1. Comment #116417 by the great teapot on January 26, 2008 at 12:44 pm

thanks for your call John.
Very enligthening.

Other Comments by the great teapot

2. Comment #116421 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Two thoughts:

1) I detest local radio
and
2) Richard, you were great on this: you said absolutely everything that needed to be said, and somehow managed to do so in the 3 minutes they gave you!

OK, a third thought too: John is an idiot.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

3. Comment #116426 by johnosouthall on January 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I found it amazing that John thought he could win an evolutionary debate against Dawkins - does he not understand anything?

I thought it was a pleasing interview although I was disappointed that the question to listeners was not 'does it matter if you do have faith?' rather than 'does it matter if you don't?'

Other Comments by johnosouthall

4. Comment #116428 by moniz on January 26, 2008 at 1:14 pm

John is the same type of fellow who also asks "If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" What happens when you educate yourself with holy books, and not REAL non-fiction literature.

Other Comments by moniz

5. Comment #116429 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 26, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Agreed.

Furthermore check out this site I just found:

http://www.newchristian.org.uk/

More Christian blabbering. I usually have respect for believers [something they don't have for us non-believers], but this website and this interview makes it difficult to believe these people are nothing more than in-bred sheep. Sorry if that sounds harsh; I certainly have no desire to hurt any believers feelings, yet some of your claims are far too ludicrous for anybody of rational thinking to understand.

If you visit the website, visit the test to see if you are a good or bad person. An interesting test that asks if you obey the Lord. Also interesting is that vicars and priests work on Sunday - so aren't they breaking the sabbath, or is that something completely different?

Long live the likes of Richard Dawkins. At least I can understand his viewpoint. I can't understand the notion of a 'loving' God who would damn me to eternal suffering just because I dared to fantasize about some member of the opposite sex outside of my marriage.

You believers can keep your God. I don't want him.

Regards.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

6. Comment #116430 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Unfortunately I expect to hear a group of creationists berating Richard for his refusal to change the subject to what the host wanted immediately. And he will probably come under fire for saying "God what a naive question".

I think that he should publish an evolutionary version of Of Pandas and People in order to supplement the small amount of evolutionary biology taught in school.

Other Comments by Deepthought

7. Comment #116433 by JesperB on January 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Ouch, the Prof wiped the floor with that guy in 95 secs. Well done!

BTW, John isn't necessarily an idiot. The sad Truth (tm) is, that he might be an idiot or he might be a genius. Susceptibility to delusions isn't always dependent upon IQ.

Other Comments by JesperB

8. Comment #116434 by Silent.Bomber on January 26, 2008 at 1:25 pm

People like John really make me despair. What a total prat, it is the fault of society for churning out bolshy morons like this.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

9. Comment #116435 by JamieR on January 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I enjoyed that did you notice that guy at the end nothing Richard sead sank in he ignored him i bet he wont go to the museum he don't care about the truth

Other Comments by JamieR

10. Comment #116436 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm

BTW, John isn't necessarily an idiot. The sad Truth (tm) is, that he might be an idiot or he might be a genius

Well, I admire your charitable spirit, JesperB - but to take Richard Dawkins on on his home territory of evolution, and not to realise that the slightest, tiniest, merest smidgeon of factual knowledge of evolution would have been enough to address his objection: to my mind, this makes him an idiot. I nearly added "on this subject, at least", but on reflection decided that no, it's a pretty good sign of an idiot, full stop.

Humour me - it's Saturday evening, I've opened a very nice bottle of red wine, and I'm feeling inclined to leave the measured responses to someone else, just for tonight! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

11. Comment #116437 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:35 pm

i bet he wont go to the museum he don't care about the truth

JamieR, I think you're absolutely right there.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

12. Comment #116440 by morgantj on January 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Richard did an excellent job in such a short amount of time.

Other Comments by morgantj

13. Comment #116442 by evangelionfreek on January 26, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Should I feel bad that I could not stop laughing at poor John. I wish I could meet people like this where I live!

Other Comments by evangelionfreek

14. Comment #116448 by Radesq on January 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Comment #116436 by Paula Kirby
"I've opened a very nice bottle of red wine, and I'm feeling inclined to leave the measured responses to someone else, just for tonight! :-)"

By all means please continue!

Other Comments by Radesq

15. Comment #116450 by Storeo on January 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Richard: "Go to a Museum"

John: ".....Ok"

pwnigde!

Other Comments by Storeo

16. Comment #116451 by toomanytribbles on January 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm

dawkins: go to a museum and ask to see, for example, tiktaalik.
john: OK!

that's telling'im, john!

lol

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

17. Comment #116452 by toomanytribbles on January 26, 2008 at 2:07 pm

-fumes that storeo beat her to it-

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

18. Comment #116456 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

RD is awesome. Cuts to the chase in one or two sentences.

Other Comments by Rational_G

19. Comment #116461 by Roy_H on January 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #116451 by toomanytribbles on January 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Dawkins: go to a museum and ask to see, for example, tiktaalik.

It even has it's own website, very interesting it is too.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Other Comments by Roy_H

20. Comment #116463 by robotaholic on January 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Professor Richard Dawkins is amazing. "What do you mean 'dear me'?"- :D - He was especially barbed and I loved it.

Other Comments by robotaholic

21. Comment #116467 by righton on January 26, 2008 at 3:04 pm

"I enjoyed that did you notice that guy at the end nothing Richard sead sank in he ignored him i bet he wont go to the museum he don't care about the truth"

Your exactly right. This is how the arguments always go. If the discussion between RD and John would have continued, John would move on to another bad argument, RD would clearly explain why this is not true, John would still think his argument makes sense and move onto another one. Its like they dont even think about it. I have had this discussion a few times with different people. It ends with something like
"I know god exists because he helps me through things has changed my life. I wouldnt be the same person without god".
So after all there bad arguments are shown to be false they move to something that is not really an argument at all. It doesnt even register that all the arguments they brought up were shown to be false.

Other Comments by righton

22. Comment #116469 by toomanytribbles on January 26, 2008 at 3:06 pm

roy_h -- correct. he doesn't have to leave the fuzzy comfort of his fundamentalist unshakably god-fearing home.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

23. Comment #116473 by MelM on January 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm

A nice YouTube video of a young woman escaping religion because of the "multiple faiths" issue is "my coming out story". She's quite a gem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naLQjFNQVAM
I think the "multiple faiths" approach is a good one. Faith can't tell anyone whether a religion is true--thus allowing proper selection--or whether any of then are true. Religion is then quite subjective and cannot provide the "truth" and much desired "absolutes" at all. Only reason can discover facts.

I'll skip the nostalgia for religion in weddings and funerals; don't need it and don't want it; yucky.

I'm reading "Your Inner Fish", written by one of the discoverers of Tikaalik. It was released Jan 15, 2008. I see that it's at number 34 on the New York Times best seller list--pretty good I'd say.

As for the burning bush, scientists would treat it like the leg suddenly grown again after amputation which was mentioned in the piece by Anatole France ("Miracle"). Page 113 in Hitchens' "The Portable Atheist". Scientists would look for the yet unknown conditions.

Other Comments by MelM

24. Comment #116476 by markg on January 26, 2008 at 3:12 pm

righton

Righton, that's why I find it futile to argue with these people. Besides, do I look like a debater?

I'll leave that to smarter people, like Paula. Oh, wait she's taking a break this evening? Where is Steve Zara when you need him.

Other Comments by markg

25. Comment #116479 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm

markg: I'll leave that to smarter people, like Paula. Oh, wait she's taking a break this evening?

Thank you for the compliment! But no, not taking a break, exactly - I'm still watching with interest from the spectators' gallery :-) Besides, there's nothing to debate with our daffy friend, John: I expect he's gone to ask someone what a museum is.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

26. Comment #116480 by Sally Luxmoore on January 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Sadly this is just evidence of the fact that it is almost impossible to 'win' an argument with an ignorant person.
I find it amazing that people think it acceptable to be so rude and dismissive towards someone who has spent his whole adult life researching evolutionary biology (amongst other things!) and who is so obviously an expert. Quite apart from the fact that there should be a measure of respect due to such learning, the caller failed to show even common courtesy.
NOT a good advertisement for gentle Christians, meek and mild!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

27. Comment #116483 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I find it amazing that people think it acceptable to be so rude and dismissive towards someone who has spent his whole adult life researching evolutionary biology (amongst other things!) and who is so obviously an expert.

