Bill O'Reilly, Richard Dawkins Debate Creationism Heatedly (VIDEO)

Bill O'Reilly debated creationism on Wednesday's "O'Reilly Factor" with biologist and famous atheist Richard Dawkins. Not surprisingly, things got a little heated.

Dawkins was pushing a new book, aimed to teach adolescents and adults that science can explain ancient myths. O'Reilly told Dawkins that his book "mocks God," which propelled the two into a heated discussion about the beginning of time.

"How can it possibly help to postulate a divine intelligence to explain something complicated like [the origin of existence]?" Dawkins asked O'Reilly.

"Here's how it can help," O'Reilly answered. "If you believe in the teachings of Jesus, or Buddha, or someone like that who wants people to be peaceful and to love each other, that is a good thing," O'Reilly said.

"Yeah but what's that got to do with the origin of the moon?" Dawkins argued.

"Because I don't believe a meteor crashed into the earth and made everything happen. I think intelligent design made everything happen," O'Reilly quickly answered. He also told Dawkins that "the Judeo-Christian myth is not a myth, it's reality. And this country was founded on it."

O'Reilly, a staunch believer in creationism, has debated the topic with Dawkins before. He has also become famous for telling atheists and scientists that things such as the tides and the moon cannot be explained by science.

Comments

[matthew2219]

01:01 PM on 10/27/2011

The problem with the stupid O'Reily is his rudeness.

[sassiestkat]

03:00 PM on 10/24/2011

"How can it possibly help to postulate a divine intelligence to explain something complicated like [the origin of existence]?" Dawkins asked O'Reilly

Because, as another HuffPo article pointed out, humans naturally take the mental route of least calculation. Believing in creation removes the 'how' of our existence and the belief that God is alpha and omega removes the 'how' of God came along. This is far less complex than (for one example) studying DNA and looking for mutations within the same species to see the 'why' of the adaptation.

From HuffingtonPost 8/2011 by Wray Herbert

There's a serious problem with this approach to education, however. It has to do with humans' very limited ability to weigh probabilities rationally. Calculating likelihoods and odds is tough cognitive work, and we only do it when we must. Years of research on human thinking has shown this. In place of the difficult mental work, the human brain substitutes a powerful urge for simplicity and purpose, called the "design heuristic." It's an inner theory of the world, likely rooted in our ancient mind, which is hard to shake."

[Ana4]

02:30 PM on 10/18/2011

This has probably been mentioned before, but I'd suggest that evangelicals read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. The ones I've talked to remind me of the 2-3 dimensional creatures incapable of seeing beyond their world to perceive the higher dimensions of 4-5D. That's normal, but not helpful, and very short-sighted.

http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/eaa/FL.HTM

[paulsword]

02:27 PM on 10/17/2011

Before atheists and evolution hypothesizers again post the misleading Einstein quote about his being opposed to "religion"... reasonable research, such as those that led to the last couple of my posts below... will reveal that he WAS against much of the frivolous and faulty traditional practices and rituals that are prevalent in some Judeo-Christian worship. The essence of his faith, however, is reflected in these more recent posts of mine that may be found within my last several commentaries:)

[Maezeppa]

01:01 PM on 10/18/2011

Einstein said this: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." "Spinoza's God", as any student of philosophy would know, is NOT A DEITY.

[Maezeppa]

01:02 PM on 10/18/2011

Albert Einstein also said this: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

[Noble9]

02:22 PM on 10/17/2011

Bill O'Reilly is basically promoting a book that he purports not to believe. What's his agenda? The only possible outcome is increased sales of the book which further disseminates a message he (supposedly) doesn't support. He even gave Dawkins the last word. Weird...

[paulsword]

03:34 PM on 10/17/2011

Could you offer support for your first claim? As to your last... that is part of his traditional format as a common courtesy:)

[Noble9]

06:34 PM on 10/17/2011

These "debates" are just free press for newly-released media, whether it's books, film, or other. Usually you can trace them back to the same parent company, like when CNN delves into the "controversy" of a new film, like Contagion. You just connect the dots and find that both the network and the movie are owned by Time Warner.

In this case it's kind of odd because Dawkins' new book eventually leads back to CBS Corporation, which is a rival to the News Corporation which owns Fox. They've been doing some collaborative efforts recently though. Dunno...like I said, weird...

[paulsword]

01:38 PM on 10/17/2011

DAWKINS AND EINSTEIN: ON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY:

One thing that Dawkins would probably never inform his readers of is the fact that, though Einstein did not commit to any religion, unlike Dawkins, Einstein had a very high view of the teachings of both biblical Judaism and Christianity.

“If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.”(1)

1. Einstein, Albert, “Christianity and Judaism.” In Seelig, Cal (Ed.) Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1982, 184-185.

Exerpts quoted from article at: http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/dawkins_vs_einstein.htm

[Barbara DeZan]

11:17 PM on 10/25/2011

When you have spent many years reading Einsteins letters, essays, theses, biographies, etc. you get a more accurate sense of how he felt about the issue of religions.

