The Hour Richard Dawkins Part 1 Brand New Sept 29 2009

[eliskander]

Dawkins is pathetic.

[b1rdn05]

@eliskander Oh, is your name Dawkins?

[ManDudeYeah]

@eliskander How so?

[torontoBluejays87]

It is really a shame that so many people are so scientifically illiterate. I am a layman and have no hope in aspiring a career in science, but I respect those individuals for discovering the world around us. At least I realize that without evolutionary biology, there'd be no vaccines or medication. If you deny evolution...please stop going to the hospital or vaccinating yourself, you only contradict your own beliefs.

[flarez]

what an idiot, dawkins is not "an atheist", he's a MA, PhD professor in biology

[imax1971]

@flarez Dawkins is a political hack...

[DroidBeetleBatallion]

@imax1971 He's not a politician

[Chayraz2]

@imax1971 The pope has been a political hack for over 2000 years.

[interfan63]

If there is so much evidence why they don't call it the "law of evolution "instead of theory ?just like the laws of thermodynamics

[Ikorose11]

@interfan63 because scientists are modest.. and it can always be altered and updated by more evidence. Basically its always subject to change in my opinion =].

[9hello123]

@interfan63 Because the word law and theory have absolutely nothing to do with how much evidence they have.

Newton's law of gravitation is known to be wrong, it's still a law though. The theory of gravity (general relativity) is much more correct with much more evidence than Newton's law of gravitation, it's still a theory though.

[Chris197980CH]

@9hello123 Newton's three laws are approximately correct, but not when the velocities approached that of light. The limit's of Newton's laws were known long before Einstein released his theory that indeed delivers correct results for such velocities. You are right that Einstein's theory has limits, which is where quantum theory comes into place. The word "theory" doesn't say how much evidence there is, but suggesting interpretation could go into an opposite direction would be absurde.

[9hello123]

@Chris197980CH You've just said exactly what I've said but in different words.

Except for no there are a lot of conditions where Newton's laws are incorrect even when velocities are fairly low.

[Chris197980CH]

@9hello123 Not exactly, you are not very precise when you say "Newton's law of gravitation is known to be wrong" and you do not mention in what regards. The same problem with precision I have when you say "theory has absolutely nothing to do with how much evidence they have", as you are implying that a scientific theory could be based on no evidence at all which couldn't be further away from the truth and you're dangerously close to the colloquial meaning of the word "theory".

[9hello123]

@Chris197980CH "and you do not mention in what regards."

Doesn't matter just that it is wrong. "as you are implying that a scientific theory could be based on no evidence at all which couldn't be further away from the truth "

Actually no. That is true. A theory could have any amount of evidence ranging from none to entirely proven.

[Chris197980CH]

@9hello123 Ok that's what I wanted to hear from you, I leave it to people to decide if you're wrong or right with this :)

[CommitToFocus]

The Greatest Show on Earth is a great book BTW. Dawkins is easy to read and really lays out the evidence well.

[killerboyfoolz]

I'm crying T.T Such a beautiful news... T.T

[HLGACIL]

like jesse jackson u have to apologize to all the athiests by kissing richard dawkins ass LOL!!! and im an athiest and its a joke dont troll my comment plz

[GodIsSovereignty]

Atheists should worship the organisms, because they evolved from the slim.

[ahabthewhaler]

@GodIsSovereignty how about atheists dont worship anything other than the humanity of the human race and the dignity and instinct of animals. why do we need to throw ourselves down upon our knees and worship bullshit

[GodIsSovereignty]

@ahabthewhaler You don't have to be down on your knees to worship anything. Rich people worship their wealth; smart people like atheists worship their idealogy. We worship what we believe is important in our lives.

[GodIsSovereignty]

wow, atheists make Dawkins rich by buying his books. Good for dawkins.

[2CSST2]

This host is very decent and makes for pleasent interviews.

Oh and religion is a man-made crap

[klassickcpt310]

Who among you believe that evolution is separate from God? It is an earthly way of thinking to try and differentiate the two. God is everything...that means he is responsible for Evolution as well. God is every religion. Just as we all need food to survive, but eat different things to acquire nourishment, so does religion feed the spirit with God's word.

[DoYerBest]

Best Dawkin's interview on Youtube. watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=re­lated

[Freethinker12341]

dawkins seems different nowadays. he seems less relaxed and more agressive and hostile

[RealTime88]

@Freethinker12341 My friend told me that. The bible thumpers are aggressive too!!

[Freethinker12341]

@RealTime88 ya the new atheist movement has started a competition between who can convert everybody first lol The charisma is not in our favor tho, which is a disadvantage.

[RealTime88]

@Freethinker12341 I'm a secular humanist and we know that organized religion is corrupt and bullshit. I do agree you though that the first amendment keeps the religious right in this country from being silenced. All we can do is present our message the same way the bible thumpers do.

[CindyVision]

Why does Dawkins remind me of Bowie?

[themooddisorders]

@CindyVision Because they are roughly the same age and they are cool

[MannyGrizzly1]

He's an athiest too :)

[Overbeek1991]

3:54 ... animals were "blown" across from South America to the Galapagos? That's interesting. Has anyone ever seen this happen?

[1moreAtheist]

he was waiting to shake his hand notlikelast time

[bfoaliali]

@1moreAtheist hahah I still remember that

[VOD713]

@1moreAtheist haha i saw that too

[IMQuazimodo]

Why do people keep referring to Dawkins as an 'aetheist' call him an evolutionary biolgist, or a human being, don't define him by a false positive.

[33Barker]

All I can say is, be careful what you think, thoughts become "beliefs" and beliefs become your reality. And if you don't believe something then you cut yourself off from ever experiencing that which may or may not exist. So to say "there is no God," you automatically cut yourself off from it if it does exist. Me, I believe that whatever you believe will ultimately become your experience/reality.

[knorton23]

Nothing makes me more proud of the fastest growing minority in the United States of America (Atheists) than reading such excellent responses to this video. Good job people and you are not alone. 14% and growing!

[TheBeyonder77]

@knorton23 16% now, well, statistics vary a little.

[jigglyfidda125]

religion is the biggest bullshit story ever told

[LiBlub1]

@jigglyfidda125 I don't know that it's at least has some good competition in the form of Santa, The Easter Bunny and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[JohnF30Music]

@jigglyfidda125 religion is the most genius scam to ever take place.

[demaia]

@jigglyfidda125 go carlin :D

[JoshMufc101]

god is real blalalalalalal i can't hear you

[Kille24sthlm]

Is George religous? Anybody know?

[PullMyFinger123456]

I don't think he is.

[plasteg]

@Kille24sthlm George is agnostic.

[ImJustSkyo]

I hate it when people call atheism a religion.

[profjdurham]

Insofar as atheism is an ideology, it becomes as pernicious as any religious system has ever been. And to the extent that it involves moving beyond evidence and into the realm of 'belief,' atheism is just as faith-based as any religion.

[ImJustSkyo]

what evidence are you talking about?

[tredwest]

We are all self aware bits of matter.

We are the universe pondering itself.

Took over 14 billion years to get to this point.

If there is a god, the fucker sure takes his time.

[TheOneReesy]

and fails drastically.. and if he needs to take time then he is not omnipotent therefore he is not a god :P see what i did there ;P

[profjdurham]

so temporality is an ipso facto proof that god does not exist?

[TheOneReesy]

no but the fact that you cannot disprove something means u cannot disprove any other god... making all the bible false.. aka no point in believing in it.. aka no god.

[profjdurham]

the All Being takes his/her/its time to do what? produce us? that is incredibly anthropocentric.

[tredwest]

@profjdurham

Great, you made me look up the word 'anthropocentric'.

I now know what the word means, but do not know exactly what your point is. Sorry. It could be the beer.

[profjdurham]

hey, i know how the beer thing works - your post cited that the (ahem) divine being sure takes his time - i was wondering if you meant that he takes his time in producing us - if that's what you meant, you assume that we are somehow (as the jefferson airplane said) the 'crown of creation'

[tredwest]

What I am saying is that we've all been born into this ancient, massive place. We, as a species, just got here five seconds ago and I do not believe we are the 'crown of creation'. I just roll my eyes at all the jackoffs out there that claim to know who and what the universe is.

Not knowing the answer, is no reason to make one up.

Enlightenment, not blind faith.

[profjdurham]

none of us really know anything - even the great narrative of evolutionary science (which i personally buy) is still a story - or if you like, since it tells us *where we came from* and thus *where we're going,* it too is a myth.

I wonder if we as the human community can stop telling ourselves myths, if we can stop what the marxists call *false consciousness,* or its individualized reflection, the so-called *internal dialogue* ...?

[Zookeeper1983]

@profjdurham what are you babbling about? evolution is based on evidence, it has nothing to do with myth. you clearly have no understanding of science, and perhaps even worse, you don't even know what the characteristics of a myth is. go to bed

[profjdurham]

zookeeper, have you explored how humans create knowledge? evolution certainly is based on empirical evidence, as you correctly point out. but you seem (inexplicably!) to deny that evolution has a history or a story - and a meaning-bearing story is ipso facto a myth.

BTW - do you realize that people who believe in what you call a 'myth' also think they have 'evidence'? I can give you a hundred examples.

[Zookeeper1983]

Wow. You are a neuroscientist with a phd in mythology? Very impressive, and somewhat suspiciously convenient for you in relation to this topic. However, since I don't care one single fig about the argument from authority, it really doesn't matter to me. I look at your argument - and just because something has a story, meaning that it is a narrative or can be put into narrative form, does NOT make it a myth. Otherwise EVEYTHING would be myth.

[profjdurham]

hey again zookeeper - this isn't an argument from authority - and you've hit the nail on the head. everything does in fact answer to the description of a myth, insofar as it involves indirect or symbolic translation of information from one level to another. under these conditions, how do you know 'truth'? is it 'what empirically works'? surely a scientist agrees with this. but ideology is false and it historically 'works' too. check out hedges - materialism is ideology too - thumbs up and thx!

[TheGreatDeciever55]

@tredwest ...i hope you dont mind if i make a couple thousand T-shirts with your comment on it

[Kimbahley]

His ties are so adorable, I wonder if his wife also painted the Kirk Cameron tie.

Every time I watch George give an interview to a 'controversial' person I'm always proud at how objective and thoughtful he can be.

[TAz69x]

I'm a carnivorous atheist and I love bacon.

[Abaharaki]

Bacon tastes like people.

[dannyboyfour]

So if I can't find any bacon I can just eat my brother? Cool, thanks for the tip!

[SophistAtheist]

"the fact that we are cousins of every creature in the world" - richard dawkins.

Then I guess being vegetarian is the most ethical choice and compromise towards our cousins :).

is R.D. vegetarian ?

[daveattell]

the bio bit is for total idiots.

[tredwest]

How so?

[beerasaurus]

"the bio" is a horrid piece of shit segment.

[buckfushes]

I'm kinda offended by the term "king of the atheists" 'King' implies that you don't answer to others. Science does not operate that way. Science is self correcting by peer review.

Its a type of survival of the fittest.

Only the best ideas survive.

[Snuvs]

I am also offended by King of the Atheists cause I don't think we need a King, or should even have someone a King of anything.

[dennyboelens]

Great host, I enjoy his interviews.

[thisisspartacus]

I accidentally watched the show with him on from 2007 when he was promoting The God Delusion and I noticed that George tried to shake Richard's hand but Richard didn't see, however this time he waited until Richard was looking directly at him to offer his hand. I wonder if he remembered, or if it was subconscious.

[jamjamboree]

lol ya i remember that.i thought george handled pretty well by casually shaking his hand after when he knew prof dawkins was looking

[DiarmaidGNR]

Richard Dawkins is a great man.

[psk6565]

so, there is no moral action that is absolutely wrong or right, since man determines for himself?

[Raherin]

Seems like it.

[psk6565]

If this is reality, why is it so innate in us to make judgments of right and wrong in individuals and societies when there is no solid, eternal, never changing law that we can appeal too? God sets the standard of right and wrong placing this understanding within all of us. That is why every single person makes the judgment between good and evil. Jesus Christ is true goodness. He is where we look the see absolute perfect goodness.

[Raherin]

We are smart, have language, so we have the ability to do what animals cannot, which is talk about morality (animals have a level of morality too). I don't see how any religion can be a moral setting standard - as there are many ways to gain morals. If you believe that Jesus' teachings are what give you your morals, that is perfectly fine. Just keep in mind, some people don't get their morals from religion, so that does show that morality is independent from religion. It has to be subjective.

[Raherin]

If God is the judge of right and wrong, he missed a lot of questions that people are fighting with for their lives today. People are continuously disagreeing with one another as to what is morally 'good' and 'bad'. If you are claiming that God 'placed' morality in all of us, that is a hard statement to debate, it can't be proved or disproved. A lot of people would think, sex (for fun) and masturbation is bad when it's something that usually is done in privacy. People could argue that it's fine.