I have to admit this has always puzzled me. I suspect it is a deep misunderstanding of what science is about. Such people probably think that scientists approach "truth" in the same way that religious people tend to: construct a detailed view of the world first, then hunt out supposed evidence to fit this view. And, if the "expert" is thinking like they are, then it is all just a matter of faith. This is probably why people with little knowledge of a subject to easily dismiss the consensus on matters such as the safety of vaccinations, or the existence of global warming..

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #116484 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Sally Luxmoore

Quite apart from the fact that there should be a measure of respect due to such learning, the caller failed to show even common courtesy.
NOT a good advertisement for gentle Christians, meek and mild!

Apart from the fact that John, in being aggressive and arrogant, was clearly just showing off for the benefit of all his fundie pals, was developing a biblical precept "The fool hath said in his heart "There is no God"" - Richard Dawkins says it out loud all over the place, so he must be an even greater "fool".

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

29. Comment #116486 by Sally Luxmoore on January 26, 2008 at 3:30 pm

'I think that he should publish an evolutionary version of Of Pandas and People in order to supplement the small amount of evolutionary biology taught in school.'

Hmm. Interesting. I don't know what this book is (I'm English, is it American?) but maybe it's time Professor Dawkins got together with Dorling Kindersley or some other similar children's book publisher to produce a children's book on evolution. (Sorry RD, I do know that you're incredibly busy!)
If this happened, I would be only too happy to get involved in a plan to get a copy into every school in the same way that we gave a copy of the God Delusion to all MPs.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

30. Comment #116487 by MelM on January 26, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Roy_H,

Thanks for the link to the Tiktaalik site.(http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/) I've memorized it.

Other Comments by MelM

31. Comment #116488 by righton on January 26, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Arent amphibians themselves a link between animals living in water and animals living on land?

Other Comments by righton

32. Comment #116489 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Sally,

Of Pandas and People was a book on intelligent design that was given as a supplement to (American) textbooks when creationists were trying to stop the teaching of evolution after the teaching of creationism was banned. For more on it read "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism"(edited by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey) which is a wonderful book on the subject because it outlines the history of the ID movement as well as rebuttals to the arguments given by creationists and ID theorists.

Other Comments by Deepthought

33. Comment #116490 by markg on January 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm

"I suspect it is a deep misunderstanding of what science is about."

Exactly, we continually hear them spouting evolution is "just a theory" and so on, meaning in their minds they don't think it's a proven fact. In the states I hear that all the time, from politicians and fundamentalists.

Other Comments by markg

34. Comment #116492 by EeekiE on January 26, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Richard Morgan:

What's wrong with me viewing Richard Dawkins as a person hero of mine amongst many others like Carl Sagan, V. S. Ramachandran and David Deutsch as examples?

Do you think I'd cheer them no matter what they say and do? Or to word it differently, do you think they're my heros for their names and faces, and not what they say and do?

Other Comments by EeekiE

35. Comment #116493 by MelM on January 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm

"Of Pandas And People"

A notorious little creationist book which ended up involved in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Other Comments by MelM

36. Comment #116494 by He-man Daunted World on January 26, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I don't have high hopes for John even after he sees the fossils

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

37. Comment #116495 by Elcristoph on January 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Ok thats what gets me about RD, and I know this is the worst place to post this, Science makes no claimes about the supernatural, also saying that if someone has a good education they will be non religious, and that if you understand evolution you will become a non beliver, pushing this concept isnt going to help anything, your not going to get creationists to accept one of the most accepted sciences in the world if you tell them if you understand it you will lose your faith, Ken Miller one of the most respected sciencetists in the world and a devender of evolution is a devout catholic....saying if you accept evolution makes you a atheist, or if your religious you accept creationism isnt correct....

