O'Reilly Debates Atheist Richard Dawkins, Calls His View Of How To Teach Science "Fascism" (VIDEO)

One might have expected fireworks when Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed avowed atheist Richard Dawkins on his show the other night, but the two men managed to have a remarkably even-tempered debate despite the contentious nature of the subject under discussion.

"I believe in creative design, I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power," O'Reilly said at the opening, noting that scientists "still haven't figured out how it all began."

"It's a most of extraordinary piece of warped logic to say because science can't answer a particular question you're going throw in your lot with Jesus," Dawkins responded.

The argument went on from there, with O'Reilly at one point suggesting that Dawkins' argument for how science should be taught in school was equivalent to fascism.

Comments

[DCDave]

Why would anyone be surprised the debate was friendly, O'Reilly has mellowed out alot in his old age. While Bill clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, Dawkins himself is no shining beacon of reason either. His theories contain a direct link between specific genes and specific behaviors in humans, that are completely at odds with our understanding of actual brain function. Dawkin's view of strict reductionism is shallow and designed to sell books and not be hard science. The guy may know his genetics but he doesn't know anything about how the mind/brain works.

[doriath22]

Bill O'Reilly calling someone else a fascist? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say....

[MarkBoston]

it just dumbfounds me why any educated person would agree to be a guest on FOX news anyway ?? Especially such an esteemed person as Mr Dawkins . Leave FOX to the rednecks .. refuse to go on it like President Obama . Just stop giving them fuel !!!!

[DCDave]

lol probably because O'Reilly would have him on and his show hits over 3 million viewers a night not all of whom are creationists.

[Don Goldberg]

You can't blame Mr. O'Reilly. he needs Jesus to forgive him.

[Shan Wells - Huffpost Blogger]

Fanned.

[DingoDave]

Perhaps 'Professor Dawkins' should have asked 'Mr Oreilly' point blank whether he believed in 'descent with modification', rather than 'evolution'. Scientists need to focus their questions at least as well as scientific illiterates such as 'Billo the Voice' is capable of doing.

[Andrew Jones]

Ahhh, the oft overlooked judeo-christian philosophical value of drunkenly offering to take women who aren't your wife dil.do shopping. Bill's higher power seems to reside in his pants.

[JazzyJim]

As Chris Rock said about the terrorists - "They're killing people on behalf of God, as though He needs help!"

[JazzyJim]

I believed "in a higher power" until Bush and Falwell made a joke out of Jesus and God. They lied to fill their pockets and take power - they did not practice what they preached, they as Mr. Dawkins said, "used it as a control mechanism" to elevate themselves. That is the RNC.

[burndiscoinferno]

Thanks for the comments, thanks for being respectful. I have a question, if you do not believe in Jesus, and do not believe he died for your sins so you could have eternal life, then why in Gods name would you want to go to heaven in the first place? Heaven is being in the Glory of God 24/7, so why would anyone who doesn't believe want to go to heaven?
Heaven would be a literal hell for someone who doesn't love Jesus!
Ya'll brought up some good points with my last comment. I see where I failed trying to make my point with the logic/gambling thing. I am sorry this subject makes non Christians mad, if I could somehow explain it better, I would. I don't want anyone to be mad about Christianity.
What I am trying to say is if you make the effort to accept the higher power of Jesus, He will respond to your efforts and you will know it.
There is no other authority on Christian heaven than the bible. And I am just saying what the bible says. If you believe in some other ending, ok. But 90 years on earth is nothing in the scheme of things, when we are talking eternity..­.Jesus talks about hell more than he does about love. He constantly warns people about hell more than anything else he talks about.
I just don't want anyone here to suffer in the end should Christianity be right.

[Shan Wells - Huffpost Blogger]

Being in consensus with evolution does not mean that you have to give up your faith, burndisco. The two things aren't the same. Religion relies on a belief in a supreme being that cannot be proven. That's ok. Where the problem comes in is trying to fit evolutionary biology into the same definition.

Science exists as a way to understand the world without having to guess. With science, we can explain. Science has proved its power by sending men to the moon, amongst millions of other things. Evolution is as real as gravity, rocket ships or lasers. I don't see you denying any of those things. Why?

