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
Posted by: bonze
|
October 10, 2009 2:06 PM
re: Dust #24:
I am sad to report that that is no faux hole... I am informed by "reliable sources" that it is wide and deep, tunnelling through the bowels of the Earth to unnamed reaches of Orstralia.
re: Hair
So next you start in on hairfarmers Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, amirite?
Or... you could join the burgeoning ranks of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists™, inspired by the example of Steven Pinker himself!
For PZ, I would suggest the most avant-garde yet retrenchedly retro look... giving rise perhaps to a "mob of mullet-headed minions of the arch-mistheist Myers!"
Posted by: Bronze Dog
|
October 10, 2009 2:16 PM
Honestly telling the kids, "Scientists don't know yet" = Fascism.
Thank you for your political and epistemological savvy, Bill.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 10, 2009 2:19 PM
"Is there NOÖNE out there who dares to tell the great Dawkins that he's too old for that 'long hair' look?"
Hey come on, he's a tenured professor. Long hair and tweed blazers come with the territory. And there's certainly nothing wrong with reminding fatheads like O'Reilly that high testosterone leads to male pattern baldness.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 10, 2009 2:24 PM
I thought the Reformation was a period of time where all the followers of Christ's teaching were killing other followers of Christ's teaching? Not to mention that during colonialism, after they successfully converted many people to Christ's teaching they still continued to war with them?
lol, Well then again who needs historical accuracy.
Posted by: sidhe1
|
October 10, 2009 2:27 PM
Wow, that was embarrassing. I don't know how Professor Dawkins managed to stay so calm in the face of that. I hate when any interviewer, no matter who they are or what the topic is, talks over their interviewee or doesn't allow them to fully answer. Interrupting is a major peeve of mine. It shows a lack of self control at what ought to be a pretty basic level. Of course, O'Reilly seems to have the mental capacity of a developmentally delayed toddler, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. =/
As for Dawkins' hair, I kinda like it. I like longer hair on men. =)
Posted by: Tuff
|
October 10, 2009 2:28 PM
I'm giving prof Dawkins a big imaginary hug for sitting through this interview.
And I hope O'Reilly, starting Monday, will try to broadcast his show with some rocks and sticks, as science hasn't advanced human condition.
BTW I'm writing from happy modern secular Amsterdam, a cesspool of corruption according to Bill.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 10, 2009 2:33 PM
For an interview about Dawkins's new book, O'Reilly certainly spent a lot of time discussing Jesus.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 10, 2009 2:54 PM
*SIGH*
So now we're not just hating on bald men, but making unfounded claims to boot. Tell me then, why isn't Jose Canseco going bald?
Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com
|
October 10, 2009 3:02 PM
Can you get a concussion from repeated facepalms?
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Pierce R. Butler wrote:
Fixed.
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 10, 2009 3:07 PM
Okay, after all this talk about hair, I had to go back and watch the video again. IMHO the slightly rock-and-roll version of Dick to the Dawk's hair is trés sexy. Don't bother to trim the locks, I say.
The way O'Reilly begins the interview reminds me of the question/answer period in PZ's talk at AAI. PZ noted that when he's in the audience at a talk being given by an IDer, and he rises to ask a question at the end, the lecturer prefaces the question with "This is PZ Meyers, an ATHEIST." This intro is meant to dismiss the atheist before he has even spoken. Richard Dawkins wrote a book about evolution, the new book, and it's not an atheist-promotion work ... but conservative interviewers don't begin with the topic of the book, but with Dawkins' atheism. Way to jump on their hobby horse and ride away from the real discussion.
Posted by: toth
|
October 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Ugh, O'Reilly. What a contemptible little troll.
By the way, PZ, I think you mean "pinhead", not "fathead".
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 10, 2009 3:27 PM
Well.... we've now heard Bill'O finally admit it at 4:05 into the video, the 1st Amendment of the the U.S. Constitution (specifically the establishment clause) is "fascist" according to him.
Not that it will come as a surprise to anyone.
Posted by: steve
|
October 10, 2009 3:28 PM
Just for fun, I watched this video with a stopwatch in hand because I've noticed a tendency for Mr. O'Reilly to talk over people. I timed how long Mr. Dawkins spoke (mind you I counted the clip from the previous talk in my time) and got 2 times of 1 minute, 48.5 seconds, and a third time of 1 minute, 47.9 or 35% of the time of 5 minutes, 11 seconds. When the host talks almost twice as long as the interviewee, how are you gain any insight from that? Mr. O'Reilly and the IDiots are so interested in giving equal times, they might want to practice it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Auq_5TcDhoYX9qWCjcQ6z0s2HA--#2d86c
|
October 10, 2009 3:56 PM
I saw this in HD live (I watch Fox periodically out of curiosity) and you may have missed an important fact in the lower resolution YouTube version: Dawkins is wearing a "croco-duck" tie!
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
October 10, 2009 3:58 PM
Considering that Fox Network would not exist without science (invention of TV etc.), BillO does have a point.
If he combs his hair just right, no one will notice.
Posted by: Scooty Puff Jr.
|
October 10, 2009 4:19 PM
"If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, we would have peace on Earth." - Bill O'Reily
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 10, 2009 4:57 PM
SciencePundit @#38:
Why all the hate? Did a bald man once do something to you and now you take it out on all of us? None of us should have to tollerate this sort of blatant epithophobia!
I have no hatred of baldness, I only say that baldness is not a superior haircut to Long Professor Hair (tm). Of course, one of my relatives is a professor with Long Professor Hair (tm), so I may well be biased. But of course the main thing in this clip is that Dawkins was dignified and calm through the whole thing, and Bill was a dumbass.
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
October 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Billtard at his most maddeningly worst. He overwhelms my frustration meter; I'm nauseated to the greatest degree possible without actually throwing up, and my blood pressure is probably twice the healthy level.
Posted by: Ms. Anne Thrope
|
October 10, 2009 5:35 PM
In addition to saying pretty much what PZ said about the Dawkins/O'Reilly smackdown, Charles Johnson been fighting the good fight against creationists for years, and now AGW deniers. Look at this post from earlier this week:
Check this out.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 10, 2009 5:41 PM
if everyone followed Jesus Christ we'd have peace on earth? The Albigensians and Huguenots would like a word with Bill....
Anyhow, every time I see Dawkins talk to a godbot I'm amazed at how he manages to stay calm during the entire thing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 10, 2009 5:41 PM
I was looking at his tie and thinking that, but couldn't see it well enough to confirm it.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 10, 2009 5:51 PM
true. when Bill O'RLY said that we need to teach everything to plug the gaps, that was the perfect moment to rattle off some other origin stories and remind Billy that not teaching those, but teaching Christian origin stories is preferential treatment of a religion and unconstitutional. so if he doesn't want hindu theology in his science class, he doesn't get to have christian theology in it, either.
but that would have been completely off-topic to evolutionary biology, which Dawkins seemed to want to stick to.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 10, 2009 6:09 PM
A piece about Dawkins from the 'faith and values writer' of the Charlotte Observer appeared just a few minutes on my Twitter feed.
The has a phone interview with Dawkins, who answers as you'd pretty much expect him to; the author's comment? 'Here's what I think: I could have done without his snide comments, but I was touched by the passion of Dawkins' faith in science. I don't think atheism can explain the wonders of love and morality.
I read through Dawkins's answers - I don't see the snide. Anyone else?
Posted by: firemancarl
|
October 10, 2009 6:17 PM
Did anyone else notice the disturbing picture of Adam and Eve at the 4:50 mark? Adam is sporting a 1970s porn moustache and Eve is a bit....Rubenesque.....*gag*
Posted by: firemancarl
|
October 10, 2009 6:27 PM
Wowbagger,
I didn't see it either, but I suppose that his accent and the way he responded when asked about science threw the reporter off. I will admit to being surprised that he gave Dawkins a back handed compliment and his ending sentence seemed to be a subtle nod that we ( atheists/biologists/ etc.) are not a bad group
Posted by: Raiko
|
October 10, 2009 7:49 PM
I swear I tried, but I just can't listen to O'Reilly without wanting to hurt myself. You know how it is - the experience of pain is reduced by the induction of pain in another place.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 10, 2009 7:59 PM
*facepalm*
And religion can?
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 10, 2009 8:00 PM
KathleenTurnerOverdrive @ 46
You might find this of interest: "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin.
While I may or may not buy his idea, it's certainly more plausible than goddidit.
Posted by: Last Hussar
|
October 10, 2009 8:05 PM
The depressing thing is Billo and his viewers will think he won the 'debate'. Luckily (for the moment) he wouldn't be allowed to present a show over here. However I'm sure Murdoh is working on that- why can't a presenter spend the show advancing his personal prejudices?
(I can make out the tie is the one photo'ed for the book, but I missed a lot of visuals, as every time I looked at the screen it was full of Christian imagery, so I didn't look.)
Posted by: Matt
|
October 10, 2009 8:12 PM
Dawkins was great in this interview, but he was a bit too nice. We need someone to go in and really put the smackdown on O'Reilly.
Hey PZ, planning to stop by Bill's show when you're promoting your new book?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 10, 2009 8:33 PM
I'm with Pierce @ 4, I dont see the point in Dawkins appearing on such yell-and-scream shows with hardly any opportunity to present your argument, same goes for Colbert btw.
I can see that it's mainly about promoting the book, fine, but he does not do well on these shows IMO.
Posted by: cmflyer
|
October 10, 2009 9:15 PM
I thought Orally was —almost— rational. But I thought Dawkins missed the opportunity to point out the main flaw in his argument: evolution is not about "where it all came from." Orally repeated that at least twice, and I was waiting for Dawkins to jump on it.
Posted by: JennieL
|
October 10, 2009 9:34 PM
That interview made me feel like crying.
