Niklas' blog

From The Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interviews. “Wendy Wright is President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization. Miss Wright promotes legislation and international policies that are beneficial to women and families, briefs congressional and presidential staff on pro-family issues, and trains grassroots activists. She is frequently interviewed in national media on moral, social and political issues. Miss Wright was named among “The 100 Most Powerful Women of Washington” in 2006 by the Washingtonian Magazine. The National Pro-Life Religious Council awarded Wendy for her “continuous leadership in the cause of life.”

Now, having seen the entire dialogue on the matter of Darwinian theory between Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and Wendy Wright, christian, I must warn the sensitive viewer to refrain from physically jumping out of your seat as the latter separates “science” from “facts”¹ by trying to conjure a vision of science as a way of “unlocking” the secrets that are hidden to us (by god); now, “facts” to her, as far as I understand Wright, are “truths” that are yet to be unlocked. Hence, in Wright’s world, just because something isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t mean that she can’t say it’s true.

So, with that in mind, consider the following in this paragraph to be an open letter: Wendy Wright, I believe that god has sent me to perform open-heart surgery on you to prevent demons from ever locking your mind. I believe that your god has told me so, and hence, it’s true. When can I start?

From the dialogue in the below video:

Wright: Let me ask you: why are you so aggressive? Why is it so important to you that one believe like you believe?
Dawkins: I’m not talking about belief, I’m talking about facts. I’ve told you about certain fossils. And every time I ask you about them, you evade the question, and you talk about something else.

Straight-forward enough. Wright doesn’t respond to this other than she has been thought; when overwhelmed by logic, run another way. And she does, by talking about something different. To me, this polemic is very akin to that of right-wing American demagogues.

By the way, I love how Wright wavers on the matter of how old the Earth is. Wonderful.

Even though I object to how Dawkins would like atheists to refer to themselves as “Brights”, I feel he makes a lot of valid points; in this instance, as far as I know, I’m with him all the way. Besides, when trying to discuss any matter scientific with somebody who believes in magic (e.g. “intelligent design” and christianity), you can only get to a certain point in discourse until their stabs at logic expose these persons for what they are made of.

At the end of part three of the video below, Dawkins asks Wright to point to any positive scientific evidence in favour of creation, and Wright brings up DNA. She explains that the fact that everybody is different means that creationism is valid and true. Dawkins points to the fact that her theory supports Darwinian theory. As Dawkins asks Wright: “Is that evidence against evolution?” I also like how Wright repeats the phrase “the Smithsonian institute” as if the mantra would ward off or, in the least, speak against the Darwinian evolution theory.

Wright as she is calling Dawkins condescending, which, in itself, feels condescending to me; during the entire interview, Wright uses a phrase that she calls “ad hominid” (e.g. in part 1, at 06:08), which I guess should be “ad hominem“; of course, this is valid in her attempts at discourse, not with Dawkins’.

Dawkins: You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution, and I told you about five fossils, and–
Wright: And I say if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence–
Dawkins: There is.
Wright: –because there are so many different species, that there ought to be tons of evidence, even, let’s say, for one per-cent of the, eh, macro-evolution that’s taken place, there should be evidence, but–
Dawkins: There is.
Wright: –there’s not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.
Dawkins: There is a massive amount of evidence. You just need to go into the books and go into the museums, and look at it. It’s there. You are believing people who are telling you there’s only [can't hear the number /Niklas] percent.
Wright: And again, I go back to… It’s…it’s very demeaning, to say, that we only believe what we believe because we’ve been told that, and yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what’s not fact, and to censor out information that is inconvenient.
Dawkins: I’m asking you to go and look at the facts; I don’t want you to believe me. Just look go and look at the facts.
Wright: And I have.

What?

The very best part that I sincerely recommend that you see if you won’t watch the entire thing (after all, it’s long and this is the Internet age), is the end of part 6, where Dawkins polemically pokes Wright in both eyes by calling her out on her using the word “evidence” in a, shall we say, logically speaking unsatisfactory way. Here’s the video, and go to 06:20 and into the last part, #7 to catch the biz in its entirety.

Sadly, and good for the sake of argument, Dawkins’ polemics allow Wright to expose herself as the ignorant anti-intellectual she is, while I personally feel she’s let off the hook too easily. Admittedly, it’s impossible to debate with somebody who doesn’t answer questions. My polemics would in all probability lead to her quickly vanishing.

Dawkins produces evidence, Wright says he should produce evidence (re. fish fossils in part 7). She says there’s very little evidence of evolution. He points to the massive amounts of evidence that there is. She points to mistakes by evolutionists made in the Victorian age, and Dawkins says that yes, those were mistakes, but doesn’t even mention the apparent mistakes that are in the bible (e.g. that the Earth is flat), basically because it’s man-made.

The end of part 7 is quite interesting during Wright’s monologue: while she is quite oblivious to what Dawkins previously said (as usual), first talking about a loving god that brings “order in this universe”, and then literally says that her lobbyist group works towards the “best society”; she also says their “moral laws” are “the best for each one of us”.

Here’s the entire video playlist, meaning that when one part ends, another one is automatically continued:

1. Which are, I must warn you, terms that aren’t completely easy to comprehend as far as they appear to Wright; see the interview and note how Dawkins (unsuccessfully) tries to get Wright to define what the word “evidence” means to her.[back]