[psk6565]

He didn't miss them, but man refuses to listen and obey what He has said. Why are there disagreements when there is no ultimate standard? There would be no disagreement if there was no set standard. If evolution is true, man would not be arguing about morality that should not actually exist.

[Raherin]

You see though, I haven't read the bible, nor do I practice it's teaching. I do feel I have good morals. The reason there is disagreement is actually because there is no standard. And because there is none, that is why we argue about what is good and bad. Not everyone follows your religion, so your religions views on morality are not a standard. I don't know what evolution has to do with this though. You can believe in God and evolution.

[waldoistwisted]

Just on your last comment, 'You can believe in God and evolution', these people are more sophisticated than the average religious nut. But its strange that people took the bible literally, but now its 'just symbolic'. Plus there's so many 'design' faults in nature that makes you wonder why god would mess up? And have to intervene throughout evolution and nature. Fallible?

[Raherin]

Heh. :p

[Raherin]

If there was a set standard people wouldn't be fighting for women's rights, gay marriage, etc. Religion (or whoever) can even claim they agree or not, but that doesn't set any standard.

[Raherin]

Religion doesn't cover every good and bad moral action, unfortunately. So people have to get their morals from more than just religion. Does that make sense?

[psk6565]

where do you get your morals from?

[Raherin]

Through my experiences and knowledge. I think all life is precious. I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. If there is not, then life is the most precious thing any organism has. I do wish that people were nicer to each other, less harmful. I don't see how fighting and killing (etc) can help us learn more about the universe and rid our race of poverty and greed and strive to make life more enjoyable for everyone. I do look at my morality with logical reasoning. At least I try.

[FLUSEM666]

In an over populated world with shortages of raw materials, together with human induced global warming. Logical reasoning could lead us down a path to eugenics. Enforced birth control being the first logical step.

[sleepcity]

For f*ck's sake, Fluse. Do you just spend all day every day shrieking hysterically about how the eugenicists are coming and the sky is falling?

[FLUSEM666]

sleepcity, what the fuck gave you that stupid half-witted idea?

[sleepcity]

So...you just repeat yourself over and over? That's your thing?

Okay, moving on. Have a good day, Fluse.

[FLUSEM666]

I replied to the wrong message. Hence your reply made no fucking sense at all! Perhaps you would like to try again. Then again maybe not. Go your own way.

[waldoistwisted]

Culture. And so do you. If you took your morals from the bible (good and bad) you'd probably be in prison now. Dont you think people cherry pick what morals they take from the bible? We know why, because its based on their culture. Religious people make the bible fit their culture not the other way around.

[sleepcity]

From my neocortex and its relationship with my limbic system, all evolved beautifully by natural selection over the course of millions of years.

Certainly not from a Bronze-age story book that tells me to murder people who are different than me.

[FLUSEM666]

sleepcity, what the fuck gave you that stupid half-witted idea?

[sleepcity]

They're called books, Fluse. Check some out.

[FLUSEM666]

We are social ammonals who strive to conform to the group we are in. Morals evolve like everything else. We get them from what is acceptable to the group. These days those groups are huge!

[Raherin]

I agree with you. That is probably why there are different levels of morality in animals as well. Their own moral choices are justified through their survival. Eg. Killing to eat, killing to not be eaten, killing to mate, helping herd members escape, dominance, the list goes on. At my work a few people are debating with me as to morality being objective and not subjective. I never really thought that this was an issue. I can't see how morality cannot be subjective.

[FLUSEM666]

The correlation with observable behaviour in other animals supports the hypothesis. I'm pleased that my spell checker error didnt prevent you for understanding the point. I wish you well.

[psk6565]

What is beauty if there is no one who has ultimate authority over what beauty is and what beauty isn't? He say evolution is beautiful but based on the presumption that evolution is true there is no such thing as beauty, but everything just IS and has no meaning.

[Raherin]

What's beauty to some, isn't to others - it's subjective, so there is no 'rule' declaring beauty (like morality). There can be beauty if evolution exists - we are still us. We decide what's beautiful. Evolution is more than presumably true, but I'll let you come to that conclusion (or not) on your own. It's not an easy subject to understand. It's science, the same thing that brought the theory of gravity, and atoms, etc etc. We question evolution because it hits a lot of religions beliefs.

[psk6565]

Raherin, Based on what you believe would you grant a murdering psychopath his view that the torture, rape and murder of a young women is beautiful? In their mind this is wonderful and a beautiful thing. Would you say that that can be beautiful or would you say that it is never beautiful?