Honestly, I wonder if we've reached a point where things are too broken to be fixed. We've allowed these people to fester in a swamp of wilful ignorance, smug complacency and self-congratulatory stupidity; what's worse, they've been handed the political and social power to make sure noone can ever pull them out.
Posted by: bassmanpete
|
October 10, 2009 9:49 PM
Nebula99 @ 33
Not a hawk, how about a Monkey Eating Eagle? Also much more appropriate considering who the interviewer was!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 10, 2009 10:20 PM
Later, on that episode . . .
Bull O'Really?: Welcome back to the O'Really? Factor! Next up we have a [does airquotes] "scientist" author whose book about reproduction is considered so standard, that not anything else in the world is allowed to challenge it, at least not in our public schools. Dr. Hazabrain's theory that human reproduction is the result of sexual activity rather than delivery by stork has some people understandably upset, and while I have an open mind about it, and certainly believe in and understand the science behind it, I don't believe in shouting down contradictory voices. Dr. Hazabrain, welcome to the Factor.
Dr. Hazabrain: Thank you for having---
BO: So, I get it, doctor, why your theory has achieved such prominence, and why you write so many books about it, and this and that, and I've read all your books, by the way, and you're a very good writer, but you claim that your way of looking at the world is the only way, and see no point in allowing opposing points of view in the classroom, right?
DH: Well, no, but first let me correct you on something. Sex theory is not my theory; it is the consensus view of all of science, and frankly nobody takes delivery by stork seriously. As for opposing points of view---
BO: Come on, Dr., you just said right there that [air quotes] "nobody" has an opposing view. Isn't that the kind of thing that someone would say when they just want to crowd out all opposing views?
DH: Well---
BO: Isn't it?!?!
DH: Perhaps, but---
BO: Okay, then, so why would you say that literally nobody has an opposing view? Why would you say that, doctor?
DH: Nobody with scientific expertise takes such nonsense seriously.
BO: And that's the [air quotes] "expertise" you want to force on everyone, right? On everyone! No choice, no thinking about another way of thinking, right?
DH: Look, other ways of thinking are fine, but merely dreaming something up is not enough to---
BO: All right, all right, look, let's just get to what this is about. Do you believe a teacher should have the liberty -- the LIBERTY!, mind you, okay, not teaching it as true or turning to it or any of that, but just the LIBERTY -- to teach kids that some people don't believe in sex theory of reproduction?
DH: If you're going to do that, then you'd have to say that some people don't believe in gravity; some people don't believe that we live on Earth, that we're all in some computer generated dream, etc. There are an infinite number of silly---
BO: Come on, come on, come on. That's not true. That's just ridiculous. People who disagree with you are the same as people who believe in nonsense and tin foil hat conspiracies, and all that? Just because they disagree with your theory? And I notice you didn't say anything about the real issue: LIBERTY. Freedom of conscience, and giving kids the fullest education possible.
DH: You're not giving kids a broad education by taking preposterous notions seriously. You're undermining their education by doing that.
BO: I see, so more ideas means less education. Less ideas means more education. I get it, but I staunchly disagree, so let me---
DH: That's not what I said at all---
BO: Yes it is, but Dr., Dr., in all seriousness now, do you know when that spark of consciousness, that sentience, that self awareness really enters the human brain? I mean the instant we go from being a mass of goo, or whatever you secular pinheads think we are in the womb, to being sentient beings. When does that happen? Precisely?
DH: I can't say I understand what you're asking that for?
BO: You can't understand me? Come on, Dr., don't play dumb. You're not dumb. I've read your books, you're a very intelligent man, possibly more intelligent than I am [smiles], so you know what I'm asking. Has science pinpointed the exact moment a fetus becomes a sentient, conscious being?
DH: Well, no, it hasn't, and consciousness is an elusive concept, one with which science continues to make new discoveries about, but in terms of that moment, it might not even be appropriate to ask---
BO: Okay, so it hasn't. You admit that it hasn't.
DH: There's nothing to admit.
BO: All right, all right. So, tell me, then, because I do believe in the sexual theory of reproduction. Male/female sex, heterosexual sex is the basis of reproduction and civil society, so there's the sperm and the egg, and the zygote and gestation, I do understand all that. But you don't really know when a baby becomes human, when it becomes a true, genuine, sentient being.
DH: What's your point?
BO: What's my point? Come on, Dr., like I said, you're playing dumb. The point is that you don't know, and none of us know, so why is it so bad to believe in a metaphysical stork -- not the story from olden times they told to kids so as to hide the facts of life from them -- but a more advanced, metaphysical concept of a stork sent by god to spark consciousness in a fetus that is gestating after sexual congress and reproduction has done its thing? The science is still intact, but some people just believe there's more to it than that. And you want to keep the people who believe there is more to it than that down. You don't want them to say anything about it in the classroom. Nothing. Nada. Silence.
BO: Well, of course that shouldn't be in the science classroom. It isn't science.
DH: That's fascism, doctor. Plain and simple. That's fascism. No liberty to speak our minds in public.
DH: It's not fascism. Look---
BO: Of course it is. You don't even want them to be able to SAY IT in the classroom. Not even to expose kids to the idea.
DH: Good grief, we would have to entertain every silly notion in the world---
BO: Silly? Why is it silly? Because you can't grasp the more advanced concepts here, and only caricature Storkists as literalists who believe in an actual, physical feathered animal delivering a whole baby in a diaper?
DH: No, because there's no evidence for--
BO: Doctor, can I tell you something? I don't even believe in it myself? Okay? I don't believe in the metaphysical stork. But I have the decency to understand what the Storkists are saying. I don't just denounce them as silly and unscientific. And I certainly wouldn't say that their liberty to teach their viewpoint should be taken away in a fascist manner. We're running out of time. I'll give you the last word.
DH: Science class should be for science. Sexual reproduction is the only theory that makes sense, and the only theory scientifically accepted. I suppose if you want to say that there should be separate metaphysical classes to address all sorts of weird beliefs in an anthropological sense---
BO: That's not what I was saying, doctor, but I think you know that. I think you're playing dumb again, and that's too bad. Really, it is. You're a brilliant man, like I said, I've read everything you've ever written, several times for some of them, and you know your stuff on science. But there has to be room for people who disagree. Okay, thank you for watching, folks. Tune in tomorrow. Good night.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 10, 2009 10:27 PM
I just want to point out this sentence could just as easily be written by a creationist after seeing Dawkins score some points. There is nothing more absurd than lamenting a lack of rationalism, for obvious reasons.
There's nothing to be teary-eyed about. In fact, I'm sure people reject Dawkins more for his Englishness, his distanced intellecuality, his appearance that shows he hasn't worked a day in his life (keep in mind the viewers of Billo are often lower middle class) and his anti-conformist haircut than his beliefs. Honestly, If I want to hear the argument for evolution or atheism, there are better sources to come by. The entertainment is whether Dawkins will squirm, flip out, or silence Bill. And that's what Dawkins is, entertainment. He's brought this on himself
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 10, 2009 10:50 PM
A translation of SeanBibleVerseDude:
So, you think we're stupid? Well we could just say we think you're stupid. So there. And you are stupid! A lot of people think Dawkins looks stupid! And that's his fault! I win!
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 10, 2009 10:56 PM
I think Dawkins is a waste of time, having nothing particularly inspiring to offer about atheism or evolution that hasn't been said a million times before. It's an opinion, nothing to get bent out of shape about, Crib
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 10, 2009 11:03 PM
BibleVerseSean:
That's an interesting thing to say about someone who has advanced our understanding of evolution with pivotal works like The Selfish Gene, but then I'm not surprised. I think you are a waste of time, with nothing particularly inspiring to offer about theism or creationism that hasn't been said a million times before. And all I did was translate your words into more plain language. Nothing to get bent out of shape about, BibleVerseDude.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 10, 2009 11:39 PM
I don't know what to tell you. Most people note my name to be parodic. Just because I think Dawkins is useless as a tv celebrity doesn't mean I endorse creationism or theism.
Posted by: steve
|
October 11, 2009 12:02 AM
Mr. O'Reilly, I would presume, of Irish ancestry. If he had been born 3000 years ago in Ireland, he'd tell Prof. Dawkins he was throwing in with the Dagda and Morrigan, and if everyone followed their teachings we'd have peace on Earth.
Posted by: Mbee
|
October 11, 2009 12:32 AM
Richard should learn how to better deal with people like O'Reilly.
When you go on shows that have no intention of letting you make a point you have to ignore their questions and simply use every opportunity to promote your book using whatever slight connection can be made. After all that is what this was supposed to be right? Instead we had a deluge of pictures of Jesus etc concocted to emphasize O'Reilly's points. You have to make your own statements about what you want to say not try and converse with the host in a no win situation. The mention of the book at the end was merely a courtesy - I'm surprised that they even bothered to do that!
Posted by: skybluskyblu
|
October 11, 2009 1:25 AM
#48, There maybe no long-haired hawks but the Monkey-eating eagle might fit the "bill". See a perfect picture here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Philippine_Eagle
Not only that something to do with monkeys would be perfect for an evolution defender.
Posted by: Woof
|
October 11, 2009 1:29 AM
Billo makes me ashamed to be from this... universe.
Posted by: ElitistB
|
October 11, 2009 1:40 AM
I would like to speak to Bill O, requiring these conditions:
1. EQUAL TIME.
2. No shouting.
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 11, 2009 1:42 AM
This O'Reilly nut is truly a piece of work. Bloody ignorant americans. All of those people who think that "teaching the other options" need to be shot. Not with a gun, but with a compound that could somehow sterilize them. Seriously, a way must be found for these people to stop creating more of their kind by default. (In this instance I mean default in the sense that their offspring are, by default, invariably more of the same wackjob mentality.) These people are viruses run amok and the "proof" of it is stated in their own manifesto, their command to go forth and multiply and whatnot; this seems to me precisely how viruses operate - infiltrate, co-opt, multiply massively so the population of them can't be eradicated as easily. (Yes, I know I'm glossing over some things, but for the sake of the metaphor...) Us more responsible organisms, however, are left in the unenviable position of needing to do more of the same (a distasteful solution for almost all of us) or of finding an efficacious anti-virus.
Belief in god is proof of your ignorance.
Posted by: Oregonian
|
October 11, 2009 1:44 AM
The Philippine Eagle is a majestic bird. I'm glad to see that conservation efforts are underway to save them.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 11, 2009 1:51 AM
@ElitistB: Good luck sedating O'Reilly, then.
Posted by: ElitistB
|
October 11, 2009 1:57 AM
On a side note, could someone get a dictionary to Bill? He really should look up the definition of fascism sometime.
Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Suppression of opposition through terror and censorship? Bill O should be well aware of those tactics, as he employs them. Belligerent nationalism? Racism? Seriously, how can he say that word about anyone other than himself without laughing?
And iasasai, this method of thinking is not genetic, it is learned behavior. As has been repeatedly pointed out, why do most children eventually assume the religion of their parents? Because they are indoctrinated to a degree while young and vulnerable.
What they need is education. Perhaps forcibly so. If the soft words of previous generations of atheists fell on deaf ears, why continue soft words? Sometimes ridicule is the only way to go.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 11, 2009 2:07 AM
isasai, you truly are a moron, a raging fanatic no better than a raging believer. I don't know what you ground your atheism on, but it certainly isn't Enlightenment values.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 11, 2009 2:24 AM
I still don't know what gaps Bill is talking about. Hasn't anyone explained to this idiot that when you have a theory that fits the laws of physics and explains the data, it's progress and not a gap?
I was very happy, however, to not hear the moron ask Dawkins about our simian heritage. That would have instantly made me turn the damn thing off.
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 11, 2009 2:38 AM
ElitistB, I fully understand and agree that it IS learned behaviour. I wasn't trying to say it was genetic. But they DO seem to operate on the principle of creating more of themselves and then brainwashing those offspring simply because society allows them to do so, because it's their "god-given right to have as many children as they like" and to raise them however they see fit. It's that their "battle plans" are much like a virus. An elegant solution would of course be to co-opt all of their offspring and and raise them more intelligently so they don't get brainwashed by their thug parents, but unfortunately that plan doesn't seem to be working so well (so far). And not that I was seriously encouraging a campaign of sterilization, either - I was venting; it certainly would be a better plan to educate them, perhaps forcibly as you mentioned, but as you well-know (I assume), they've been fighting that tooth and claw. And believe me, I'm not one to use soft words on the subject matter - I have a tendency towards being inflammatory and perhaps even abusive and am unabashed about doing so. I also am not a professional debater nor do I wish to be, so it's not as if I have some professional demeanor to constantly maintain.
Sean3:16, so every post ever made here by atheists is a sterling example of Enlightenment values?
Posted by: ElitistB
|
October 11, 2009 2:57 AM
Easiest way would simply to not allow them to RAISE children.
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 11, 2009 3:21 AM
ElitistB, I quite agree, but then they'd be screaming about family values and all that crap (which I'd prefer, frankly). I'm not at all convinced that "family values" can continue to do us any good as a society, though, at least not as currently espoused. I suspect the entire concept and institution of family needs to be retooled. Don't ask me in what manner, I'm just a hermit with little understanding of social interactions and values; I may see things from a perspective less cluttered by culture than most people, but regrettably that doesn't give me any automatic insight as to how to remedy the situation. It DOES mean, however, that I can see all those social institutions as being the purely arbitrary things that they are. Arbitrary in this case does not equal bad, though it does gives lie to the fact that family culture is some naturally occurring phenomenon that should be respected and enshrined and ye, even worshiped, at all costs.
"Culture is not your friend."
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 11, 2009 3:31 AM
retool the family? Eugenic programmes? Extracting kids from their homes? This is all twisted and insane and freaky fanatacism, and the reason people reject God. Not because it's so much fun to thumb your nose at religion, but because the groups concoct the most bloodthirsty schemes to do away with each other. This is why I'm saying you're particularly deranged. I'm not concerned with everyone's "values" because not everyone is hatching such ludicrous and demented plots
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 11, 2009 3:53 AM
Oh please, noone's concocting schemes or hatching plots, you nimrod, we're wishing for a better world and thinking aloud.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 11, 2009 3:59 AM
ElitistB wrote:
Experience shows that the probability that a person will call another person a fascist has a +1.0 correlation with not knowing what a fascist is.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 11, 2009 4:12 AM
and that's what's disgusting about it. you can "think aloud" and then take it back as some sort of thought experiment.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 11, 2009 4:59 AM
As absurd and idiotic as American pundits are, I would still like to see the broadcasting regulations in the UK substantially liberalised. At present, it's not just the BBC which is required to be "impartial"; commercial TV and radio are also required to be "impartial" and non-partisan in their news and current affairs programming, and political advertising is banned (apart from official Party Election Broadcasts, which are allotted to all parties on an equal basis which field a sufficient number of candidates).
Freedom of speech is immensely valuable; and in the UK, I think it is wrong that the free speech of private TV and radio outlets is artificially restricted. While Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the like are blithering idiots, I would still prefer to live in a society where they have the freedom to express their views without government censorship.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 11, 2009 5:08 AM
You are a scary authoritarian wingnut. Get some help.
Human beings are human beings, and are entitled to freedom of expression and to freedom from bodily coercion. Yes, there are some ideas out there - including fundie religion, creationism and pseudoscience - which are profoundly wrong and harmful; and those of us who believe in real science should speak out against these things. But that doesn't excuse you advocating some sort of campaign of terror against the religious. In a civilised society, we should discuss and challenge ideas, but we are not entitled to use violence to impose our ideas on other people.
Posted by: Abaddon
|
October 11, 2009 6:40 AM
It's disturbing how little understanding many theocrats have of the US Constitution. Why even when I feel the desire to argue with them on some facebook poll they never fail to forget that secularism =/= atheism. You can't teach religion in a science class, thus failing to mention religion either way isn't favoring atheism or religion.
Also, how in the hell are science classes supposed to progress in any sort of teaching curriculum if they have to teach a subject based on the percentage of adherents in the world? Basically we'd end up with the atheist argument, Christian (non-secular) argument, Hindu argument, etc. Before the class would progress very far into evolutionary biology they'd have wasted at least one week teaching
Posted by: carole
|
October 11, 2009 6:58 AM
'Moron' Bill O'Reilly vs. 'Atheist' Richard Dawkins
Fixed.
And Bill, "Mr" Dawkins? Twice?
Tch.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 8:46 AM
At least Dawkins' hair is better than Steven Pinker's. I don't really notice with Dawkins. Pinker, I want to take a scissors to. Dude. The 70's are over. - Sastra
If Pinker realised that, he wouldn't have spent most of a book refuting notions ("blank slate", "noble savage") that practically no-one has held since the '70s.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 11, 2009 8:49 AM
Liveliest Crib @ 86;
That is just inspired. You captured the obscurantist, pseudo-logic apologetics of the likes of O'Reilly perfectly.
It was downright uncanny. Having channelled O'Reilly, even in jest, I bet you feel an urgent need to scrub your brain with carbolic soap.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 9:00 AM
While Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the like are blithering idiots, I would still prefer to live in a society where they have the freedom to express their views without government censorship. - Walton
...as long as they have plenty of money.
Posted by: DaveL
|
October 11, 2009 9:28 AM
I would argue that Christianity hasn't advanced the human condition "in any moralistic sense" either. This whole "If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ" is a ridiculous cop-out. If everybody put the good of the whole before their own interests, communism would work and nobody would go wanting. You can fly with strap-on wings, if you just lose enough weight and flap them hard and fast enough.
Nobody gets to claim credit for deeds that have never been achieved in practice.
I think Dawkins should have trotted out examples of how O'Reilly's kind of thinking has worked out in the past, such as the demonic possession theory of mental illness. Religion may claim to have answers for things that science does not, but on closer inspection we find those answers offer us no deeper insight, and no solution to our problems. It simply recasts what was a scientific mystery as a Divine Mystery, and as we all know Divine Mysteries are not meant to be solved by us humans.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 11, 2009 1:01 PM
I found the Virginia Postrel post I referenced above. She was linking to a graph, not of O'Reilly's volume, but of the number of words he used in comparison with two of his victims (uh, I mean, two of his interviewees): (http://prorev.com/oreilly.htm)
It's pretty instructive.
And here's the address of Postrel's posting: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/000206.html.
Not to be (gasp!) a tone troll; but if Bill O'Reilly isn't an argument for the virtues of civility, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 11, 2009 1:21 PM
Knockgoats,
Freedom of speech doesn't, and can't, entail providing everyone with the means and resources to disseminate their ideas to a wide audience. Rather, it merely means that a person is not prevented from expressing their views using whatever means are at their disposal. The fact that some political groups have more resources and media access than others does not, IMO, justify censorship. I also don't think that true "impartiality" is ever achievable in practice, since all news and current affairs reporting involves editorial decisions, and, therefore, is inevitably affected by conscious and unconscious bias.
Ultimately, some media outlets - and, consequently, their political opinions - are more influential than others, because they are more popular with the readers/viewers/listeners. Air America Radio failed not because of its political outlook, but because not enough consumers actually wanted to listen to it. This is consumer choice in action. And it's surely better that ordinary consumers get to choose whose ideas to listen to, rather than having panels of government bureaucrats make decisions about which political views get on the air.
Posted by: Alverant
|
October 11, 2009 1:25 PM
"If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, we would have peace on Earth."