Other Comments by Elcristoph

38. Comment #116496 by MelM on January 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Beware: "...a sequel to Of Pandas and People (Second Edition, 1993), and a stand alone book in its own right..." (from Amazon.com)

From the Wikipedia article cited above:

There are currently two editions of the book, the 1989 first edition edited by Charles Thaxton, and the 1993 second edition, which included a "Note to Teachers" by Mark D. Hartwig and Stephen C. Meyer. A forthcoming third edition is to be retitled The Design of Life. Jon Buell, the president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, said that the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent design was religious would make the textbook "radioactive" in public schools and would be "catastrophic" for the marketability of both the present (second) edition and the forthcoming third edition, citing possible losses of around US$500,000. The renaming of the book is viewed by some as way of mitigating this and at the same time distancing the book from past controversy.

Looks like the book has arrived. The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems

Other Comments by MelM

39. Comment #116497 by Fire1974 on January 26, 2008 at 4:12 pm

I want to believe John will go to a museum and read TGD, I really, really want to.

[Muttering to myself ] 'John will go to a museum and read TGD. John will go to a museum and read TGD. John will go to a museum and read TGD. John will go to a museum and read TGD. John will go to a museum and read TGD.'

Damn! This just isn't working. I still don't believe he will.
Oh well.

Other Comments by Fire1974

40. Comment #116498 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Science makes no claimes about the supernatural

I believe it does, which is that "supernatural" is a meaningless term. We will accept the existence of things for which there is sufficient evidence, no matter how people may wish to label them.

also saying that if someone has a good education they will be non religious, and that if you understand evolution you will become a non beliver, pushing this concept isnt going to help anything,

I don't know anyone who says this. What can't be denied is that the more educated people are (especially in biology), the less religious they tend to be.

your not going to get creationists to accept one of the most accepted sciences in the world if you tell them if you understand it you will lose your faith

Well, it should make them lose their faith in creationism. Hopefully.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #116500 by Geoff on January 26, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Elcristoph

Science makes no claimes about the supernatural...

...except to point out that there's no evidence for its existence?

if someone has a good education they will be non religious...

Statistically true, though of course there are exceptions.

Edit: Steve beat me to it!

Other Comments by Geoff

42. Comment #116501 by Elcristoph on January 26, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I CANNOT belive someone asked where are the transitionsl fossils, in the UK or all places, IM SOOOOO ANGRY.....

Other Comments by Elcristoph

43. Comment #116502 by He-man Daunted World on January 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm

I don't understand how people who think "I KNOW i'm right, to hell with the facts" can call someone like Dawkins a fundamentalist.

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

44. Comment #116510 by RickM on January 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I wonder if John will visit a museum.
I wonder if John will do some research on fossils.
I wonder if John will ask his priest, "what's this crap about no intermediate fossils?"
I wonder if John will stick his head in the sand and continue to be deluded.

I wonder if Paula will share her Bordeaux.

Other Comments by RickM

45. Comment #116514 by Smith on January 26, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Elcristoph: ... Ken Miller one of the most respected sciencetists in the world and a devender of evolution is a devout catholic...

What do you mean by "a devout catholic?" What exactly does he believe? Care to clarify?

Other Comments by Smith

46. Comment #116522 by al-rawandi on January 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I wonder if John will remove his head from his ass?

Recto-crannial inversion is no laughing matter.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

47. Comment #116524 by Geoff on January 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm

RickM:

No, no, no, yes and I suspect it's all gone by now...

Other Comments by Geoff

48. Comment #116535 by Tim Friede on January 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Smith, I guess it means this;

In the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God'. P33, TGD.

Other Comments by Tim Friede

49. Comment #116539 by StraightEdge on January 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Well the Professor certainly was on form in this interview!

I know we all despair at the likes of the caller but I think it's good that Dawkins had the chance to refute one of the most commonly asked questions by those who haven't read about evolution.

That Tiktaalik site is great by the way. Cheers for that!

Other Comments by StraightEdge

50. Comment #116541 by zendal_darkman on January 26, 2008 at 5:52 pm

There are lots and lots of "Johns" out there, all to willing to simply accept all the creationist propaganda thrown at them. He had no understanding of what he was on about, but he simply thought repeating a few tired old lines was enough to "defeat" RD.

Despite his lack of knowledge he was happy to accept as 100% fact that evolution was flawed because of a leaflet or some speaker saying so, and so fully expected RD to be stumped by the points he raised.

Other Comments by zendal_darkman