Dawkins Embarrasses Bill O’Reilly

Dawkins: “It is a most extraordinary piece of warped logic to say that because science cannot answer a particular question, you’re going to throw in your lot with Jesus.”

O’Reilly: “Here is why I do not throw my lot in with science, science does not advance the human condition in any moralistic way and Jesus did.”

Dawkins: “Why would you muddle up the question of keeping your moral compass for life, which is important, with the other question which is explaining the nature of the world, the nature of life, the nature of the universe?  That’s what science is about.”

It is clear that science advances the human condition in a way that cannot even be compared to religion.  In fact, I would argue that had religious doctrine not consistently persecuted inquisitive scientists as heretics there would have been a man on the moon 50 to 100 years earlier than it happened.  Imagine where we would be today if early scientists could have pursued their discoveries without pressure and threats from organized religion.

Religious issues aside, if you do not “believe” in evolution you are either ignorant or you are dumb.  Period.  When I say ignorant I do not mean it as an insult, we are all ignorant of some things.  I sure am.  I simply mean that you do not have the information.  It staggers me how often I embark in a conversation on evolution with a creationist or IDer only to find that their arguments and “points” are very easy to address.  They are simply uninformed about the extent of the fossil record as well as the predictions made by scientists in terms of transitional fossils and the subsequent discovery of the predicted intermediate forms, for example Archaeopteryx.

The brutal reality is that religions will either embrace the inarguable truth of evolution or risk looking like a group of flat earth denialists, the modern day equivalent of a caveman worshiping a moon god simply because he does not understand what that thing is in the sky.

I like Bill O’Reilly and the very unique role that he plays as a watchdog (unlike the mainstream media who are now lapdogs rather than watchdogs), but he is woefully ignorant of science.  It is patently ridiculous that he discards science because it does not clearly explain everything and instead falls back on a 2000+ year old book written by people who knew nothing about science.  That is classic gap theism and it is ignorant.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Dawkins Embarrasses Bill O’Reilly

  1. Springer Rider

    I listened to Dawkins on Medved while he was promoting he recent book. One particular caller, a biologist who had attended Dawkins’ lectures at Berkley called in and asked several poignant questions that poked holes in Darwinism. Dawkins dodged the questions. At one point, Dawkins was asked why he refused to debate Steven Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and Dawkins replied that he would not elevate Meyer to his level. That mealy-mouthed reply is no different that Al Gore refusing to debate Ian Plimer on global warming.
    Meyer has approached the idea of intelligent design with respect and intellectual integrity. He is not a biblical “young earther” nor am I. His basis for refuting Darwinism is not based on religion, nor is mine. It is based on the serious flaws in Darwin’s theory.

    Darwinian is defended out of desperation by Atheists. That should never be the motivation behind finding the truth. The evidence should speak for itself. As it stands, inter- species evolution has never been proven. If a near infinite number of mutations was required to get from dirt to man than the earth should be overrun with false start fossils. Where so many mutations result in an organ that is both inferior to the original organ and the end-point would definitely render the intermediate state organism less able to survive than its competitors. And the story goes on.

    But what is at stake here is not Darwin and evolution. No. The panic that makes the likes of a Dawkins stay up late at night is that if Darwin was wrong than there may be a higher authority.

    You see, evolution if true, can still be compatible with a God but if Darwin is wrong, than their must be a creator.

  2. I will have to give that a listen, I subscribe to his radio show podcast though I stay busy just trying to keep up with Levin’s.

    Do you remember the date?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s