The answer is fear. You're afraid that if evolution can prove we evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to a lemur over millions of years, rather than descended from Adam and Eve over a few thousand, your faith is wrong. But it doesn't have to be that way. Christianity used to teach the sun revolved around the earth. Now the church does not. They changed. You can change too.

Religion gives us a sense of how to live our lives. Science shows us how those lives came into being. Stop being afraid. Embrace the wonder of a world where science and religion inhabit separate spaces yet contribute to the advancement of humanity in their own ways.

In other words, have a little faith in your faith.

[DoctorABC]

I'm not a Christian and I'm not an Atheist. I believe in a God who is not connected to the Son and Holy Ghost and sometimes wish those who conflate "God" with Christ would remember there is a non-Christ component who is discussed as the King of Heaven, the One who's been around since the Word. We have an afterlife that is paradisical and translated in English as "Heaven." Being with God for eternity doesn't sound like a bad deal, but lots of religions descibe post-death as something wonderful.

Thanks for the good wishes if the end does indeed come in a form we'd recognize, but I'll take my chances on God being love and/or justice and continue to do my best to help all my fellow humans.

P.S. Ya'll? Y'all? If an apostrophe serves as a sign of missing letters, the latter spelling makes more sense. I came to the South as an adult, so I may be off here...

[ubatuba]

Listen, if Joe Cornfield wants to introduce religion as a theory for how it all started, let's do it. Let's introduce his little hayseeds to not only the judeo-christian beginning, but also that of buddhism, islam..and why not throw in scientology and kaballah while we're at it. Then maybe they'll back off and realize these are called FAITHS for reason...t­here is no proof...on­ly blind FAITH.

[ScienceFTW]

I don't really get why people call dawkins strident.

[ancientmarinader]

He doesnt agree agree with the majority option, therefore he's pushy. Atheists are expected to be quiet about it.

[ScienceFTW]

I think he realizes this, so he's been extra careful to not come off as condescending - but here you just have o'reily yelling at him and calling him fascist - he still managed to pull off a joke, and the most strident thing he says is questioning bills misuse of the word "fascism".

[Jeremy Davis]

This is the lamest defense of Christ EVAR!!!

If something else comes along that males more sense I will get on board?! Oh yeah, his ticket to heaven has just been ripped up. Not that I can make that judgment but that could not have gone over well with The Almighty. What a putz. I was hoping he could at least defend his belief in Jesus.

Not that he has much to defend. The theistic evolution stance has no basis in either The Bible or modern evolution theory. It is a compromise position that makes both sides feel kinda OK.

[JustFrogs]

The bottom line is that science is a subject in school. Science is separate from religion. (If people so adamantly want religion taught in schools, then let's have a religious history class where all religions are studied, their impact and origins and the various tenets of each religion.) "Creative design" is at its core a Christian "creation," therefore, it cannot be taught at a public school as it favors one religion over another. Public schools are there to serve the public - that means that schools cannot favor one religion over the other as this country is a melting pot of cultures and religions and such a practice would be exclusionary. The logical conclusion to this set of facts is that teaching 'creative design' in schools would be fascism, which is ironically exactly what Bill O suggests.

[islandchris]

A lazy mind at work - O'Reilly
"I believe in creative design, I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power,"

O'Reilly did not read Dawkin's latest book (I'm not sure he reads anything outside his teleprompter), and clearly had no interest in doing so. Instead he trots out the above quoted incoherence, and as long the statement is accompanied by the requisite smugness of face thinks he has made a point. Anyone who has completed a PhD, or had a scientific paper peer reviewed, will understand will see the chicanery at work - whether you are trying to propose "creative design" or "evolution" (but not both!) as an explanation, their acceptance will depend up the degree to which each explanation can account for all the known data. Its not a question of "belief" or of votes.
However, as Billo knows, the vast majority of his audience have no such experience, and are virtually completely ignorant of the wealth of biological data and experiments that can be coherently explained by current evolutionary theory. As biologists keep trying to explain - scientists are far more certain of the fundamentals of evolution than physicists are of the fundamentals of gravity.

[jsgaetano]

O'Reilly, proving once again that the word "facsim" doesn't actually mean what he thinks it does.

[noamjunior]

bill thinks that it means you disagree with him- which Is supreme irony