Arrrgghhh

Here’s 10 minutes of video that I challenge anyone with a functioning brainstem to get through without tearing at their hair and screaming “Holy fuck! The burning fucking stupid!!!“:  Richard Dawkins discusses evolution with creationist nutcase Wendy Wright of “Concerned Women of America” (“concerned” about the usual religious right obsessions, I don’t have to tell you what those are).

I love the expression on Wright’s face:  the same sly, stupid look that always steals over the faces of people like her when they’re confronted with scientific facts that don’t square with their ideological worldview.   Teh Stooopid… it burrrrrrrrns.

20 Responses to “Arrrgghhh”


  1. 1 J. A. Baker Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    OWW! OWW! OWWWWWWWWWW! I have a headache in my eye! I swear, at one point it was like

    WENDY: I’m not going to talk about Haeckel’s embryos, but Haeckel’s embryos are, like, totally fake and evidence that evilutionists hate the Baby Jeebus and are like, totally Nazis! Also, too everywhere suchas!

    Dammit, where’s my wallbanger smiley? ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!

  2. 2 J. A. Baker Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Incidentally, JJ. Could you add a few “W”s onto that third “OWW!”? I’m going for the Sam Kinison thing. 😛 😆

  3. 3 zosja Friday, August 7, 2009 at 5:41 am

    I kind of wish it was a woman scientist interviewing her.

    The argument stayed the whole time in the Science court, attacking and defending science. What if we turned it around and made Ms Wright defend HER outlooks by asking questions like “If god created “each one of us” and people like you want to ensure that “human beings are treated with dignity and respect”, why then for centuries have god-created individuals of the female sex been abused and oppressed and why has patriarchy been silenced? did god create half of us ‘individually’ so we can be tortured? Define ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’, Ms. Wright?”

    Throughout the argument she is undermining science as ‘only one point of view created for the close-minded”. Talk to her about religion in that same way.

  4. 4 Pedgehog Friday, August 7, 2009 at 7:57 am

    I really don’t understand her problem with evolution, based on this video. She wants all people to be treated with “dignity and respect”. Okay, fine, and Dawkins agrees with her. So….does she think believing in evolution causes people to treat others without dignity and respect?? Really? Of all the gazillions of terrible things that have been done to people by other people in the history of time, all the murders, rapes, wars, etc. etc. I challenge this woman to come up with one example of someone who was driven to treat someone else badly because of the theory of evolution.

    Can someone really believe that something like a scientific theory can be the foundation for a person’s entire morality? I’m thinking she just can’t handle the fact that better people than her are able to be moral without the help of invisible sky-man. It has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with control.

  5. 5 The Rational Number Friday, August 7, 2009 at 8:58 am

    I think there’s more objective, empirical evidence to support evolution than to support the existence of God(s). I think there’s plenty of room for science and religion to co-exist, but in a direct confrontation over facts I’ll stick with science.

    But the confrontation between these 2 people is pointless. Neither will convince the other. I doubt that someone who was ‘on the fence’ would be convinced exclusively by either of them. It reminds me of blog flame wars between liberals and conservatives.

    I don’t have a problem with pro-religious promotions, but I do have a BIG problem with anti-scientific promotions. It’s a form of ‘inoculation theory’ (see wikipedia but always think critically) that seeks to discredit opposing ideas in advance. For example, if you change the discussion to climate change Wright could say “You can’t trust anything those scientists say, they’re Godless pagans who deny God is our creator!” (not true) Going further, “They’re funded by the government so you know they can’t do anything right, because the government can’t do anything right.” etc.

    I think we need to do some inoculating ourselves, first against corporations (e.g. astroturfing), and then against people like Wright (not any or all religions).

    If we measured Wright, she’d weigh the same as a duck.

  6. 6 fairlane Friday, August 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    “Only scientists are allowed to teach on it, and…”

    Kind of like only Mathematicians are allowed to teach Math, and people who speak Spanish teach Spanish, and Kung Fu masters teach Kung Fu.

    According to her “logic,” if you watch a Kung Fu movie you should be allowed to claim you’re an expert in Kung Fu.

    If stupidity were fatal, well, obviously we wouldn’t be having this discussion because people like Wendy Wright would be extinct.

    Her laugh, her gestures, and the condescension in her voice is a way to control the conversation, an attempt to stir anger, and then, “See, look how hostile you people are?”

  7. 7 harpervalley Friday, August 7, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    chreeeeeist, JJ! i’m now watching part 5 of this silly arguement. i mean really, they both have good points, they both have weak points. christianity is young, science is younger…both are corrupt and have their agendas to the point where i have to say, ‘guess what…both of you are correct on some points but in the end does it really matter? In the end do the two opposing factions REALLY need to build themselves up to such a high point that it all becomes political and effects learning children with bullshit on both ends??????”

    but then i come from the north star. creation stories exist for a purpose (i won’t bore you with that). science has not caught up yet with things like souls. particle math, quantum physics , they’re all getting closer but their experiments have gone too far….CERN for example.

    in the end both wright and dawkins were talking in circles, neither budging on some points yet they came together on a few.

    i find both with an arrogance masked in their own particular style and characters.

  8. 8 Frank Frink Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Slightly o/t but I thought you might get a kick out of this.

    Hmm… even better ‘excuse’ than blaming kitteh. 😆

  9. 9 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:09 am

    FF – Thanks for the link! What a riot: “Employed by God” — oh sure 😆

  10. 10 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:13 am

    JAB – There, fixed 😉

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:16 am

    zosja – That would give the interview a different dynamic for sure. Dawkins can be a little impatient when he’s interviewing these nuts (though who could blame him), and some people might take that as he’s being aggressive or bullying. That might not happen if the interview was done by a woman. However, it all depends on the woman 😉 Maybe Rachel Maddow could pull it off.