[Raherin]

I would have to? How can I stop someone from thinking? That's not my choice. I think think that's a great thing at all. But that doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who have different (horrible) morals. To me, that can't be a beautiful thing at all. I'm not sure where I could go wrong in saying morality isn't subjective. The fact that you probably disagree with me shows that very fact. People come to their morals on their own personal experiences and beliefs.

[Raherin]

I don't think that's a great thing at all. Fixing the typo in the 4th sentence.

[psk6565]

I am not suggesting to stop him, but to acknowledge whether his view is wrong or right. To suggest that one persons view on morality is wrong is to suggest that their is a solid, pure and established truth of what is right and wrong. And there has to be a person the say that and that is God. If there is no God then there are no morals

[Raherin]

Well, there are many people who think that is a beautiful thing(not me). A minority because if most people thought that way, we'd have a different way of life. Like the bed bug. It rapes it's 'wife' by cracking it's shell to inseminate. Very fatal to the female bugs. If the male bugs didn't do this, the species would cease to exist. So, our main way of life is to help others, and we will go better. So most people do that, because it helps us live. It's out way of life. Not a biblical code.

[Raherin]

That's not really exactly our way of life, btw. I just mean it's a bigger part - otherwise our population would be declining. I think in early human times can prove that we've gotten less barbaric. Even if slightly. Morals weren't 'pre-built' from the start.

[psk6565]

So your essentially saying that there is no right and wrong but it is good if life progresses? Why is the progression of life a good thing if there is no objective morality? Why isn't the death of man a good thing?

[Raherin]

I do think there is a right and wrong; based on my own moral beliefs. So do you. We all found our own way to decide what's right and wrong. Some through religion, some through experience, both, or whatever. Wiki quote: "The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not seem to cause overt harm may be considered immoral, e.g. marrying someone of the same or opposite gender, being an atheist or a theist". That makes a lot of sense to me.

[psk6565]

If the whole world believe that murder was beautiful would this make is right?

[Raherin]

If the whole world believed in murder, we'd be living in a different kind of world with different kind of moral values over the greater part of the population. Fortunately, there are more good people than bad. We tend to help each other (mostly, lol) because we get more out of it. That might be why we are at our position in the chain of life. Unfortunately there are a lot of rotten apples still out there. Maybe it's bad genes? Violence is pretty big way of life for most organisms.

[anetchi]

muuah! I love ya Richard Dawkins you brilliant lovely scientist : )

[Roaddogg666]

Excellent book! Everyone should run out and pick it up.

[mattyohe]

George Stroumboulopoulos has evolved... He now waited to make eye contact to get a handshake from Dawkins. Last time he was on the show, he got left hanging.

[yington]

Yep I spotted that.

Listen to the English talk - so much more classy and sophisticated than boring Canadians or the arrogant Americans !!!

[CGW129]

They really hype Dawkins up as a really nasty dude, when really he is a gentleman. I think its just the fact that he uses logic in a place where people would rather censor it.

[anonynat]

As he constantly points out, he uses far weaker language than your average restaurant critic, it just seems strident when it's applied to religion, a topic which one must not criticize.

[TAz69x]

George is a kick-ass interviewer. Better than a lot of even the largest US tonight shows, where they'll awkward-ize conversations, or not even feign interest well, as they "move on" to the next question on their flash card, without responding to/with their guest.

[g0jeeta]

OR maybe some people can't express what they feel inside and need to "act" it out to try and make it look as if they are...

[Corporations8MyBaby]

Twitter: #no god

[pjlehtim]

I like this program and the interviewer. This guy lets the guests to talk unlike so many others. Such a good TV person.

[dopeskies]

u must not be Canadian this Gimp is a Right Wing tool for the Conservatives.

[Corporations8MyBaby]

*Fact: God either does or does not exist.

*Belief: God Exists.

* Opposite Belief: God does not exist.

**- Those of us who are rational simply say that until deities can be shown in nature to exist w physical evidence, we prefer not to consider their existence. Letting go of believing in things that cannot be demonstrated frees up our minds to make life better, richer & more meaningful for ourselves, each other & future generations. Try it!

[CondorDM]

no god

[tayloreh]

I just watched part of his BBC documentary, and I totally believe him now. He dealt with the 'open-mindedness' irony surrounding religion vs. evolution very well. Open mindedness is an issue regardless what you believe. Its a constant give and take.