Except for people who oppose slavery. Jesus thought it was OK to own other people. He didn't say that slavery was bad. He didn't say slavers should be free. He told slaves they should obey their masters.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 11, 2009 2:12 PM
"He told slaves they should obey their masters."
That was Paul, actually--a thoroughgoing supporter of "the powers that be."
Posted by: JayBab
|
October 11, 2009 3:39 PM
O'Reilly is committing a stupid logical fallacy when he trots out the old "there are more Christians than atheists" argument.
wouldn't a proper response have been; "Well, if you're gonna play that game, there are more non-Christians than there are Christians".
...or am i late in the game to add this as an afterthought?
Posted by: of-the-willows
|
October 11, 2009 5:21 PM
Not really. It was the slowest, most homerunnable ball thrown at Dawkins. You finally get the hit!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:36 PM
Freedom of speech doesn't, and can't, entail providing everyone with the means and resources to disseminate their ideas to a wide audience. - Walton
Yes it can. You just want the rich to retain their current near-monopoly.
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
October 11, 2009 5:54 PM
Or having corporate panels making decisions about which political views get on the air?
(It's also very telling that you refer to "consumers" rather than voters or citizens).
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 6:05 PM
It's also very telling that you [Walton] refer to "consumers" rather than voters or citizens
Walton's young enough to have been fed this trash (that we are "consumers" or "customers" in practically every context) all his life. It doesn't make sense even on the most superficial level. We don't "consume" news, or opinions: they do not get broken down or used up by being read or listened to; but it has been pushed relentlessly, I believe with the deliberate intention of destroying ideas about non-commercial forms of relationship between people. Another example: announcements on the railways used often to begin "Passengers from X should...", but now it is always "Customers from X should..." - despite the fact that the two do not mean the same, and the meaning required is expressed only by the first (i.e. "People who have just travelled from X", not "People who live in X").
Posted by: Stephen
|
October 11, 2009 11:21 PM
It is completely legitimate to keep religious teachings out of schools. Separation of church and state, right? No matter where you are there will always be different religious views among people including atheism. That is what they have churches for. Keep it there. Keep it fair. That reminds me; O'Reilly even calls it unfair to keep it out of the classroom. Am I the only one who thinks that is preposterous and that it is FAR more unfair to INCLUDE religious words in a school setting?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2009 11:29 PM
While I agree, SCOTUS has said that voluntary religious classes can be taught provided they are labeled and treated as such, but this does not extend to most classes in the curriculum. Which means religion, like creationism or ID, in science classes is still forbidden.Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 12, 2009 12:24 AM
I'm thinking Dawkins has some mighty big balls for going on the O show. Perhaps a few Faux viewers and the lying rats that run that channel maybe, just maybe will pick up the Dawkins' book and read a couple of chapters and finally figure something out...remember, seek and ye shall find!
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 4:08 AM
You're using an artificially narrow definition of "consumer". In a meaningful economic sense, we are indeed "consumers" of news media; we choose which newspapers to buy, which radio stations to listen to and which television channels to watch. Their commercial success, and ability to attract advertisers, relies on their ratings/circulation - which, in turn, depend directly on how many people choose one media outlet over another. It is individual people, ultimately, who choose.
How, exactly, do you suggest that everyone - from the Conservative Party to neo-Stalinists to David Icke - be given equal access to media time and resources? In the end, in the real world, if you have government-run media, government bureaucrats will ration access and decide what gets on the air - and, by virtue of their position, they will inevitably favour mainstream/establishment views over less popular ones, and their editorial decisions will reflect this.
Furthermore, with the advent of the internet, the rich do not have a "near-monopoly" any more. For little or no cost, you can start a blog, or post videos on YouTube, or use Facebook and other social networking sites to promote your ideas - and if you are convincing and articulate enough, you can become an internet sensation overnight. Likewise, with the advent of cable and satellite, TV is less naturally monopolistic than it used to be. So while there was an arguable case for state-run media in the days when most countries had only one or two TV channels, there is no such case now.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 4:14 AM
Of course they won't. The average Fox viewer will think "O NOES TEH EBIL ATHEIST!!!!", and ignore everything Dawkins is saying. O'Reilly knows this, which is probably why he was happy to invite Dawkins on the show. Despite the fact that Dawkins was perfectly sensible and rational, and said exactly the right stuff, most viewers won't listen to him because the word "ATHEIST" was splashed across the screen.
What would have a potentially significant effect on the viewers' worldview, on the other hand, is interviewing a theistic evolutionist like Ken Miller or Francis Collins, or an evolution advocate with accommodationist leanings, who would go on the show and stress that evolution is compatible with personal religious faith. We might not like their mealy-mouthed compromises, but that kind of evolution advocacy is much more appealing to the average religious person. In the end, we need to stress that, while different people can have different views on the existence of God, evolution is a well-established scientific fact that is near-universally accepted in the scientific community, and it needs to be taught as such in science classes.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 12, 2009 5:02 AM
only as long as we have a vague semblance of Net Neutrality. This is already fast disappearing precisely because everything on the internet is seen as a customer/business relationship. Once the businesses gain the upper hand of the infrastructure of the internet, we'll return to our regularly scheduled near-monopoly of information dissemination.
And incidentally, the concept that everything is a product to be consumed is why we now have infotainment and edutainment instead of news and education. truth and reality do very little for the quarterly income statement
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 12, 2009 5:09 AM
The O'Really-watching crowd thinks Collins is an evil eugenicist; they won't listen to him any more than to an evil atheist. These are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "average religious person[s]" we're talking about here.Posted by: Gordy
|
October 12, 2009 5:37 AM
Walton #110
You misunderstand the UK requirements. Both right and left wing viewpoints may be freely expressed on TV and radio, there is no government censorship. All that is required is that overall the output must be balanced, i.e. not skewed unfairly in favour of one particular viewpoint to the exclusion of another.
Also, the control of political advertising is a great thing. You should try it in the U.S. You might find it reduces the hold that big corporations and wealthy individuals have over political candidates, leading to a healthier and more representative political climate.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 12, 2009 6:20 AM
How, exactly, do you suggest that everyone - from the Conservative Party to neo-Stalinists to David Icke - be given equal access to media time and resources? - Walton
Everyone gets an allowance of media time and funding, which they can aggregate with that of others as they wish. Simple: you have only failed to think of it because you believe money should be able to buy media access.
In the end, in the real world, if you have government-run media
Which, of course, we don't. You may recall that I ave previously advocated the direct election of the BBC's Board of Governors, which would further distance it from the government. come on, Walton, be honest, you are not in the slightest interested in broadening access - you want your rich right-wing chums to retain all their privileges, including control of the media.
Furthermore, with the advent of the internet, the rich do not have a "near-monopoly" any more.
It has indeed made a difference, but TV and newspapers remain important opinion-formers; and as Jadehawk notes, the rich are scheming to get the internet under their control before it becomes the main news and opinion medium.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 6:20 AM
I'm British, not American; and, as a law student, I am highly familiar with the UK requirements.
I think you're applying an overly-limited definition of "censorship". Requiring that output must be "balanced" and "not skewed unfairly" is censorship, because it means that, ultimately, government censors - OFCOM, in the UK - must decide what constitutes a "balanced" and "fair" approach. There is no objective, value-neutral means of achieving this.
I am not arguing that OFCOM or the BBC generally pursue a partisan agenda, as such. And they certainly don't promote a pro-government stance. (Indeed, if anything, the British media is currently skewed against Labour - and I say this as a staunch Tory.) But journalists and producers, faced with limited time and resources, have to make editorial decisions about what does and doesn't deserve their attention - which stories to emphasise, which political figures to interview, which quotes to cite, and so on. This cannot be a value-neutral exercise, and is inevitably skewed by their own biases. As such, I think it's better to be honest about one's bias than to force an insipid pretence of "impartiality". There is no such thing as impartial news, or impartial current-affairs coverage.
And, due to the restrictions on political advertising and campaigning via TV and radio, it is also not legally permissible for TV and radio outlets to openly endorse candidates or promote an overt partisan agenda. If I were to buy a radio station tomorrow and start broadcasting, with my own money, it would be illegal for me to openly urge my listeners to vote Conservative (or Labour, or any other party). This is censorship; there is no other word for it.
Thankfully, since the same rules do not apply either to print media or to the Internet, there are other means at British citizens' disposal to express our views. But that doesn't make the broadcasting code defensible in principle.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 6:31 AM
Sooo.... each of the UK's 60 million residents gets a couple of seconds' worth of TV time per day, courtesy of the taxpayer, where they can decide what can be broadcast? Do you really think this would be workable in practice?
But it would also make the BBC far more politicised than it is already. Even if the elections were officially non-partisan, there would inevitably be candidates with strong political affiliations, and the party which won control of the Board would be able to impose its views. Just like elected school boards in the US.
To be fair, I would not argue that pro-government bias is a major problem with the BBC. If anything, it's been uncharacteristically critical of Labour lately, and quite favourable towards Cameron. (Indeed, the current BBC political editor, Nick Robinson, is a former chairman of the YCs and former president of my own university Conservative Association.) But the BBC does have its own - generally pro-establishment - agenda, and its insipid pretence of "impartiality" (when, in reality, there is no such thing as "impartial" news) makes it virtually unwatchable.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 12, 2009 6:40 AM
Sooo.... each of the UK's 60 million residents gets a couple of seconds' worth of TV time per day, courtesy of the taxpayer, where they can decide what can be broadcast? Do you really think this would be workable in practice?
Yes. If you think otherwise, argue it.
But it would also make the BBC far more politicised than it is already.
No it wouldn't, because a large proportion of the electorate would be more interested in getting more sport/drama/documentaries/porn/whatever funded. Party political candidates would almost certainly be in a minority.