  12. 12 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:19 am

    Pedgehog – Wright’s blather about respect and dignity is just fundie code for “Help! I’m being oppressed!” I didn’t see in this interview where Dawkins was being disrespectful — unless Wright considers any challenge to her beliefs to be disrespectful, which is quite possible.

  13. 13 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Rational Number

    I think there’s more objective, empirical evidence to support evolution than to support the existence of God(s). I think there’s plenty of room for science and religion to co-exist, but in a direct confrontation over facts I’ll stick with science.

    Well said. I’m quite alright with people who believe in dietie(s), especially pantheism & paganism (which I was into myself and still have a great deal of respect for). Where they lose me is when they put faith up against science — they are two completely different things, one based on hard evidence and one based on *believing*. This seems to be a habit peculiar to the Christian Right, which is more evidence of their arrogance, IMO.

  14. 14 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:38 am

    fairlane

    Her laugh, her gestures, and the condescension in her voice is a way to control the conversation, an attempt to stir anger, and then, “See, look how hostile you people are?”

    Yes, it’s hard not to notice the body language; she went into that interview feeling antagonistic towards Dawkins and with the intention of stonewalling any discussion, not reaching any mutually agreeable conclusion. (Although it’s hard to see how they could reach any mutually agreeable conclusion, given who the participants were.)

  15. 15 JJ Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:51 am

    scout

    in the end both wright and dawkins were talking in circles, neither budging on some points yet they came together on a few.

    I think they agreed about as much as they could, without anyone caving. A more mutually agreeable conclusion (IMO) would have been “We agree: let’s keep science in the science class and religion in the theology class, and stop trying to confuse the two.” But the religious right would never be happy with that.

  16. 16 mouthyorange Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 9:37 am

    I love what Scout said.

    And hey, christianity is based on “believing,” but there’s an awful lot of “believing” that goes on in our acceptance of science doctrine, too. There’s more than one version of “science” and some versions challenge others quite strongly, but the version that people in our part of the world tend to take as a given is very much shaped by, promoted by, and of benefit to big corporations that have huge profits to gain from having us “believe” in it and not question its underlying assumptions or the practices they follow that further it or the information they spin or control about it. Plus, scientific methods vary a great deal and the method of inquiry also shapes the kind of answer it produces, and the “evidence” that scientific inquiry produces is variable and often contradictory. There’s no such thing as only one “science” and I’d go so far as to say that there’s little or no such thing as “hard” evidence to prove anything. I’d say the often hoped for outcome that one day science will figure out the mystery of life is a doctrinaire belief extraordinaire, but I think it justifies a lot of cruelty and stupidity that goes on in the name of science. Science will not figure it out; and in my view nor will any religion. But science as we know it will do a lot of harm in the meantime with all its heartless and soulless experiments and its many vicious solutions to problems, and religion with its mind control and profound fucking up of children’s forming development.

    Christianity needs massive criticism; I think it’s the most dangerous religion in the world. But the underlying premises of “science” must also be questioned. Science isn’t sacred, either.

    We mustn’t look for science to save us from religion. We don’t NEED science to do that for us. We can do it for ourselves. Then we can remain open to feeling what’s really here, and what life’s all about. It’s the only way we can ever really know.

    God, I really am on a soapbox today.

  17. 17 fairlane Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 10:29 am

    In my opinion, there’s absolutely no doubt she was attempting to provoke an angry response.

    She made no attempt to conceal veil her contempt.

    Science is a threat to religion.

    If it’s possible to “Prove/Disprove” the existence of God, science holds the key.

    I never know if Wingnuts are being ironic when they accuse atheists of being void of morality.

    The Right has nothing but disdain for humanity.

  18. 18 harpervalley Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    mouthy orange…science has a long ways to go. what was true in science yesterday isn’t true today and what we have today may not be true tomorrow. all their big experiments lead to what – theories. there’s some definite merits to science, as there are to christianity but christianity is fucking around the block too.

    indigenous cultures have creation stories for a purpose. and yes i believe i come from the north star and others from plaides and the haida were dropped out of a clam shell a raven was carrying, and the hopi emerged from way down deep and a spider led them up and out of the cavern.

    but see the difference between adam and eve stuff? the time line goes WAY beyond the old testament (probably because of jewish and christaian political reasons) and what we have is stories of space ships or underground societies.

    seem bizarre? refer to atlantis, pan, or hawaii’s lemuria. if you look at the mayan calendar it is at the foremost because it was recorded and left the longest standing. the calendar tells of having different worlds that ended by disaster because of the same things we have now – overpopulation and greed.

    these stories also teach us not to go beyond them, to just accept it. but western civilization couldn’t help itself and to discover creation they had to use destruction …the atom bomb. then the nuclear bomb.

    now we have CERN and particle mathmatics but what on earth is really going to happen or be the outcome of raping Mother Earth with a probe 21 miles deep and 17 miles diameter? how do you think Mother Earth will react? too many forget she is a living organism.

    evolution or creationism doesn’t matter. they just don’t matter. none have made a difference to our lives. too much money and time are being spent on it and the end result is boring arguement.

  19. 19 Mandos Monday, August 10, 2009 at 12:40 am

    now we have CERN and particle mathmatics but what on earth is really going to happen or be the outcome of raping Mother Earth with a probe 21 miles deep and 17 miles diameter? how do you think Mother Earth will react? too many forget she is a living organism.

    Probably with a yawn, or more likely nothing, as “Mother Earth” is a metaphorical personification that as such has no discernible awareness.

  20. 20 mouthyorange Monday, August 10, 2009 at 4:58 am

    Scout, I am so with you on this kind of stuff, you don’t even know how much.

    – Mouthy spirit of the orange light.


Wait. What?

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




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 631,054
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: