Mercury One charity hits the $1m-raised mark for Oklahoma Tornado relief

Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Faith

Dawkins Forgets Name of Darwin’s Evolutionary Book During Epic Radio Debate With Priest

Feb. 15, 2012 5:58pm Billy Hallowell

Reverend Giles Fraser Schools Richard Dawkins on Darwin Book Title | BBC

Famed atheist Richard Dawkins

On Tuesday, famed atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins clashed with Reverend Giles Fraser, a priest of the Church of England, during a BBC radio interview. While engaging in a debate about Christianity, Fraser challenged Dawkins to give the full name of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” an evolutionary book that Dawkins regularly heralds. After claiming that he could recite the title (which happens to be quite long), Dawkins became tongue-tied and failed to adequately do so.

The epic clash between the two men, which was carried live on BBC Radio 4 in England, was centered upon a recent poll that purportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The controversial study was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which is run by the well-known non-believer. Among the findings, the study alleges that Christianity has lost its standing in the European nation. The study apparently found that nearly two-thirds of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament (Matthew).

Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians. It was at this point that the priest asked the atheist to name Darwin’s well-known evolutionary book.

“Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that,” Fraser said.

“Yes, I could,” Dawkins responded, clearly indicating that he was ready for the challenge.

“Go on then,” Fraser poked.

And this is where the situation turned awkward, as Dawkins simply couldn’t make his way through the book’s elongated title.

“‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled. “On The Origin Of Species.’ There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

Fraser, of course, seized upon the opportunity to make his point that not being able to name a book doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with one’s deeply-held beliefs and convictions.

“You’re the high pope of Darwinism,” he said. “If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.’ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.”

Listen to the awkward dialogue, below:

The full title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” In fairness to Dawkins, this is certainly a lot to remember.

(H/T: Huffington Post)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (185)

momprayn
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:53pm
People who argue there is no Gpd/Bible not true/this theory is fact, etc. are not honest people who really want to know the “truth” b/c of willful ignorance, rebellion, pride — because the Bible can indeed be proven true beyond reasonable doubt, research will show you that this theory has been disproven easily awhile back, God, an “intelligent designer” is readily known and proven by creation. Honest scientists will tell you that. Some sites for example:

http://www.creationevidence.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.dancingfromgeesis.wordpress.com

Book: “Scientists Who Believe”
Log in to ReplyReply
- TomSawyer
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:38pm
  Thanks for the links. Yes I agree. I was astonished after I graduated college and looked into the evidence against evolution. There are not a few interesting facts that might prove it could not happen. The evidence against evolution is so great it makes you wonder why more of it did not get presented in colleges.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiac
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:13pm
  Yawn.
  
  http://www.reduciblycomplex.com/index.php/evidence-for-creation-debunked/
  
  Report this comment
- MS Patriot
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:19pm
  The odds that we evolved from a puddle of goo are much greater than there being a divine designer of the human race.
  
  What is sad, we have allowed the progressive socialist to push the theory of evolution onto our children with out equal teachings for the theory of creationism.
  
  There is a right guaranteed to us in the Constitution. It is separation of Church and state. I’m about ready to separate all ties to the state, the federal government is out of control and needs to be enlightened.
  
  Report this comment
- sodacrackers2
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:30pm
  @Pontiac, perhaps your nose is so long because of the lying you must do to preserve your silly world view that rejects the wisdom of the ages.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:03pm
  For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow)
  
  LOL
  
  Report this comment
- Jeetman
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:23pm
  Pontiac,
  
  I clicked on your link looking to see the argument against “irreducible complexity” and all I read was a pompous a$$ stating his opinion as fact. I cannot stand these jackasses who think they have all the answers. Their college teachings and lemming followers (like you) have fattened their heads. Just because someone who believes they are a genius spouts something doesn’t make it true. Morons like you may follow these “know it all’s” but I need a convincing argument before I’ll trust anyone’s judgment.
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:40pm
  hey loser ie pontiac…ever hear of DNA? you do know its a code, right? all codes come from intelligence…get a clue gomer…
  
  Report this comment
- WEBWITHDEB
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:25am
  What? The man doesn’t believe in God, yet calls on him for help in remembering . . .”‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled . . .” ????
  
  Report this comment
- nelbert
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 5:34am
  Rev. Fraser definitely had a nice touche moment with Dawkins.
  While I believe in evolution, I find Dawkin’s dogmatic attacks against religion and faith to be fanatical, counterproductive, and just plain rude. If on’e goal is to win converts to one’s way of thinking, one ought not start off by claiming that the ideas of others are rubbish. Antagonism merely gets people’s tempers up.
  And, yes, there are many scientists who are religious. Science is about measurable quantities, whereas faith is about … well, about faith.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 5:08pm
  And the arguments in those sites have been refuted by mainstream science. Thanks for posting them, though.
  
  Also, the “information” in DNA is chemical. The definition isn’t synonomous. You can’t give the assumption to people that it has an intelligent code like some sort of computer program.
  
  Report this comment
- Concernd4USA
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 6:29pm
  I must say that the large majority of the people you use here are not scientists at all. For example Ken Ham and the person 1 or 2 levels below him Carl Kerby in the answers in Genesis crew are so 6000 year minded that they ignore evidence to the contrary. I had the honor of going to a Christian university where Carl’s brother attended and he also went to my church.
  My astronomy teacher happened to work at Fermilab, he happens to be a Christian. but he is not stuck on the 6000year model. Most of the top Physicists, and other various scientists in the country worked at either NASA or Fermilab most of the workers at Fermilab were Christian and believed that the evidence proved there was a creator.We just need to be careful that we are practicing real science not wishful thinking as is the case with Answers in Genesis.
  I have been to the Creation museum and they have good points but there is evidence for an old universe as well.
  Most of the true scientists that are also Christian question the whole 6000 year old universe because there is evidence to the contrary like stars 12 billion light years away. the Bible explains that a day to God is not like a day to us so the scientists tend to think that there are gaps in the genesis model.
  Remember that the bible does not say that everything is 6000years old people have done that through assumptions that may or may not be correct.
  
  Report this comment
- sayangku
  Posted on February 19, 2012 at 12:26pm
  The story of this man is not his religious views its his ideas on social engineering. Memetic’s and the use of viral thinking upon a society were proposed by this man in the 90′s and are in use today. The media is the primary tool. Have you ever wondered why MSNBC runs 10 hrs a day of Locked Up? Fear! Or Global Warming? Fear! How about Pornography. Sex! It is all about injecting ideas into the culture to manipulate our actions. Control the thought you control the man.
  Our founding fathers drafted the Constitution as a cliff note to the Bible and these guys hate it. They believe these TRUTHS can be changed to something of their liking. The reason behind the attacks on religion? Control! Change the beliefs/thoughts of the people you change the laws that guide them, very UN evolutionary.
  Define: Meme
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiac
  Posted on February 20, 2012 at 12:11pm
  @sodacrackers2
  @Jeetman
  I’m not the least bit phased by your personal attacks.
  I fully expect that from hate filled knuckle dragging “christians”.
  Come back when you can actually refute what I posted.
  
  @WEBWITHDEB
  It’s not “Oh God”, it is “Oh god” or “Oh gawd”. If you don’t know how to transcribe an atheist then don’t bother.
  
  Report this comment
REPUB1
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:52pm
oh if he only had a BRAIN!!!!! evolution must have skipped this guy.. DUH

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
proudamerican1990
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:49pm
When I saw it I thought origin of man, but I guess it’s on the origin of species…

I guess I was close.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dalady
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:45pm
Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled, is a thoughtful look at Creationism and Darwinism. Keep the faith and thou shalt not judge.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Miyegombo Bayartsogt
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:51pm
  Wasn’t Ben’s that movie suggesting churches be required to provide equal time to the teaching of evolutionary science after every reading of Genesis during Sunday school class?
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:33pm
  I never saw Ben Stein’s movie. He has a good sense of humor, and he is not senseless. Maybe it was Bill Maher who you are thinking about. He is the sort of nitwit to propose “teaching of evolutionary science after every reading of Genesis during Sunday school class” — no doubt he would snidely pretend that such a requirement is analogous to addressing intelligent design in a public school classroom.
  
  Report this comment
rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:39pm
oh but I thought Dawkins was an atheist and SO MUCH smarter than the rest of us unenlightened schlubs…..

I’d like to ask dawkins what races he thinks are favoured??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MarsBarsTru7
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:47pm
  “On the Origin of Species or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
  
  Correct my friend. I have some fun quotes of Dawkins I’ll post later. Darwinism is inextricably linked to racism.
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:51pm
  Correct my friend. I have some fun quotes of Dawkins I’ll post later. Darwinism is inextricably linked to racism.
  
  VERY true…it drives the darwiniacs crazy when you point that out…..
  
  Report this comment
- Cesium
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:52pm
  and the invention of steel is inextricably linked to modern warfare… and surgical equipment. Amazingly stupid argument that Darwin alone spurred on racism….and the bible had nothing to do with legitimizing slavery… nooo surely not.
  
  Report this comment
- sodacrackers2
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:34pm
  Not surprising then that “progressives” love Darwin so much; I guess he is right up there with Margaret Sanger in their gallery of heroes. No black person should even think of being a democrat!
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:38pm
  “….and the bible had nothing to do with legitimizing slavery… nooo surely not.”
  
  you don’t know scripture very well do you now?
  
  “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
  
  I would say get a clue, but its obvious you are incapable of that…
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:39pm
  “Amazingly stupid argument that Darwin alone spurred on racism”
  
  another lie…and more blazing stupidity from cesium…but thats par for the course for you…
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:43pm
  oh gomer…err cesium…list the lower races your god and savior refers to….I’ve asked you this before and you’ve always punked out….lets see you man up and answer this time…loser
  
  “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
  
  Report this comment
- Concernd4USA
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 7:01pm
  this is the kind of stuff hat make Intelligent Design get questioned. Use Science to prove your points there is plenty of it. Do not rely on religious rhetoric. I associate with scientists from Fermilab and they are some of the best physicists and scientists in the world and most believe in ID. Genesis gives a good record of the events our problem is when we start putting dates to the Bible like the 6000 year old model. Most true scientists believe in a 14-15 billion year old universe including almost all of the people at fermilab.
  Remember that Genesis was revealed to Moses about 4500 years ago and he wrote down what he could understand. Explain the big bang… Let there be light, Explain how earth formed It was formless and void. This coming from a person that had no idea about the formation of the world except through divine revelation.
  
  Report this comment
Itsourtime
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:35pm
Hey Bernbart, show me the evidence that evolution is no longer a theory. Show me anywhere in the fossil records that show intermediates. I also would like to know how it took billions of years for dinosaurs to evolve from nothing, but it took less than 100 million years for the dinosaurs to be completely wiped out and for the human race to then start over from nothing and be more evolved than they were?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheDM
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:50pm
  You have no idea what a scientific theory is. Gravity’s a theory, go try and prove that false. Trust me, when you take that first step off that tall building and still can’t fly, I’m sure the argument “It’s only a theory!” will hold a lot of weight.
  
  Namely your weight. All the way down.
  
  Report this comment
- RightThinking1
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:16pm
  Gravity is NOT a theory, it’s the LAW.
  
  Report this comment
- beket
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:27pm
  It’s gravitational theory and it’s part of Newton’s Laws… which had some flaws in it until Einstein solved them with his theory of relativity. So 200 years of a flawed theory of gravity.
  
  I have studied evolution extensively and it doesn’t conflict with my belief in God, Christ, or the Bible. To God, we are as children, and I am not so full of myself to think God needs to explain Himself to me or explain what mechanism He used to create the universe. The Bible is the Word of God, but that’s doesn’t mean He didn’t choose to leave some bits out. In all my studies of evolution, astronomy, Big Bang theory, etc., I still see the fingerprint of God in it all (much to the annoyance of atheists). And it is still wonderous to behold! We are finite beings trying to comprehend the infinite, and we can never know the whys and hows of God, try though we might. And I am content with that, for there is as much joy in the questions as in the answers. More so, perhaps.
  
  But Dawkins… I’ve read him too. And he’s an idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- Double_Delta
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:29pm
  Careful with Einstein’s ToR, it’s on shaky ground as of late.
  
  Regarding Theory of Evolution, I use the ‘Phoebe’ (from Friends) stance as devil’s advocate: At one time, all scientists stated the world was flat until they discovered it was really round. More recently scientists said the the atom was the smallest component until they finally cracked it open and all this stuff came out of it. And now you’re going to tell me that beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution is THE real story of our origins?
  
  Report this comment
- CCS
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:47am
  Thank you, Beket. I tire of trying to make rational arguments when this topic comes up on the Blaze. Too many here can only see the literal creationist view or the purely secular scientific view. This believer doesn’t buy into either extreme. Who are we to know God’s way? That fingerprint of God in all he has given us the ability to discover and learn of his universe is truly awesome.
  
  Report this comment
- lowermytaxes
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 6:34am
  I belive gravity is a law not a theory.
  
  Report this comment
- ahull15
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:39pm
  Gravity is a law, not a theory. More specifically, Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
  
  Report this comment
- ahull15
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:44pm
  @CCS
  
  What do you mean “who are we to know God’s way”? He left a book for us that pretty much explains it.
  
  Report this comment
girlnurse
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:31pm
Well it is true that MOST people in America that identify themselves as Christians do NOT know the first thing about God and the bible. This seems true to me, although I AM a Christian and have read the bible and I know the Lord, I believe most don’t.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TomSawyer
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:43pm
  It might be true that many Christians do not know the Bible very well these days. But they do know the first and most important thing: If you believe in Jesus Christ and accept his free gift of redemption your sins are forgiven and you will have eternal life. Most everything else He was saying can be summarized in 3 words: love your enemy. It might be best to interpret this as: love everyone, even your enemy.
  
  Report this comment
- Dalady
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:48pm
  Like you know what is in anybody’s heart and mind. Get over yourself. It’s judgemental people that cause others to turn away.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:30pm
  Im NOT being judgemental! What about the part that says: “You will know them by their fruits” AND “If you love me you will keep my commandments” AND “Do not be decieved, not everyone who says Lord Lord, will enter the Kingdom of heaven”. The fact that you can just pray a prayer and then go about living as evil as you can on this earth is a lie straight from the pits of hell! If I didn’t care about people I wouldn’t say it. It’s NOT about me.
  “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven”. Matthew 7:21
  
  Report this comment
Hermit_boy
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:29pm
Unfortunately Fraser has it all wrong. These test and standards that liberals hold for conservatives are not legitimate when applied to themselves.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Itsourtime
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:28pm
Actually, it’s the theory of evolution. So really nothing has been proven. To call someone a moron for this, simply shows your ignorance.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Miyegombo Bayartsogt
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:27pm
That title is too long. When Darwin was writing back in the day, people had more time to read as there was no TV or internets so the world was more wordy then. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” It’s no wonder Dawkins couldn’t recall its 19th century entirety. But then, that particular text is not the only book on the subject and, like the Bible, few people actually read it. And of course there are whole libraries of more modern and accessible books on evolution than Darwin’s turgid work. Dawkins has a few of his own including a roaring read on the ascent of life on the planet. You could say he wrote the book on evolutionary genetics, but that would imply there weren’t many others on that subject. The point is, Dawkins not being able to recite chapter and verse from a title of a particular work in the subject of his expertise no more disqualifies him from his subject than ignorance of scripture and sheepish stupidity disqualifies the average reverend from chatting up his faith in faith. This story by the Blaze is a good opportunity to introduce rational readers to Dawkins and his work. If you believe in DNA, modern medicine and that science thing, there is much this man can teach.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GoodStuff
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:32pm
  Can Dawkins teach us paragraphs?
  
  Report this comment
- Roundup_Logan
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:36pm
  As long as this man can’t explain how humans went from cave dwellers to astronauts in less than 10,000 yrs but can’t explain why no other species on the planet has evolved that fast, I say he can keep him “monkey theroy” of the human species to himself. I’ll stick to the creation theory for I’d rather see my ancestors as Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob vs. silver back at the local zoo.
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:41pm
  “This story by the Blaze is a good opportunity to introduce rational readers to Dawkins and his work. If you believe in DNA, modern medicine and that science thing, there is much this man can teach.”
  
  modern medicine owes nothing to evolution….get a clue…evolution is useless to science…and genetics was founded by Mendel…..and evolution didn’t even have genetics in its theory until the synthesis in the 1930-40s….
  
  Report this comment
- RightThinking1
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:18pm
  Goodstuff:
  ROFL
  
  Report this comment
- Leader1776
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:30pm
  @GOODSTUFF
  Its obvious Miyegombo Bayartsogt can’t.
  
  Report this comment
- jaklyn1055
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:57pm
  Oh my word- you think Dawkins’ books are good?! I’m in grad school and last term we had to do an analysis of his book “The Selfish Gene”. I was so easy to find scientific papers that completely denounced his theory- he anthropomorphized genes and we are all nothing but a gene survival machine! There was even a debate where a scientist challenged him on his theory, stating that there was no scientific evidence, and Dawkins answered “but wouldn’t it be neat if it was true?” At Oxford, very liberal with a high percentage of atheists. He debated with a Christian scientist on the reality of God and the scientist mopped the floor with Dawkins. When surveyed the majority of students said Dawkins lost the debate. The guy is a joke,
  
  Report this comment
TomSawyer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:26pm
Atheism is a logical fallacy. You can’t prove a negative. It would be far more intelligent to say “I don’t know.” Why take a such a leap of faith? To sell books? God’s existence has not been dis-proven at all.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- flaggdies
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:37pm
  You sir are right. Thats why even Steven Hawkins is agnostic. Considered one of the smartest men in the world whose whole purpose is to theorize about the events of the Universe. He remains undecided.
  
  Report this comment
- StrongViolentType
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:48pm
  Wow, is he considered as smart as Obama – lol
  
  Report this comment
- liberal reaction
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:07pm
  Five is not equal to four. That is a negative statement that is very easy to prove. God as defined by christians is the epitome of fallacious logic, as logic dictates that asserted claims MUST be falsifiable. The christian god as defined by dogma is outside of space and time and as such is not falsifiable, violating this fundamental rule of logic. A god is illogical.
  
  Report this comment
- ahull15
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:23pm
  @ liberal reaction
  
  Ok then, where is your proof that God doesn’t exist?
  
  Report this comment
- liberal reaction
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:49pm
  @Ahull
  Sure, just as soon as you prove to me that there isn’t an invisible purple dragon hovering over your left shoulder.
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:22pm
Wow! That priest is so clever, smart, and a man of God!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ZeroOff4impact
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:18pm
Wait did he say “oh GOD” during that ? interesting..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheDM
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:03pm
  Sure. Hard to take in vain an entity you don’t believe in, and it’s a common enough exclamation. You’ll hear atheists say ‘god damn it’, too.
  
  Report this comment
Roundup_Logan
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:14pm
Another knuckle dragger who proclaims to have came from a monkey. I’d pretty much concur with that.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
acovenantinblood
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:13pm
“Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians.”

No but the state of Britain is a good indicator. Rightiousness exalts a naiton………

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/aa-reform/aa-reform

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bernbart
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:13pm
Actually Darwin wrote more than one book on the subject, and Darwin’s theories have been proven with scientific facts over and over again. I was taught evolution in Catholic School.
Anyone who doe not believe in evolution is a stupid moron.
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheObamanation
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:19pm
  It’s a THEORY
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:22pm
  Wrong. There are no transitional species. Saying you changed a species using radiation in lab does not prove anything. Why? Because those species were CREATED in a lab ARTIFICIALLY. The number of scientific facts arguing against evolution is staggering. To say evolution is a fact is unscientific.
  
  Report this comment
- Rayblue
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:23pm
  Then why is it still a theory ?
  
  Because that is what it always has been and will remain. “Factual” supposition.
  
  Report this comment
- godlovinmom
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:23pm
  God doesn’t believe in evolution…is he too a moron?
  
  Report this comment
- MyAgendaIsTruth
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:27pm
  You aren’t much of a Catholic if you believe that. What school did you teach? We think you are a MMA troll.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:28pm
  People who put their faith in science would be surprised at how backward their thinking seems 100 years later.
  
  An early Jew or Christian would be pleasantly surprised at how little has changed with regards to their thinking. Although somethings have been changed (Sabbath on Sunday as opposed to Saturday), the notion that One day a week is still holy is still in place.
  
  Report this comment
- GoodStuff
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:31pm
  “I was taught evolution in Catholic School.”
  
  -You should have gone to a different school.
  
  “Anyone who doe not believe in evolution is a stupid moron.”
  
  -Now there’s a rational argument. I bow down to your genius. There is zero evidence to support the “theory” of macro-evolution (molecule-to-man evolution). There is loads of evidence for micro-evolution, aka adaptation within a kind/family of animals.
  
  Charles Darwin himself, the father of evolution, stated that millions of trasitional fossils would need to be found to prove evolution. Not only have we not found millions of transitional fossils…we haven’t found ONE!
  
  I know, I know, evolutionists have suddenly changed their stance, and now say we are all transitional forms. That’s a nice way of saying…”we were wrong, here’s what we really meant…”
  
  Evolution = fairy tale for grown-ups.
  
  Report this comment
- Miyegombo Bayartsogt
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:49pm
  Evolution is fact. Evolution has been proved. Evolutionary science is the foundation for modern medical science. Anyone who goes to a doctor when ill expecting help is putting their faith in evolution. The ‘theory of evolution’, on the other hand, describes theories about mechanics and causes of the evolutionary process, which are not yet fully understood. Science knows it’s happening, its just not certain how and why, etc. If religion requires its adherents believe evolution is false, they’re doomed. People must accept modernity or else become stultified. Remember, for a long time Christians insisted, upon the punishment of torture and death, that the Earth was stationary at the center of the universe and the Sun and planet and stars all revolved around it. Christians believed that myth important to their concept of God’s cosmology. Of course they were totally wrong and nobody believes that bogus nonsense anymore. Evolution is similar in a way. Somehow people who must believe they are the center of all creation can’t abide reality conflicting with hoary religion.
  
  Report this comment
- walkyrie
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:49pm
  it’s actually more accurate to describe “evolution” et al, as a hypothesis rather than a theory. The micro-evolution aspects have been borne out with observation in controlled settings and a high level of repeatability; however, macro-evolution has never been substantiated and, in fact, there is more fossil evidence of “bigfoot” (gigantopithecus, etc) than there is for the chimpanzee (they live in the acidic soil of dense forested settings where skeletal preservation is very rare hence no fossils). the glaring evidenciary gaps and assumptive leaps made by evolution proponents often looks more like fiction writing, albiet somewhat intuitive, based upon microevolution observations. Most life forms seem to leap onto the scene and stick around for a period of time, with some refinements and specialization for region and climate, but then to dissappear with equal suddenness – never does a toad trun into a cat not a dog into bear. if you really want to unbake the cake, study the appearance of prokaryotes and eukaryotes who showed up on the scene and remained unchanged mor many hundreds of millions of years until some phylogenetic divergences leading up to, BOOM, the Cambrian explosion when most major phyla represented in the fossil record just suddenly appeared. so be careful, young one, what you represent as “fact” and also who you malign as . . . well whatever you said. i think you reveal more about yourself than clarity on the subject or insight into others
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:02pm
  “Evolution is fact. Evolution has been proved. Evolutionary science is the foundation for modern medical science. Anyone who goes to a doctor when ill expecting help is putting their faith in evolution”
  
  laughable BS
  
  In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin’s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.
  The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
  Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.
  http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:03pm
  “Evolution is fact. Evolution has been proved”
  
  ok, then list the mutations that led to the eye, in order….oh thats right you can’t…you take it on faith…
  
  nothing in the fossil record supports evolution, nothing in the lab….no junk dna, no vestigial organs…its just a racist atheist fairy tale.
  
  Report this comment
- TheDM
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:07pm
  TomSawyer
  
  Actually, every creature is a ‘transitional species’. Before you trot out the fabled crocoduck, know that that argument has been debunked time and time again. It’s a strawman, nothing more.
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:13pm
  “Actually, every creature is a ‘transitional species’. Before you trot out the fabled crocoduck, know that that argument has been debunked time and time again. It’s a strawman, nothing more.”
  
  laughable…so Gould didn’t know what he was talking about huh??
  
  Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
  
  Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
  
  I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
  
  http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html
  
  Report this comment
- hi
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:35pm
  thedm
  if we were all transitional we’d be able to procreate with some animal besides another human. And, no that wasn’t really a human/pig baby posted on the Blaze last week.
  
  We are distinct kinds.
  
  Report this comment
- StrongViolentType
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:42pm
  “believe” in evolution – that is perfect!
  
  Report this comment
- Cesium
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:00pm
  @goodstuff… No transitional species you say? Even Futurama writers are educated on “transitionals”
  at 1:14secs http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851/Futurama_-_Evolution_Debate_
  
  I guess you would need a living mammal with a ducks bill, webbed feet, lays eggs, and is poisonous to be convinced that transitional species existed. Oh wait…
  
  Report this comment
- MS Patriot
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:33pm
  You are so confused. A theory is an educated guess as to how something could have or may have occurred. Evolution has never been proven. There have many people who have offered up evidence to disprove evolution, no one can prove it.
  
  Report this comment
- Komponist-ZAH
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:50pm
  If it’s such a proven fact, then why is it necessary to “believe in” it?
  
  Report this comment
- ahull15
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:29pm
  @bernbart
  Can you give me just one source of these many scientific studies that prove Darwin’s theories please? Just one is all I’m asking for.
  
  Report this comment
spirited
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:11pm
…by means of

%^ >selective oninion. Ah hem, … Speaking of Freudian

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- spirited
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:25pm
  Ooops!
  
  ;^[ selective oPinion
  
  Report this comment
TheObamanation
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:11pm
Wow … the tables got turned on this pompous a$$

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Baddoggy
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:11pm
He devolved into a monkey brained moron…Oh wait, for him that would be a step up…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bernbart
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:18pm
  those who do not believe in the evolution of all species are just morons. I was taught the theory of evolution not only in by biology class at Catholic school, but in my theology class. Besides the theory has been proven by scientific fact more than once over the decades.
  
  Report this comment
- Rayblue
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:29pm
  Nothing has been proven. Any mutations were induced artificially. There has been no upward trend.
  If anything, species are getting weaker and stupider.
  
  Report this comment
- TheObamanation
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:29pm
  Like the “theory of relativity” ?
  
  Report this comment
- rush_is_right
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:43pm
  “those who do not believe in the evolution of all species are just morons. I was taught the theory of evolution not only in by biology class at Catholic school, but in my theology class. Besides the theory has been proven by scientific fact more than once over the decades.”
  
  I don’t believe in evolution…debate me, I’ll make you look stupid rather easily.
  
  lets see where is that proof again? nothing in the fossil record, nothing in the lab…no junk dna, no vestigial organs….where is your proof?
  
  tell ya what just list the mutations that led to the eye, in order….oh you can’t can you? no one else can either….you just take it on FAITH that the eye evolved…when actually the evidence points to the eye being designed…
  
  Report this comment
- Baddoggy
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:51pm
  Here here Rush…..
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 11:17am
  Yes of course BERNIE….then there’s that stubborn little thorn in your evolutionist side called “spontaneous generation”. No one can demonstrate it credibly and you need it to demonstrate how life can actually start in the first place. Everyone who claims they can has had to “get a little help” from modern properties that exist today. This is where evolutionists get all “sci fi” on us and assert things as esoteric as “pan spermia” where we’re expected to believe some extra-terrestrial life somehow landed on a primordial earth, seeding it and VOILA…life gets a kickstart and spontaneously springs up. Then of course..we’ve got a little event called the Cambrian explosion where a vast array of for that time, complex life just explodes into being in a very short amount time, “evolutionarily” speaking. It’s just too fast for evolutionists to explain adequately.
  
  Report this comment
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:11pm
How funny! Love the story.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
tankyjo
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:10pm
Better yet. Richard, can you give us the ORIGINAL title of charlie’s fairy tale? It was charlie who cemented the concept of multiple “human races” into modern thinking folks.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dfree
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:07pm
Touche!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AvengerK
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:06pm
LOL…..Logic 1 Dawkins 0. Once again the militant atheist is proven to be shrill, reactionary and bordering on the sociopathic.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:01pm
  He made an argument, and got it thrown back in his face. That happens everyday to every person of every walk of life.
  
  It’s hilarious, but meaningless.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 11:05am
  You’ve described yourself perfectly MODERATION…Hilarious, but meaningless.
  
  Report this comment
Bronco II
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:05pm
No he was humiliated by GOD.Some don’t think GOD has emotions like us and he has a sense of humor and he used this person to let it shine through.GOD uses whoever he wants to get done what he wants even those we consider our enemies and GODS enemies and it is always to the GOOD.GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUSE WAYS.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheDM
  Posted on February 15, 2012 at 7:27pm
  Humiliated by God? I know that sounds like just the kind of God that deserves praise and worship: petty and vindictive!
  
  Report this comment
- ahull15
  Posted on February 16, 2012 at 12:36pm
  Yeah I have to agree with THEDM on that one. I’m a youth pastor and the book I read tells me that God doesn’t want to humiliate anyone. It is not His will that any of us should parish, not even Richard Dawkins, who God loves just the same, and as much as you and me.
  
  Report this comment
godlovinmom
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:05pm
You can have your evolution..I’ll take God’s creation…
Whats up with Glen Beck…he is never on his show..I’m all for faith, but there’s religious programming on tv where I can get that.
Does he want that extra 5.00 a month so I can actually hear him.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.