Please don't bring this here. I don't mind articles on the scientific merits of a specific type of evolution, but posting clips like this makes HN like reddit. Let's keep the whole "omg creationists are so stupid" talk out of a forum that is primarily focused around tech, business, and general nerdom.

There's a simple technique that you can employ to avoid wasting time by arguing evolution with a creationist. Simply ask, "is there any amount of evidence that could convince you to change your mind?"

If they say "no", then move on to another topic.

I came here to mention this, and note that this is an excellent way to start conversations about anything controversial, including politics and religion. If I'm interested in having that argument, I usually start by saying:

"One of us is clearly wrong, and there is a chance that it's me and a chance that it's you. I can give you a list of events that can happen or points that you can prove that will cause me to change my mind entirely and agree with you. What's your list?"

Yes, that's the critical point in a nutshell. I learned the hard way that trying to debate evolution with such people is really just a waste of your time. Time is better spent with people who are more open minded.

I have no idea how appropriate this is for HN but anti-science makes me really mad and so I upvoted it. I can't help but feel like this issues gets so little emphasis. I can't believe serious presidential candidates can admit they don't "believe" in evolution. Anti-science is absolutely rampant (and not just in the US, and not just by republicans) and the media, in general, is so ignorant of science that they simply make it worse.

Dawkins: Every time a fossil is found, you guys "Ah, now we've got two gaps where there was previously one". I mean, almost every fossil you find is an intermediete.

Wright: If that was true, the Smithsonian Institute Museum would be filled with these examples.

Dawkins: It is.

Indeed.

> makes me really mad and so I upvoted it

I find that that's a bad combination for sites like this. I mean, that kind of thing pisses me off too, but so do other political things. You end up with a site full of political/cultural angry-voted-up stuff (which we won't name).

Imagine how much more interesting this interview would have been if it took place at the Smithsonian.

As a Christian who accepts the scientific evidence of evolution, this stuff pisses me right off. The whole idea that religion is the antithesis of science is at best unfounded and ignorant and at worst extremely damaging to people's views of Christianity.

It's a very true statement that the #1 source of Atheists is Christians, and this "debate" has done so much more harm than good, I wonder how long it will take to repair the damage.

We're not all dumb, mindless lemmings, but those lemmings are much more outspoken than the rest of us who wish these people would just shut up.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to HN. I know a lot of good engineers that are creationists. It doesn't seem to keep them from producing good work. Its more important for scientist and teachers I should think.

edit: Don't get me wrong. I agree with Dawkins on this.

The argument has long since stopped being about either theology or science and turned into a matter of tribalism, where adherence to the Right Answer on a matter of trifling importance to both sides is used as a litmus test of whether you're a decent human being or not.

Forgive me for a five second religious interruption: I'm a strict Catholic and also have an engineering degree. I sincerely believe in things like the virgin birth and the resurrection. Essentially everyone who knows me well knows this or could guess. And I still have people say "Blah blah blah anti-science freaks need to stop blah blah blah hey Patrick, evolution happened, right?" And when I say "Yeah, of course", they check the "Proper Scientist (TM)" box next to me in their mental inventory.

I'm sorry that you were downvoted. I've come across good programmers who believed the Earth was 7,000 years old etc. Their programming ability was just fine.

I've read a book that started with the author thanking God for granting him the insights presented in the book. Some of the more militant atheist might be offended by that. I just skipped past it and dug into the actual content, which wasn't too bad. It was no shock that none of his code contained any creationist arguments.

I haven't watched the video (I'm at work) but as a former Christian now turned atheist, I can tell you that when you grow up hearing that evolution is a 'diabolical conspiracy from the pit of hell', it's not very easy to question.

I remember one night, looking up at the stars and rejoicing that Einstein, in all his genius, never got the 'truths' that the Bible taught me. So a part of it is feeling smug that you know something that 'these intellectuals' don't know.

This is painful.

I came here to say exactly this. I enjoy Dawkins, but he might as well have been talking to a brick wall.

If you enjoyed this, I highly recommend Dawkin's new book: The Great Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution...

The book, for example, contains a part of this interview.

But yeah, it's painful.

I've occasionally had similar discussions - although probably not as eloquently as Dawkins - with people who think that evolution is just some big conspiracy.

Ultimately it all comes down to whether someone is willing to change their mind about something in the light of new information. Some people are highly inflexible in their beliefs and no amount of evidence is going to persuade them, either because they're just not interested in evidence or because changing their mind means having to reject something which they were taught by trusted individuals at an early age.

Part 2/7: This video contains content from Channel 4, who has decided to block it in your country.

must resist commenting....