Dawkins' response to Creationist bullshit (including the famous "stumped" video) at AAI '07.
A more detailed response from Dawkins with regard to this video is as follows:
"In September 1997, I al...
Dawkins' response to Creationist bullshit (including the famous "stumped" video) at AAI '07.
A more detailed response from Dawkins with regard to this video is as follows: "In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented. My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it."
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video has been removed from your Favorites. (Undo)
Like to Favorite videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
The science is interesting so fk off line was Dawkins quoting the editor of New Scientist magazine and from a completely different program altogether.
Dawkins admited himself that the pause was after the question (he was struggling with his anger he says lol) but that his dumb answer was a video-edit...and yet he "forgets" that it WAS HIM that askes the camara to be turned off and that is the reason of the cut.
Plus, to this day, he cant answer that question :)
BuckTurgidson01: Do you even understand the question?
Dawkins has answered it. He has written books on it and taught it for years at Oxford.
The question is a paradox, it basically means: "please explain how complex life can evolve from simple ancestors. The answer to that cannot be summed up with one example.
Its irrational to believe that someones inability to answer a flawed question raises doubts about their credibility. However, theres a lot of gullible people in the world.
Buck: First off, if I can answer the question, then Dawkins - a man who devoted his life to the subject - certainly can. Lets not belittle his intelligence.
Secondly, the stumped video is a hoax. I mean, you've watched this video, seen the other variations, heard Dawkin's opinion on the hoax, and you still seem to think he was stumped. What will it take to show you that this was a hoax?
Have you not read the essay he wrote answering the question after the hoax came out? Or you so uninformed that you can't even understand his response?
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
Doesn't Dawkins' own opinion on the this matter at all?
Dawkins admited himself that the pause was after the question (he was struggling with his anger he says lol) but that his dumb answer was a video-edit...and yet he "forgets" that it WAS HIM that askes the camara to be turned off and that is the reason of the cut.
Plus, to this day, he cant answer that question :)
Dawkins has answered it. He has written books on it and taught it for years at Oxford.
The question is a paradox, it basically means: "please explain how complex life can evolve from simple ancestors. The answer to that cannot be summed up with one example.
Its irrational to believe that someones inability to answer a flawed question raises doubts about their credibility. However, theres a lot of gullible people in the world.
Secondly, the stumped video is a hoax. I mean, you've watched this video, seen the other variations, heard Dawkin's opinion on the hoax, and you still seem to think he was stumped. What will it take to show you that this was a hoax?