Big Think

James Spahn on October 30, 2009, 6:43 AM

Bill is actually quite well educated. Perhaps Mr. Dawkins should have done a bit more research.

Shaan Batra on October 30, 2009, 11:48 AM

Well I am a big fan of O’Reilly AND of science and I watched your interviews with him, Mr. Dawkins.

I can see where you are coming from. Bill was not engaging you in the most constructive debate. But I don’t think that was his intention.

I kind of understand how Bill works a little after watching him these past few years. He probably viewed you as an influential individual propagating a viewpoint that he disagreed with and to some extent, felt worried and aggravated a large number of his viewers. He approached you as he would approach an influential senator that was making decisions that Bill thought was not in the best interests of his viewers (please bear in mind that many of his viewers are conservatives and of course, devout Christians).

I understand you were probably looking for a more intellectual debate, in which each of you would present clear and logical arguments for or against the existence of God. But you must understand that that is not the way Bill works. His first and primary goal is to “look out for his viewers” as he says (and I sincerely think he is honest in that). And, naturally, many of his viewers would believe that the case for the existence of God must be made.

Also, please bear in mind that Bill attempted to make a concession when he argued to “at least present the alternative in class.” He does not intend to force his faith upon people. I think it is a reasonable request. His intention is not bad in that he is actively keeping his viewers in mind.

Jelmar Geertsma on November 13, 2009, 4:48 PM

@Shaan Batra:

“He probably viewed you as an influential individual propagating a viewpoint that he disagreed with”

The problem is, especially when talking about evolution, that there is no question of opinion. Evolution is a fact just the way gravity is a fact (or other scientific principles that have been established as a fact) and as such it is not something you can agree or disagree with. Saying “I don’t agree with evolution” is exactly the same as saying “I don’t agree that gravity exists”.

“He does not intend to force his faith upon people. I think it is a reasonable request.”

The teaching of religious subjects should be done in religious class or possibly in (life)-philosophy class. Presenting the alternative (which would be ‘intelligent design’ in this case) does not belong in science class, simply because it per definition is not science. And not unimportantly; it has also been ruled unconstitutional in the USA. And since America generally loves and protects its constitution… for consistency’s sake they should respect the court’s decision, even if it means it means they can’t have what they want.

Michael Difronzo on December 26, 2009, 1:40 AM

Bill is not saying evolution is not a fact. He is saying Dawkins can’t prove what started evolution. Dawkins clearly agrees with this and consistantly states that that is what they are working on, to try to prove what started it. Bill constantly says when you can prove what started it, come back to me. I am not taking a side, just stating their accurate views. Dawkins answer back was hopefully in time science will clearly, definately, be able to prove what started evution. This is his goal, which can’t be proven scientifically at this time.