You find the BBC News unwatchable because it doesn't exactly reflect your views (it is, in fact, extremely pro-market - the basic assumptions of the right are almost never challenged). Tough: it doesn't refleact mine either. What it does do, unlike Murdoch's lie-machines, is avoid outright falsehoods and blatant party-political propaganda.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 6:57 AM
As I said very clearly, I actually think that BBC news coverage has been broadly skewed against the Labour government over the last year or so, and has been fairly favourable towards Cameron and the Tories. So it is not true to say that I dislike the BBC news because it "doesn't reflect [my] views"; in fact, it is fairly close to my own views at present. But that doesn't make it "impartial". No news outlet in the history of television has ever been impartial. There is no such thing. All we can hope for is a diversity of different voices promoting different viewpoints.
So you're seriously advocating for the TV schedule to be split into blocks of a few seconds each, each block being randomly assigned to an individual within the UK population? I ask because I hope (possibly in vain) that I am misunderstanding your proposal. How would it be possible, in such a circumstance, to have any kind of coherent programming, or to broker any sort of agreement as to what should be on TV?
In reality, there are only three options. Firstly, we can have a public body - elected or unelected - decide on what can be shown, and allocate programming time between different genres and viewpoints, therefore ensuring that the outvoted minority's views stand no chance of being broadcast. Secondly, we can have a free and uncensored system, in which individual broadcasters can choose what they want to show, and individual consumers can choose what they want to watch. Or, thirdly, we can have a compromise - as we do at the moment - where broadcasters' activities are regulated; meaning that individual broadcasters do get some leeway, but their views are still censored according to bureaucrats' definition of "fairness". My preference is for the second option, but I'd rather settle for the third than accept the first.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 12, 2009 7:41 AM
No news outlet in the history of television has ever been impartial. There is no such thing. All we can hope for is a diversity of different voices promoting different viewpoints.
My proposal would of course provide that. Yours would provide exclusively the viewpoints of the rich - which is of course what you want.
So you're seriously advocating for the TV schedule to be split into blocks of a few seconds each, each block being randomly assigned to an individual within the UK population? I ask because I hope (possibly in vain) that I am misunderstanding your proposal. -Walton
Well, you could try reading what I actually wrote:
"Everyone gets an allowance of media time and funding, which they can aggregate with that of others as they wish." [emphasis added]
You would need to amass some minimum amount of time and resources in order to get a programme made and aired. You might also need some limits on what can be shown - e.g., with regard to incitement to violence.
You are misusing the term "censorship". Please stop doing that.
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 12, 2009 7:52 AM
@ Walton > "Censorship" usually refers to a suppression of particular ideas or images. A requirement for balance still allows for any and all views to be expressed, and that's quite different to what we usually understand by the term "censorship". It was your use of that word that made me think you didn't understand the UK system.
Of course, a requirement for balance doesn't automatically produce complete impartiality, but it does mean that a broadcaster can be challenged if it's output appears unbalanced. I think that's a useful safeguard to prevent the tendency towards propaganda that we unfortunately see in some U.S. news reporting. (My impression is that it's most U.S. TV news, but I don't live there so I can't be sure about that.)
Broadcast media are very influential and have the power to dominate the public discourse. In my opinion, that's too much power to be handed over to a few wealthy individuals without checks and balances to prevent its abuse.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
October 12, 2009 9:05 AM
Personally, I can only think that the democratisation of the BBC's output would simply render it useless, as is the case already with public access television. It should not exclusively be a sopabox for special interest groups, since that way, irrelevance lies.
Also, any requirement for that people receive an ..."allowance of media time and funding, which they can aggregate with that of others..." coupled to a "...minimum amount of time and resources..." is precisely the kind of formula which will lead not to democratisation of output, but to agenda-driven hijacking of public finances by the rich and powerful.
Imagine a Sun campaign to produce certain kinds of programming, coupled to their ready access to celebrities to promote their causes.
The BBC remains distinctively worthy precisely when it sets its own agenda rather than persuing populism and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Because every licence-fee payer is a stakeholder, but because there are fewer commercial pressures, the BBC has always been able to explore niche ideas and educate. Giving everyone a small piece of airtime would simply introduce a different kind of commerce, and one that is much more prone to being agenda-led.
Should we really give unchecked airtime to anti-vaxxers, racists, homophobes, capitalists, etc, etc, so that they can poison the well of public debate? Aunty has always been a benevolent and wise figure, helping the general public to leanr what they didn't know, not simply reflecting their opinions.
Uncritical public broadcasting is useless, or worse, because the most rabid commenters will always disrupt or damage constructive dialogue and debate. The most vociferous are often the most ill-informed, illiberal, and ideological. Foolish words, passionately delivered are often more appealing than carefully measured understatement of facts.
Someone like Bill O'Reilly will always be popular because he shouts the loudest, because he is seen as a champion, as one of the people. His audience see him as one of them, and they think that he is simply making their case, when he is actually setting the agenda. This is the kind of person who would prosper by your system.
Of course, there could always be rules, possibly that each voice must have a turn, and that no person (no matter how popular) could dominate that airtime, but where does that leave your ideal? There would still nneed to be standards, and judges, and all of the things that we currently have. On the other hand, if we give people only what they want, then I suspect that it will become a much more homogeneous and bitter gruel than you hope for.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 12, 2009 9:15 AM
Bernard Bumner,
That's a very paternalistic view. Many of your arguments would logically apply in exactly the same way to electoral democracy - do you advocate turning over the government of the country to the BBC, perchance? Nor do I share your view that the BBC is an entirely benign organisation - the parameters of debate it sets are pretty narrow. Its main advantages are that it seldom tells outright lies, and is partially independent of commercial pressures as well as of the government.
I would not argue for applying the idea wholesale, to all BBC (let alone all broadcast) output. One channel, replacing BBC3 or BBC4, would certainly suffice initially. I'd also be inclined to limit it (and the right to vote for the BBC governors) to licence-payers.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
October 12, 2009 10:35 AM
It is, and one that I would feel very uncomfortable extending to almost any other public institution. Actually, if the Murdoch empire didn't exist, and the Barclay brothers were mere proprietors, I wouldn't even try to make the argument.
Yes, and actually increasingly so, because successive governments and controllers have increasingly introduced commercial pressures without commercial freedoms. (Although I think that it should be subject to neither - the BBC should be preserved as a unique entity.)
Yes, and it generally works well. Unfortunately, recent DGs have narrowed the scope of the organisation's output considerably, and particularly in response to the ongoing efforts of politicians to limit the editoral powers of the BBC.
Better management, much more in the older style of educators and intellectual philanthropists, rather than mere entertainers, would be a good thing: if only to balance the right-wing populism and agenda-driven programming coming out of the commercial channels.
I think that the BBC should provide more diversity of views, but unfortunately I think your idea fails not on merit, but practicality. I also think that you may be underestimating gulf in motivation and get-go between idealogues and ordinary folk.
I think there is something to be said for introducing a more democratic selection procedure for the board of governors, but I fear that direct election might be prone to malign interference simply because of public ignorance or apathy. I musat confess, I'm not quite sure what the answer is.
Posted by: Stasiaa
|
October 12, 2009 11:33 AM
it amazes me is that a pigheaded, blind meat-head like him can have his own show... and it further boggles my mind that he has people who believe in him! can we have his arrogant ass taken off the airwaves please -_-
NO religion should be presented in any federally funded school, otherwise it is a direct violation of Church and State. It doesn't matter if the majority of a population is one religion or another. FREEDOM of religion is why we came here in the first place. do violate that is to violate what makes us American.
If you want your children to learn that, either teach it to them yourself or have them in a school that teaches it. Not that i believe that to be a good option either.. it only has the blind raise up more blind.
Science teaches facts proven or theorized based on logic, experiments, formulas, and examples. none of these are evident with creationism. Find some EVIDENCE for it, outside of the bible, and by all means please teach it in class.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 12, 2009 11:40 AM
Assuming that people would be allowed to sell their media time to others, or to buy time from others, that's actually not a bad idea. (If you wouldn't allow people to trade media time with one another, then I don't know how you'd expect anyone to amass enough time to make whole programmes.) If I understand this proposal correctly, I suppose it would make the BBC from a state broadcaster into the first genuinely public broadcaster - a broadcaster actually owned by the people, with each individual citizen as a stakeholder and able to dispose of his or her stake how he or she wishes.
Indeed, you could give people a choice. Give each licence-fee payer a few seconds of airtime, as you discussed. But allow people to opt out of paying the fee, if they wish to do so, on the understanding that people who choose not to pay the fee will not get their airtime allowance. Thus, rather than the licence fee being a tax, it would essentially be a payment in exchange for partial control of the BBC's programming.
Many libertarians would, in fact, find this idea very attractive, since it maximises the power and choice of the individual citizen. (Contrary to popular belief, libertarians don't love, or trust, big corporations. Indeed, corporate monopolies are a great danger to liberty. We simply fear corporations marginally less than we fear government, since government has a greater ability to deploy physical coercion.)
Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 7:54 PM
The point is that Evolution is just another religion (belief that nothing was created). It takes more faith to believe it as time goes on and evidence mounts against it. In fact, uniformitarianism is a crazy notion that is disproved constantly.
Oh, but the Evolutionist cries out "more time, more time", as if billions of years aren't enought time for an explosion in the print shop to create the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
Please! You people are so blind to reality that you've closed your minds. Evolution is the ultimate post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even Kepler and Brahe were open minded as they made their observations. There was no preconceived notion about what they would find.