But its too ironic to not believe in evolution if you can accept a round world. Its like believing in evolution and not fractals. I want to live in a world that's real rather than a world of fear. Disappointment is truth. I'm an atheist/artist.

[generaleskimo]

So, it is NOT arrogant to think that most of the world is delusional. In fact, if your religious beliefs tell you that it would be impossible for the vast majority of the earth to be delusional, and not believe in the god that you believe in, then your religious beliefs are WRONG.

People are delusional.

[generaleskimo]

Also, to all the stupid people who are going to talk about "how arrogant it is to think that 90% of the people on earth are delusional", let me nip that one in the butt. In the year 100 CE, only 0.6% of the world's population was Christian, meaning 99.4% of the world were delusional when it comes to religious beliefs (from the Christian point of view). Additionally, 100% of those Christians believed what Jesus told them about illnesses being caused by demons.

[generaleskimo]

Ok, this host is a fucking retard. False dichotomy on "Evolution or a higher power", that is fucking ridiculous. Then he says that Dawkins claims that "evolution is not a theory but a fact". That may be the dumbest shit I've heard today, which means a lot considering I just watched O'Reilly. Evolution is BOTH a theory (in the scientific sense) and a fact (in the sense that it has been established by a preponderance of evidence).

[g0jeeta]

No Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory that tells us how evolution proceeds.

[generaleskimo]

Can you read? I said that evolution was a fact. I also said that it was a theory, because "theory of evolution" is shorthand for "Theory of Evolution through/by Natural Selection", as it is commonly referred to today, and exactly as Darwin himself wrote in "On the Origin of Species" in the chapter 9. Darwin often referred to it as "the theory of natural selection", as in Darwin's day Evo by NS was not the only tenable hypothesis of relating to evolution, but today the distinction is unneeded.

[generaleskimo]

Not only is your correction unnecessary, it is actually less accurate than my statement. The "Theory of Evolution", in the modern scientific context, refers to modern evolutionary theory which incorporates new mechanisms (not described completely through natural selection) into biological evolution were discovered after Darwin. Therefore, the term now refers to a superset of evolutionary mechanisms.

[g0jeeta]

But taht's not what you said before did you?

[generaleskimo]

I was demonstrating that his correction is wrong in both the classic and modern contexts. Laypeople appear to use them interchangeably, and the slightly more educated will jump between them if their correction is wrong. I made it clear that his statement was incorrect in both cases.

[g0jeeta]

right... and the host is a "fucking retard" because of that? You are indeed a reasonable person.

[generaleskimo]

No, you are a "fucking retard" for your erroneous correction. He is a "fucking retard" for misrepresenting the scientific consensus by implying that there was any doubt that evolution is a fact.

[SikhiArt]

very reasonable indeed... -_-

[SikhiArt]

"Then he says that Dawkins claims that "evolution is not a theory but a fact"."

Dawkins himself says that.

Are you blind?

[generaleskimo]

Although Dawkins PREFERS to refer to Evolution as a fact, due to the misconceptions that may occur otherwise, he does NOT deny that it is a scientific theory. However, stating that he thinks "evolution isn't a theory but a fact" is highly misleading, as it implies that he asserts evolution's validity to a greater extent than any other members of the scientific community who use the proper terminology.

[generaleskimo]

As Dawkin's agrees, we should often say that evolution is a fact, rather than calling it a theory, in order to avoid misunderstandings. However, that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than saying that evolution isn't a theory.

This is why corrections like g0jeeta's are downright stupid, and demonstrate that the uninformed supporters of evolution are just as prone to misusing these terms as creationists.

[CondorDM]

theory of gravity is a fact.

[villeppi]

"Evolution or a higher power"

That's a falce  dichotomy. EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION IS A HIGHER POWER!!!!!!!!!

[lucidatheist]

The Greatest Show on Earth would literally be a world wide tour of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Religious beware, you are in for a scare!

[pigdog82414]

I enjoy listening to him speak.

[GermanStraight1]

well ...

I wonder the whole time , at what point You sir thought that the guy doin´the interview , did NOT read the book ore did NOT understand the subject ?

Did I miss something ?

Please , do not let me die stupid ...lol

just kiddin ... :-)))

Thanks in advance for your answer sir !

Brgds

GSO

[g0jeeta]

He seems like he read some of it if not all. It doesn't matter though, because the interview was not about the book really.

[journeyman66]

Richard Dawkins in my Hero

[moe69girls]

thank u

[ElliotWoolf]

Thanks for uploading!