Richard Dawkins on the Hugh Hewitt Show

Physicists won't entertain the concept of what came before the big bang because no information about that time (if time even existed) can reach us. So falsification is not possible and neither is science. The physicists are showing good judgement here.

Moonshadow, Kurt Wise is not alone in claiming that entropy build up would prevent evolution, but the concept is misapplied.

The early universe had essentially no entropy when it was small and dense.

The universe is expanding and actually seems infinite. This means it acts like an open system, not a closed system, so there's always some where for the waste heat to go to.

The energy that drives evolution is provided by irreversible changes to matter. For example hydrogen fusion in the core of the Sun converts some of the Sun's mass into light, which provides the energy to drive life. Once this conversion happens it is irreversible and is an increase in entropy. So our order is bought at that cost.

I'm surprised that Richard Dawkins was surprised that Hugh Hewitt believed that Jesus turned water to wine. It sort of proves my claim in a previous post that Dawkins might not personally know any Christians. Otherwise he would know enough people who believed the biblical claims that it wouldn't shock him.

HH had Dawkins on his show to discuss his book about evolution not talk about Jesus. It was HH who brought up the topic and made the unsubstantiated claim that Jesus turned H20 molecules into wine which goes far beyond what an average person of science or reason could swallow (both literally and figuratively!) HH was the obvious loser here. At one point he even tried to make the case that if people didn't accept scientific evidence that would somehow discredit Dawkins or make him less credibility. Wow! That's some interesting logic going on there. Let's see, if enough people deny the Holocaust, then it never happened?

From the transcript:
HH: So if people don’t believe that those sets of evidence are the same, doesn’t that undermine your credibility?

Hey how about this? If people don't believe that Jesus turned water into wine, doesn't that undermine YOUR credibility?

The problem with religion is that it doesn't have science on its side. BUT it desperately wants to use science to prove that it is right by finding loopholes or "gaps" in the theory. (Sarcastic tone) So Richard Dawkins, you don't know how the universe began? (smirk, smirk)--So it could have been God!

Yeah, and it could have been a hundred other causes, so you have not made your case. Sorry. It doesn't follow. Anything that science can't explain now, could be explained in the future, which has often been the case in history (just look up Galileo sometime).

HH believes in the "god of the gaps" without cause or good reason. There is no evidence for an invisible being who requires no creator and yet creates everything (including itself?) It doesn't make sense,but more importantly there is absolutely no evidence for it.

Evolution has ample evidence to make it a fact. It doesn't matter what religious people "believe" about it. They are wrong.

Devin Thomas

Showing a lot of anger around this, aren't you Devin?

The religion vs. science argument is a false one. God (or whatever) gave us a physical universe to live in and the tools (primarily a brain) to slowly understand it. Discovering things about it doesn't disprove that a God may exist? Science doesn't always get things right either.

People that believe in God cannot prove he exists anymore than an atheist can prove that he doesn't exist. Both positions, eventually and ironically, require an act of faith.

I am a Christian (of the calvinist variety) and I heard this interview in its entirety. I found it extremely telling that Dr. Dawkins attempt to draw attention to Hugh's belief in a minor miracle in order to ridicule it. After all, Dawkins knows very well that Jesus' turning water into wine does not occupy the place of a cornerstone in the Christian belief system. He knows very well that where Christian faith and Science intersect are the big issues: creation ex nihilo, cosmology, physics, the fine tuning of the universe as a brute fact versus purposeful, the beginning of life on earth, evolution braodly defined, chance versus guided descent of life, etc. His attempt at ridicule only served to distract from the difficulties of defending both his overarching, positivistic philosophy of science and the particular details of his book Hugh was questioning him about at that portion of the interview.

Now, I'm not saying that Dawkins' position is absolutely untenable. He is an eminent biologist and a gifted writer. However, for some odd reason he chose to try to turn the table on you in order to ridicule you (and by extention, all Christians' belief in miracles) when he could have simply answered your questions about his new book.

Unlike Dawkins' disingenuous dismay at Hugh's faith in miracles, I was not dismayed at his supreme confidence in science. I have come to realize that all people will place their supreme confidence in something for whatever they consider the issue that matters most. Dawkins' supreme confidence in science, his faith, will one day either be confirmed or disconfirmed. Just like mine.

Very revealing of Dawkins mind. Not for the least reason that people like Dawkins are usually fawned over by a friendly media.

Dawkins use of the Holocaust Denial comparison is a straw man in and of itself. "So when did you stop believing in the Holocaust, Christian? A purely rhetorical and political attack akin to accusing someone of racism. In truth, Dawkins use of Holocaust equivalence arguments is much closer to Holocaust denial, inasmuch as the attack has ideological roots rather than rational roots.

Dawkins surprize at finding out Hugh's beliefs was amusing? I wonder if the surprize was real. Methinks that Dawkins will be seeking much more friendly interviewers next time around.

This was one of Hugh's best interviews, and a major win for Hugh to have the conversation on record.

The New Atheists are just as dull-witted as the old fashioned atheists.

Dawkins is just a salesman fattening his bank account. The easily led filling it as usual.

0 x 0 = Atheism

Even on Dawkin's calculator.

Great Conversation!
I can't explain that how much i am excited to watch this kind of brilliant shows. I really enjoy your article. Thank you much for sharing it here.