Evolutionist Dawkins stumbles over creationist question

Here’s a video interview of noted evolutionist Richard Dawkins stumbling all over a creationist question.


I hope to write more soon on Mr. Dawkins in particular, and on the Creation vs. Evolution debate more broadly, but this interview, I feel, is instructive.

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Daz
    Feb 07, 2012 @ 00:06:46

    Just to make you aware; that video has long been exposed as a hoax. I’ve even seen and heard creationists express surprise that anyone would seriously expect Dawkins to be unable to answer the question asked.

    More information here.


    • jasondrexler
      Feb 08, 2012 @ 16:26:48

      Thank you for your input, Daz, but I have to disagree. “Hoax,” first of all, would be the wrong word to use, because it implies that some trickery was involved — editing the video, for example, to make it seem like something other than what it is. This, however, isn’t the case; the question you hear being posed to Dawkins is the question that was really asked him, and his long delay in responding really happened.

      I thought it strange that an organization that I know to be reputable (Creation Ministries International) would’ve posted this video without doing its homework first, and sure enough, they go to great pains (at creation.com/dawkins-stumped) to explain how this video is indeed 100% accurate, and that even when Dawkins finally got around to answering the question posed, he didn’t really answer it. Elsewhere I read some of his uber-lengthy response to the incident, and he tries to make it seem as though the question in question is far more complicated than it really is. The simple fact is, in order for simple life to become more complex life, even by a small degree, there would have to be an influx of new genetic information, and evolutionists have never shown even one instance of this happening. Dawkins, for example, makes it sound as though the genetic information required for a tiny creature to evolve, through numerous stages, into a large animal is already present in that tiny creature, and that it’s simply a matter of natural selection weeding out certain characteristics over time so that the “large-animal information” can come to the forefront of the creature’s genetic makeup. This is simply not the case; the genetic makeup of a single-celled organism comprises only one possibility: the single-celled organism … just as the genetic makeup of a tiger contains only the possibility of the creature being a tiger; it has genetic information that would perhaps allow it to vary in certain traits — size, for example — but the only creature that it (or any of its descendants) could ever be is a tiger (or some other catlike creature; that is, something within the created cat “kind”).


  2. Daz
    Feb 08, 2012 @ 16:50:10

    I merely wanted to warn you that the video in question was not to be trusted. The interviewers gained access to him under false pretensions and his stumble occurs when he realises that they are, in fact, creationists.


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

%d bloggers like this: