17. Richard Dawkins Stumped, ID Proponent, Fooler of Kids
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
Click on the lower left arrow.
Richard Dawkins, the smartest man in the world, and author of “The Blind Watchmaker”, was asked a question about mutations or any other evolutionary process increasing information in the genome. He was stumped. He asked that the camera be turned off so he could gather his thoughts. When he came back on camera, he stumbled around explaining that if you were here millions of years ago, you would see partially evolved animals, fish growing legs, etc. But, now animals are “modern” and don’t need evolving, so we can’t view evolution in process today. We are all common ancestors of those ancient animals. What an amazing non-answer; this guy is completely full of it. NOTE: Sorry, http://www.creationontheweb.com was on the face of this very telling video, but has nothing to do with me. By the way, 100 million years from now will current species still be considered “modern”?
I responded to the video:
Well, uh, let’s see. Old animals evolved, but modern animals don’t evolve. If we could walk around a long long time ago, we would see animals in the process of evolving, but not today. Fish don’t really want to grow legs so they can get away from those pesky sharks. Do intelligent people really believe this nonsense? Unfortunately, millions do.
If you would like to see Dawkins’ embarrassing response to being stuck, this video is his explanation in front of a friendly audience of evolutionauts. Note, he never answers the question posed, and assails a video where the female questioner is replaced by a male, the question remaining the same. One would think that in front of this friendly audience, he would answer the question. He doesn’t. He demeans the asker, which is typical evspeak. Again, click on the lower left arrow so you won’t leave this site.
In fairness to Richard, here is his explanation. You be the judge if he is a truth teller:
R. Dawkins: (My) suspicion (of the questioner) increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask.(I am not a creationist, and I would ask it.)
I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.
The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty handed, after they had travelled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her, and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly.
As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (`The Genetic Book of the Dead’) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November, 1998). (Then why didn’t he calmly and easily go into a quick and knowledgeable answer? If evolution was a real science, it should be able to put down all challenges with ease, no matter who the asker is. The person asking should have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the question.) That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians. If I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about `The Genetic Book of the Dead’. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?
The entire article can be seen at: http://www.skeptics.com.au/theskeptic/1998/3_crexpose.htm
The next video will show Richard Dawkins hoodwinking children into believing ev-illusion and becoming evolutionauts.
The next video will demonstrate why Richard Dawkins is really an intelligent design believer. He says he is not, but there are many hints that give him away; pretty obvious hints.