Clearly, the Evolutionist is closed to any other possibilities. Kepler and Brahe would be ashamed.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 8:10 PM
What an idiot with that statement. Then you cite astronomers who existed before Darwin as if it means something (it doesn't). Evolution has a million or so scientific papers in the literature over the 150 years since it was first introduced to back it up, directly and indirectly. There is no other scientific theory to explain life on earth. Now, what is your problem?Posted by: John Morales
|
October 13, 2009 8:12 PM
DonkeyKong:
Religion.
Evolution.
You're demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 8:22 PM
Are you serious? really? In 150 years since the idea was presented, millions upon millions of pieces of evidence have come into the peer review literature - not a single one disproves evolution while many have been predicted by evolution. Seen Archaeopteryx? Such a fossil was predicted by the theory. Even more on that lines, many other non-avian dinosaurs have been found with feathers in the years since. This is exactly what evolution predicts!Furthermore, look at the discovery of Tiktaalik just a few years ago. By looking at the relative position in the fossil record of early amphibians and lobed-finned fish, a group of palaeontologists went up to rocks of the right age and right type and found a brilliant transitional form. Likewise there have been a glut of fossils showing the evolutionary transitions that led from terrestrial mammal to cetacean - just as the theory predicts!
It's not only fossil evidence either, there's plenty of genetic evidence too. One example is the pseudogenes that normally synthesise vitamin C. In old world monkeys and apes, the genes that allow for synthesis of vitamin C are inactivated. And it's exactly the same mutation on all old world monkeys and apes. Exactly as evolution predicts! Because the genes are inactive, mutations will accumulate on the gene at a fairly uniform rate. So when we look at the genetic code, we should see that our pseudogene is more similar to chimpanzees than any other ape - and the same is true: that the chimpanzee pseudogene is more similar to ours than any other ape. And this is what was found. Again evolution predicts what we find!
Likewise the number of chromosomes in humans is different from chimpanzees. We have 46 chromosomes while chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have 48. So if evolution were true, then we should either see a fused chromosome pair in our DNA or a split chromosome pair in all others. And given the structure of the tree, the fused chromosome is more likely to be true. So when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced, we should have seen that one chromosome pair of ours (completele with an inactive centromere and telomeres in the centre) should correspond to two chimpanzee chromosome pairs. And this is exactly what is found. Evolution triumphs again!
These are but a few examples of evidence that validates evolution. Now with your rhetoric, I'll await you to present what evidence is against evolution. Go on, show the evidence you say mounts against it.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 13, 2009 8:28 PM
@ 147,
blah blah blah
boring.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 8:28 PM
Please don't make the gradualist fallacy, evolution doesn't happen at strict uniform rates for a variety of reasons and stability is something we should expect in the fossil record. Just because it rains on average 1000mm a year, it doesn't mean we should see ~3mm a day every day.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 13, 2009 8:42 PM
Hey, why stop at evolution? Scientists have been lying to us for years about gravity - and it's only a 'theory', too. They don't want us to know that objects are held in place by invisible magic pixies who love us and don't want us floating away.
With only minor amendments and retaining all the logic and insight, DonkeyKong's comment could read: 'The point is that
Evolutiongravity is just another religion (belief thatnothing was createdlarger bodies attract smaller ones). It takes more faith to believe it as time goes on and evidence mounts against it.'We'll fight the lies of science together, brother!
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 8:44 PM
I'm willing to bet that Donkey Kong is another seagull (comes in, makes mess, flies right off.) Every single one of his 'arguments' is a talking point off a creationist website -- not an original or personal idea in the bunch.
Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 10:20 PM
I say again, which none has refuted:
Evolution is a religion like any other. Your god is your assertion, but that is fallacy.
Evolution is the ultimate post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Don't cite "millions" of papers that commit the same fallacy.
Your faith is in your ability to twist the obvious into something implausible. The astronomers of old were on the right track as they didn't trust their assertions, but tested them.
You refuse alternatives, and are closed minded to the possibility of being wrong. Sounds a lot like the Catholic Church before Galileo and Copernicus.
I know it burns deeply to be compared to the Church, but you must grasp that you have a blind faith in a dead god.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 10:36 PM
Keep lying to yourself. No priests, no churches, no holy book, no dogma. Just a million or so scientific paper for evidence.Evidence drives science. So you fail by lying again. Godbots like you tend to lie a lot. Seems to be a problem with their thinking skills.Wrong again liar. Science is all about disproving itself. But, you need scientific evidence to disprove science. And there are no other alternative scientific explanations (but some unscientific religious explanations are out there, and are ignored due to their lack of scientific nature) for the life on Earth. And scientists are always open to new scientific explanations, which are only to be found in the scientific literature.You lie doesn't burn us, but your soul will when you get to your imaginary deity, and he finds out you bore false witness (lied).Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 10:37 PM
No, I cited actual evidence. Predictions that the theory of evolution makes that have been validated by subsequent investigation. This is how science works - it makes predictions of the unknown. Evolution dictates specifics about how the process of nature works - it can only work in particular ways, so all evidence either fits the pattern or it does not. If it doesn't fit the pattern evolution is wrong.Again, please show me the evidence you say "mounts against it" - surely you are able to do this.
I'm open to the possibility that evoution is wrong, which is why I'm asking you to provide evidence against evolution. You're not doing this, your claim that we are closed minded is projection. I gave you evidence supporting evolution, are you just going to dismiss it offhand and not back up your own assertion with evidence? It sounds like you're the closed minded one - not me.As for the same fallacy, how does the discovery of tiktaalik commit that fallacy? They weren't looking in a certain place because evolution predicted that if there were fossils of that sort that they would be there. They were found. Just as the prediction of genetic drift on pseudogenes fitting the pattern of the tree of life is a prediction.
So please, show me the evidence against evolution. I'm genuinely curious. Because while I gave you a snippet of the many independent lines of evidence that all show evolution to be true, you have yet to actually show (as opposed to assert) why the evidence for evolution is invalid, nor have you presented evidence (you just asserted) against evolution. Please stop being a hypocrite and actually hold yourself to the same standard as you are accusing us of not meeting*.
*on that note, stop lying for Jesus. I presented the evidence, either refute or admit you're wrong.
Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 10:44 PM
Ad hominem is not evidence or valid argumentation.
Your god beats his chest because there is no rational argument for being closed minded.
You speak ex cathedra, but your chair wobbles.
You start with an imaginary chain and tried to find the "missing links". I challenge you to start with the actual links and find what chain they belong to.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 10:50 PM
Wrong, evolution is a scientific theory. Thus is prone to empirical investigation. Wrong, natural selection has been observed in both the wild and in the labratory. Evolution as a whole also makes predictions about the place and types of fossils we should see, about what to find in the genetic code, etc.Take ERV markers. The cause of these abberations in our genetic code is horizontal gene transfer by viruses. Viruses can insert their own genetic code into our DNA and if it does so into the sex cells then it will get transmitted to the next generation. This isn't correlation / causation fallacy, this is observed. From this we can see that the same genetic markers appear on the same spot of our genetic code as they do the chimpanzee code. It's not correlation implying causation, quite simply the evidence points to a common ancestor where the ERV marker was first inserted.
Evolution has been extensively tested both in the labratory and in the wild. Evolution isn't a "just-so" story, there has been much done to see how different factors work. See the Lenski experiment for a long-term experiment. Wrong, I don't refuse alternatives or am I closed minded to the possibility of being wrong. So the first question would be, what alternatives? The second would be, what evidence is there against evolution? After all, it's a scientific theory that makes specific predictions. It doesn't burn deeply, you're just wrong. When someone says something incredibly stupid, having people rally against them doesn't mean that they are right. Please show that we have blind faith, asserting that correlation doesn't equal causation isn't enough. I provided a few examples of evidence for you to start with, shouldn't that be first countered before asserting blind faith?Now please, show some intellectual honesty and engage in a discussion of the evidence. When you first espoused your nonsense, I responded with evidence. That's the opposite of blind faith. You on the other hand have not provided any evidence to support your position. I ask you to show some honesty and actually talk about the evidence at hand. Please show evidence to back up any of your assertions, preferably starting with the claim that the evidence is mounting against evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 10:54 PM
The only close minds are godbots like yourself who refuse to see the scientific evidence. Another lie by you. We found your religious ideas to be lacking in scientific rigor. You have a perfect record of not telling the truth.They are there, just read the scientific literature, which is found at institutions of higher learning world-wide. Another falsehood. Still perfect. Compared to the total lack of physical evidence for your imaginary deity and your fictional babble, the Theory of Evolution is correct, and that evolution occurred is a fact. The lies just keep on piling up out of your computer. Why don't you show us physical evidence for your imaginary deity?Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 10:59 PM
This is a not a "who's stick is longer" match.
My argument is that Evolution is a religion like any other. One can cite sura from the Qur'an to support Islam. You support evidence based on the original assertion from Darwin. It takes faith to believe a "theory" because, try as you may, you'll die trying to prove it and come up empty handed. Evolution = dogma. But, it isn't settled nor can be.
The delusion is in your reliance on a wobbly assertion.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 13, 2009 11:01 PM
DonkeyKong:
1. Did you even look at my response @149?
That was a refutation.
2. It doesn't burn, for it is an inappropriate (and stupid!) comparison. It would amuse, were it witty in some sense, but since it ain't, it doesn't.
PS What god is this of which you speak? I am godless.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 13, 2009 11:01 PM
Do I see a kettle calling a pot black?
Any who, no one here fuckings worship evolution. We neither have sacred narrative or laws that are derived by evolution. If evolution is a religion than so is radio active decay. It just happens there is nothing more to discuss other than it is a fact.
And since you like to play the "another religion" game . . . So what makes Christianity any more valid than say Paganism. Both can make the exact same claim and both have the exact same evidence which is none.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 13, 2009 11:04 PM
DonkeyKong:
It's not an argument, but an assertion.
Also, it's stupid.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 13, 2009 11:04 PM
You're so deluded. We have physical evidence for evolution. We see viruses and bacteria evolving all the time. There is not dogma in analyzing the evidence. It's already settle you just don't want it to be due to your own dogma.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 11:09 PM
That is a false presupposition. You have no hard evidence to back it up. Like all stupid godbots you think assertion = evidence. It isn't anything more than you aimlessly flapping your jaws. You need hard physical evidence. Science is not a religion, never has been, never will be. Evolution is not a religion, never has been, never will be. You have shown no evidence for your imaginary deity. You have nothing but blather.Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 11:12 PM
I guess I not so smart as the faithful. I will bow now before the god of Evolution. Maybe he be merciful to me.
Whatever!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 11:15 PM
Still pretending you lie is true, still no evidence for your imaginary deity. What's the matter? You know you have nothing but your irrational assertions?Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 11:15 PM
Your argument is wrong, deal with it, it's no more a religion than atomic theory or germ theory or gravity. It's science and thus subjected to scientific evidence. The theory of evolution is very different to the version that Darwin presented. But no, keep up your lame assertion and ignore the fact that people have presented evidence to you supporting evolution while you have neither refuted the evidence or given any evidence against evolution.Show some intellectually honesty and back up your assertions.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 13, 2009 11:16 PM
DK:
What god is that? Please provide a citation, I am unaware of any deity-construct being part of evolutionary theory.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 13, 2009 11:17 PM
You're just not smart. Neither in theology or science. If you are so confidence, give me scientific evidence to refute, once and for all, this "so called" religion. In fact, explain what evolution is. Or religion for that matter.
I can, OTOH, give you plenty of documents based on science to show evolution.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 11:23 PM
This has nothing to do with being smart, it has everything to do with evidence. I've tried to engage you on evidence several times, but you've refused to do so. Please show me where genetic drift on pseudogenes is written in Darwin's work. Please show me where neutral theory is in his work. Please show me where interlocking complexity is, or hox genes - or anything at all to do with genetics for that matter. What about horizontal gene transfer? Come on, back up your assertion with evidence.Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 11:36 PM
pfft, just another Liar for JesusTM. It's frustrating to see people come on here time and time again calling evolution a faith or a fairy tale, yet when actually engaged on the issue they don't actually stop and talk about the evidence. It's the one important thing to evolution - it's a scientific theory and thus it is dependent on the amount of empirical evidence to support it. I bring up evidence, and this coward refuses to talk about evidence even though in his first post he said the evidence was against it. Instead he's accused evolution of being a religion, accused us of blind faith, dismissed all claims of evidence, accused us of being closed minded, and not presented a shred of evidence himself to back it up.
This is really pathetic, it's sad that this kind of behaviour is not atypical of so many believers. This happens all the time, all the damn time! So many ideologically-driven religious nuts going on the offensive by accusing us of the very intellectual crimes that they are themselves commiting. More than anything else, I would love to see one come on who actually engages in discussion of the theory who knows what they are talking about. Or at the very least has read books like Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 13, 2009 11:40 PM
Oh what did you expect? This guy probably can't even tell me the basics of evolution. He doesn't know what he's arguing against, he just knows it's bad.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2009 11:51 PM
The DonkeyKong moniker has posted here before. Don't know if it is the same person or not. Definitely doesn't understand the point that scientists need evidence to change our minds, since he never provided any.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 13, 2009 11:52 PM
Dear Brother DonkeyKong,
What rock in the Garden of Eden did you crawl out from under, oh my brother?
As God's appointed missionary to this evil blog, I'd like to know which deity-in-heaven gave you permission to turn up and spout arrant stupidity without a remit. What about showing me your credentials...assuming you can get your head out of your anus long enough to untwist it 720 degrees?
Frankly, Donkey (Yes, you. Ah'm talking to you, Donkey!) I'm highly suspicious of your creationist intervention given that the WSQ (willful stupidity quotient) and OLL (outright lying levels) are so inordinately high. Indeed for a while I thought you might be a Poe, but you exceed even the upper levels of Poedom. I confess that my suspicions of you are reinforced by the fact that your nom de plume is the secret nickname God has bestowed upon his divine penis. Ha! Gotcha! DonkeyKong alias GodKnob!.
So take some advice from the resident True Christian (TM), GodKnob, and take your stupid somewhere where it's appreciated. For example, I thought of you the moment I heard that the spokesperson for the Birther movement was desperately in need of a new panty-liner, having pawned this year's one to pay her fines. Given the quantity of 'stupid' your posts indicate that you are evidently capable of absorbing, I have no doubt that being right up Orly's alley should be right up your alley.
What I can't understand is how you can have the brazen cheek to say evolution is a religion, and not be smited by God. How dare you compare that repeatedly proven monolith of scientific evidence with the things I know in my heart and believe by faith alone? What right do you have to sully my relationship with Jesus by suggesting that it is somehow rational? While I love you in The Lord, Brother Godknob, as an imperfect human I need to tell you that you should shove your pseudo-intellectual Latin tags up your fundament and fuck off back to Cretinsville.
Yours for faith and against rationality
Smoggy Batzrubble
Missionary to the Atheists
PS My fellow missionary, Brother Floyd Rubber, is fascinated by your nom de plume, suggesting as it does inordinately enlarged Christian genitalia. He's on his way to meet you for a little Holy hole play. You'll recognize him easily--he's tremendously obese, completely bald, has crosses tattooed on his eyelids, and like you he's hung like an ass.
Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 13, 2009 11:53 PM
You've proved Evolution is a religion by your fanatical attacks toward someone who would even question it. It proves you've lost touch with reality.
You accuse me of being a liar, godbot, and an idiot. That makes you intolerant of an opposing view before I could ever provide any evidence. Sounds like religious zealots on TV.
You continue along in the snare; namely that Evolution is a religion with fanatics and lunatic fringe that will crusade to their death with nothing more to show than they tried really hard. What a miserable outcome!
Evidence isn't the point, but your rantings prove my point. I laid the bait, and you bit the hook.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 13, 2009 11:59 PM
Persecution card, check.
YAWN.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 12:05 AM
You presented no evidence. Ergo, you were just shouting "evolution isn't true", which we know is false due to the million or so scientific papers. Unlike you, who had nothing. You opinion means nothing to science or scientists.If the shoe fits...There you go lying again, since you present no physical evidence to back up your inane and insane opinion.Wrong again, lying godbot. In science, the evidence always wins. It is everything. And your presented none for your imaginary deity, ergo he doesn't exist, and your babble is a work of fiction. Get it? No evidence, you have nothing.Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 14, 2009 12:05 AM
If that's your idea of evidence, then you really need to spurce up on your rhetoric skills.No EVIDENCE IS EVERYTHING, and the fact that you used a very poor evidence to convince us that evidence is not everything is very telling of your mental condition.
Trap . . . really? Then it's poorly set by an unskilled woodsman.
Typical fundy tactic to try to make himself look like the one being oppress as if it will illict sympathy or rage.
Well if you are above being miserable, then ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS!!!
STOP DODGING IT, otherwise we've no reason to listen to you.
YOU WON'T WIN UNTIL YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE and us attacking your stupidity don't count as it's irrelevant to evolution.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 14, 2009 12:06 AM
What? Are you serious? Again, you claimed there was no evidence for it, that it was blind faith. If you came on here and said that the holocaust didn't happen and that it was a religion to believe in the holocaust, would you take people pointing to the evidence as proof that it was a religion?Perhaps it's that evolution-deniers are a dime-a-dozen. It's not that evolution is a religion, rather the opposite. It's a scientific theory that gets constantly attacked on religious grounds. I've brought up evidence that supports evolution - why are you persisting to ignore people who are engaging you on evidential grounds and instead sniping at the theory and those who support it? It's you who has no argument and you're trying to distract from that.
So you act like an arse and people call you an arse proving that we are just jerks? No, it doesn't work like that. You make an empirical claim about reality that you're refusing to back up, sadly that it's one claim that we see time and time again be asserted but not backed by evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory, yet you're not talking science. How about you say "Gravity is a religion" and see people here rush to talk about the evidence for gravity. Would that prove that gravity is a religion? Of course not, you're being incredibly deceptive.Again, please show the evidence you say "mounts against" evolution. You have not done so, you don't have a case until you do.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 12:12 AM
DonkeyKong, try reading either Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, or Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. Either one would give you an idea of how science really works, and some of the supporting evidence for evolution. As it is now, you appear to have no idea on either.
Posted by: DonkeyKong
|
October 14, 2009 12:25 AM
So, your claims are objective? From what perspective?
Is the earth flat? No.
Are you you in motion? Maybe, depending on your frame of reference.
Is gravity 9.81m/s2? Yeah, on earth.
Does chirality matter, and to what extent?
Is Evolution fixed or in flux?
With so many links in the chain missing, it's hard to believe in the religion of Evolution.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 14, 2009 12:35 AM
Because it's science and science changes as we gain new understanding and researchin methods. Of course it doesn't make a good religion. It isn't. Stop being insipid.
AND YOU STILL NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS GIVEN TO YOU!
Nope you are wrong. As long as we know that gravity is 9.81 here and that we know it changes from different celestial bodies it's fine. The basic physics is in no way compromised if we did it here and/or on Venus.
As for flat earth, we've already dismiss that as it's not science. Stop confusing science with pseudoscience.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 14, 2009 12:58 AM
DK:
Repeating your mantra will not change the fact that evolutionary science is not a religion, it's a scientific theory.
PS I know you don't believe what you say, because no-one could possibly be so stupid. You're merely nearly as stupid as that, thinking that you make some sort of point by idiotic repetition.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 14, 2009 1:07 AM
Are you actually going to address the evidence presented or continue to act as if your incredulity / ignorance is evidence against the scientific theory?Again, why won't you present the evidence against evolution? Why won't you address the evidence for evolution? Can you even explain what evolution is as it currently stands and what evidences we should see if it were true?
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 14, 2009 1:25 AM
DK: With so many links in the chain missing, it's hard to believe in the religion of Evolution.
Michael Oakshott's definition of ideology: "the formalized abridgment of the supposed sub-stratum of the rational truth contained in the tradition."
So is evolution used ideologically? Yes, to the extent that the sub-stratum of the rational truth is frequently abridged, and why non-scientists can competently make arguments from evolutionary findings and principles to combat a misguided subjectivity. But there isn't much necessary to unearth to present the case against deism, much less theism. So while evolution often takes on ideological features when enlisted to oppose ideology or religion, this is a far cry from saying evolution is singularly ideological or "religious." Far from it, you will find in it no theory of subjectivity, just objective change over time.
As for the post hoc fallacy, it would make for a long work day if everyone had to begin each morning by examining first principles. But they seem to work, and you are more than welcome in dissociating causal elements and connections if you find the evidence.
But I doubt you really want a debate, you just want to rattle some cages. But you came to the wrong party if you thought you could blow around skepticism and make people nervous.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 14, 2009 1:36 AM
Sean @187:
Yup (though that should be stupidity, not skepticism, above).
This is Pharyngula!
We recognise trolling when we see it, but DK probably thinks he's getting a rise, instead of being a chew-toy. Heh.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 14, 2009 3:26 AM
The arrogance of ignorance. Trolls like DK are a dime a dozen around here, it wouldn't be a week on here where these same arguments didn't crop up on here at least a few different times from different people. Unsurprisingly the arguments never descend from "I personally can't envisage how evolution works, therefore evolution doesn't work" and no matter how much evidence is presented the person claiming that we are closed minded doesn't move from their position despite being corrected and pointed in the direction of resources on the matter.I wouldn't use skepticism to describe such behaviour, it's denialism - a skeptic would be willing to talk about the evidence. A denialist takes the negative position and that's that!
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 14, 2009 3:37 AM
Have you ever noticed that when we criticized his argument, he attacked us instead of responding to the criticism? That should be a red flag that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 14, 2009 3:42 AM
He's trying to keep us on the defensive, taking the focus away from himself and keep us defending - thus validating his viewpoint that we're ideologues defending our dogma as opposed to addressing the issue.Like I said, dime-a-dozen typical idiot. This kind of behaviour is common here, on the "Dembski Does It Again" thread, X-Lurker is doing similar by calling this place an echo chamber and using his own incredulity at the process of evolution to dismiss it.
Posted by: KKemerait
|
October 14, 2009 7:03 AM
It's quite simple actually...you don't teach ID or creationism in a science classroom for the same reason you don't teach numerology in the math class ... it ISN'T MATH... the same way that ID and creationism AREN'T science. It has NOTHING to do with who, or how many people believe what, nor does the fact that science doesn't have all the answers have any bearing whatsoever.
Please feel free to discuss further kkemerait@gmail.com
Posted by: kkehoe5
|
October 14, 2009 7:40 AM
A Creationist and an Atheist walk up to a man in the park. The man tells them he is holding a colored stone behind his back and wants them to guess what color it is.
The Creationist pulls out his bible and proceeds to search for a passage about colored stones. After about 10 minutes he finds an obscure line about Jesus and a man walking behind him wearing a blue shirt. The creationist is now convinced that the stone will be blue based off the teachings of the bible.
The Atheist looks at the surrounding area the man is standing at. He notices there is a small rock garden with colored stones in it. The stones are arranged by color and there are 10 of each color (red, orange, blue, green and purple) and only 9 yellow stones. He can also see the indent in the ground where the yellow stone was removed from. He sees footprints in the dirt and dirty footprints leading to the man with the stone. He even sees dirt of the same color on the man’s shoes. Using this observed evidence he theorizes the stone will be yellow.
The man never tells the 2 men what the stones color actually is. So the Atheist tries to show the Creationist all of his evidence on why the stone would have been yellow. He tries to show him the foot prints, the color stone garden and the dirt on his shoes. The Creationist after seeing all of this still refuses to be swayed from his belief, he has found his answer in the bible and has faith that the stone was in fact blue.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 14, 2009 8:11 AM
it's not?
Posted by: So Much to Learn
|
October 14, 2009 12:11 PM
"So the Atheist tries to show the Creationist all of his evidence on why the stone would have been yellow. He tries to show him the foot prints, the color stone garden and the dirt on his shoes. The Creationist after seeing all of this still refuses to be swayed from his belief, he has found his answer in the bible and has faith that the stone was in fact blue."
And maybe it was.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 12:30 PM
Until we find out, it is most likely yellow. Ancient texts are like a stopped watch, they might be right on rare occasions, but most often they are just wrong. Which makes them unrealiable as evidence for a conclusion.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 14, 2009 12:52 PM
Donkey Kong says: "With so many links in the chain missing, it's hard to believe in the religion of Evolution."
That's 'cause yer doin'it WRONG! Science doesn't come to you with a pre-made chain, but rather says that the links are there; let's build a chain. And, over a period of about 400 years, it has indeed built not just one chain, but a vast network of inter-linked chains that stand up to the weight of evidence.
Religion on the other hand comes to you with a premade chain built over thousands of years and says you must accept it all. And when you touch a link with the slightest evidence, it disintegrates. Hmmm. I'll take science, thanks.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 14, 2009 8:33 PM
I love the irony in the subtitle of this thread: What Happens when a Fathead Meets a Scholar. A fathead came on here to troll, and got torn up and eaten by scholars. And now he's refusing to do the one thing that would make us be civil instead of calling him a troll. Come on, DK, you said the evidence against evolution is mounting, so man up and tell us what some of it is! If it's really good, we'll all look like idiots. If you won't (read: can't) produce any, then YOU will look like an idiot, as you do already. Empirical evidence is the only thing that will convince us. Ad hominem attacks about evolution as a religion do no good. So show us the evidence!
I hope I haven't just undermined my argument by irrationally entertaining the notion that he might have some evidence. On the other hand, if he's a Poe, then what?
Posted by: Enjoying_a_brief_interlude_from_non-existence
|
October 16, 2009 2:35 AM
With close to 200 posts before me, I apologize if my points have already been spoken to. The first of which is that I found the clip of the last 'debate' to be edited in such a way to cut out the lion's share of Dawkin's original responses.. such is show business I guess.
The second point I would like to make is regarding O'Rielly's statement of "Science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way and Jesus did". I thought that perhaps Richard would speak to that but I suppose that hard to do in five-second bursts. As you can probably imagine I disagree with not only the last part of the statement but the first as well.
I think it stems from the fact that the popular mis-conception is that science is performed only by professional scientists; when what we're really talking about is all human beings learning about the world/universe using a rational, evidenced-based approach. The scientific method works for anyone who cares to apply it and promotes rationality and intellectual honesty.
To say that "Science doesn't advance the human condition in a moralistic way" is utterly absurd. Where else to you think our current set of moral values, on a personal level or in society in general, come from? Even in the US I think you'd be hard-pressed to find persons who agree that all of the 'morality' espoused in a bronze-age text is still relevant today in it's entirety. Further I believe that from a moralistic standpoint, the world itself, while not perfect, is literally light-years beyond what the original authors imagined. Even most religious persons must agree that racism, feminine-gender oppression, owning other human beings as slaves,the list goes on.. is an inferior moral climate to what most persons are exposed to today.
And thank not the 'moral teachings' of the Bible/Koran/etc. for that. Instead thank the scientific process in fields such as philosophy, history, the arts and humanities; and above all thank persons who believe in the principles of intellectual honesty and rationality.
I'd promote science's morality vs. religious morality any day of the week.
Finally, regarding Bill's comment "science says evolution only" (be taught in schools); well, I think we can all see that for the empty rhetoric it is. Science welcomes any and all theories that can be brought forward with evidence to support them. Bill and his cronies are welcome to come on by as soon as they find some.
Apologies for the long post.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Seeing as the godbots don't typically provide any resistance, allow me to be the one to engage in minor corrections and strawman prevention. (not concern trolling i hope)
"The scientific method works for anyone who cares to apply it and promotes rationality and intellectual honesty."
Science requires those things. It only promotes those things to the extent a person wants to be scientific. There is no moralism in methodology - it either works or it doesn't.
"Even most religious persons must agree that racism, feminine-gender oppression, owning other human beings as slaves,the list goes on.. is an inferior moral climate to what most persons are exposed to today."
They would agree, but they wouldn't give the credit to science. They would say if science does have its own unique moralism (and this is "Science", not method) then it is an objectivism and instrumentalism, and produces alternative forms of enslavement, like in all our dystopian novels etc.
"Where else to you think our current set of moral values, on a personal level or in society in general, come from"
Again, Bill wouldn't say science exclusively. TO the extent science increases gains in production and wealth, it increases freedom and generally makes people nicer. The progress isn't reached in a scientific worldview, but in science that enables the Christian worldview to flourish, he would say.
So in the end, Bill would still have much to say in response, and perhaps Dawkins wisely left certain bits unchallenged for tv (like he had a choice - who knows what went on in the editing room). when Bill says "Science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way" he's right, strictly speaking, and if one does want to speak up, the right course is to keep the definition of science narrow, and point out the false dichotomies Billo produces - Billo is right because to say "science" advanced morality is just nonsense.
On the other hand, if one did want to tout science, one could say that science has been allied to other moralistic philosophies and these have contributed to our moral understanding (though some like social darwinism were obviously wrong). Yet the question remains to what extent has conceptual morality really "advanced" over the past few thousand years (aside from practical implementation of it, or if it has been followed). We've had much moral philosophy since, but the golden rule still comes to mind as the way it is. Since this predates Jesus, he didn't advance anything either.