Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview

An interview from Ben Stein's Expelled documentary.
Richard Dawkins always seems to stay on top of his interviews and tends to make his interviewers look like complete idiots. Well, Ben turns the tables on him this time.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ben
• stein
• richard
• dawkins
• expelled
• intellegent
• design
• interview
• documentary
• idiot
• alien
• origin
• of
• species
• science

[ELrunner25]

I hardly think Dawkins got "owned". If anything Stein looked very unprofessional by paraphrasing excerpt from Professor Dawkins' book in such a simplistic way. This is a classic example of the logical error that occurs when you demand somebody to prove a negative. We must learn to accept that scientific evidence and faith are not the equal. This is one of several interviews in which Dawkins, arguably one of the most brilliant minds in the world today, is patronized by "people of faith".

[SaimDI]

Ben Stein is such a dick. He keeps asking Dawkins dishonest questions and then asking him equivocating follow-ups.

[Rotis59]

Listening to athiests is just more evidence that, like God says in the Bible, "I will confound the wise". . . . It is amazing listening to Dawkins describing the person who created him as being a terrible being . . . incredible!

[MrArtstacks]

@JepMaster8 No offense, but I'm telling you, take that docu with a lot of salt. Look at reporting about D. Institute..it's dis-information and distortions. It's stated agenda is not a scientific advocacy of I.D. but a sociopolitical proselytizing for the Christian worldview. Outside the social sciences, the Bible is NOT valid evidence. It can be the subject of scientific inquiry, but not it's source. The Ark?...the Sun being stopped in the sky? Sure.

[JepMaster8]

@MrArtstacks - Well, I'm talking about how this documentary shows that modern day science overrules that possibility by saying "You can't bring evidence to the table because there is no God". That's the bias I'm talking about. Long ago, you were able to bring forth any evidence in the name of science, now, you simply cannot even if you speak about Intelligent design or the possibility thereof. You'll get fired & blacklisted. That's not true science. watch?v=cIZAAh_6OX

[MrArtstacks]

@JepMaster8 I have seen it..hardly compelling. Produced by the Discovery Institute, a group with a self-admitted bias and agenda. Yet you think science is biased? A speck compared to to D.Institutes mote. Are all establishment scientists ethical? Course not. But that pales when compared with D.I.'s distortions and propaganda. I.D fails due to it's flaws, not organized suppression. D. Institute is politics, not science.

[MrArtstacks]

@JepMaster8 No, I didn't say that. Some scientists do admit the "possibilty". They just don't use "it", an untestable premise, as part of theory. Simple. Of course things existed before scientists "discover" or describe. Science never claims otherwise. What are you talking about?

[JepMaster8]

@MrArtstacks - I fully understand how science works and I'm not against "science" but I'm against the bias. You've said one of the most important things that the prevailing science community will not say: "There may be a spirit/god/ force that pervades existence". The key aspect of the argument is, many scientists say "there is no God because we can't prove it [yet]" and if anyone believes that, they lack common sense, because all things existed before discovered by scientists.

[therussianredstar]

@Caliente29zn Nor is there proof that he/ it does exist. Then why believe it?