In the quote you have provided, further reading and study would make it clear that he was speaking about the PRINCIPLES taught in those religious books, NOT the theories of divinity or miracles. In other words, if the ideas and ideology in those tomes were practiced, the world would be better off. Peace, love, charity, responsibility, respect...those were the points of which he was speaking.

[kareruhana]

07:08 AM on 10/28/2011

As paulsword already said, Einstein "did not commit to any religion", so i don't think he/she meant to imply belief in theories of divinity or miracles. As stated, he had a "high view of the teachings"--which consist of peace, love, charity, etc, as you said.

[grayplace]

02:41 PM on 10/26/2011

There is a difference between religion in theory and religion as practiced.

[paulsword]

12:58 PM on 10/17/2011

"Starry-Eyed Scientists" in action:) An article entitled... "Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken"... : By Zoe Brennan... Last updated at 9:51 PM on 13th June 2008 (Exerpts):

"The answer is that they believe that this single fragment of a beast which stalked the earth untold millions of years ago could hold the key which will unlock the secrets of the dinosaurs."

"Extraordinarily, they contend that it could lead to a real life Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs are once again unleashed on the world by scientists."

"In his real-life laboratory, Cano cracked the amber open with freezing cold liquid nitrogen, obtaining a sample of the insect inside."

"Soon afterwards, academics at the American Museum of Natural History recovered DNA from an ancient termite. It seemed that dinosaur DNA could soon be within reach of modern-day scientists. But these early experiments ended in failure."

"The scientists could not replicate their results, leading to the suspicion that the tiny recovered fragments were actually contaminants, perhaps from the researchers’ hair or clothing."... !!!:)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html#ixzz1b3i9h3zs

[Stephen G Ford]

09:39 AM on 10/17/2011

Trying to have an INTELLIGENT discussion with the BRILLIANT MIND that came up with "The sun goes up the sun goes down, the tides come in the tides go out, never a miscommunication." is an EXERCISE IN FUTILITY! Bill O The Clown IS A JOKE!

[paulsword]

12:19 PM on 10/17/2011

I suppose it was that little super-computer inside that first spontaneously generated cell that suddenly appeared in a mirky lifeless swamp that planned it all and figured out to make everything out of nothing... !!!:) That would be MY guess... NOT:)

[jm26dream]

04:45 PM on 10/17/2011

life spontaneously appears by itself all the time but the conservative media covers it up to promote God

[NancyMarie]

10:36 PM on 10/16/2011

"My Lord, God, you have led me by a long dark path, rocky and hard/
often my strength threatened to fail me/I almost lost all hope of seeing the light/
but when my heart grew numb with deepest grief/ a clear star rose for me/
steadfast it guided me- I followed/ at first reluctant, but more confidently later/
At last I stood at Church's gate/ it opened, I sought admission/
from your priest's mouth, your blessing greets me/
red blossom stars show me the path to you...
now I can shout it out, I believe, I profess!" --

Edith Stein,
Jewish atheist,
philosopher,
feminist,
PhD,
Catholic convert,
Carmelite nun,
martyr at Auschwitz,
Catholic saint

[paulsword]

12:21 PM on 10/17/2011

Beautiful:) Thanks, NM. Missed ya.

[NancyMarie]

02:52 PM on 10/17/2011

Thanks for your encouragement, Paulsword. You are one in a million! (Quite literally on this website, huh?) God bless.

[jm26dream]

04:25 PM on 10/16/2011

Any study that suggests evolution is true is not worth my time because they are not "real" scientists who i deem "worthy".

[pending]

11:15 PM on 10/16/2011

Yet I bet you believe a story created by "worthy" humans 2011 years ago as fact?

[paulsword]

12:23 PM on 10/17/2011

Better than "believing" a handful of paper writers who claim they KNOW what happened a BILLION years ago... !!!:)

[Maezeppa]

12:56 PM on 10/18/2011

Science has moved well beyond studying whether evolution is 'true'. Science assumes it's true and based on evolution, has advanced light years into evolution-based researchand, development and technology. Any scientist who claims evolution is false is not using science to come to that conclusion.

[jm26dream]

01:56 PM on 10/18/2011

But those are the scientists that i deem "worthy", nyah nyah

[MichaelRCooke]

02:13 PM on 10/16/2011

Bill O-Reilly posits a curious argument. While asserting his religion is the true one, he goes on to suggest it is not that religion is true that is relevant, but that religion presents a 'constraint' on society. Creationism is relevant and useful - because it encourages restraint by means of religious authority, not because it is true - even while arguing that it is true and his authentic belief.

I would suggest that 'thou shalt not kill', while in the ten commandments, is not something that requires the ten commandments to exist as a human ethic. There a lot of global pacifism that springs forth from non Christian memes.

But Bill's argument is that free will will must be constrained by religion, or at least this is a higher good. I would argue free will is fundamental as a human right and liberty from the authority of religion (which can be corrupt or corrupted) is more authentically the intended legacy of America's founding fathers (let's not forget many of the first American immigrants came here fleeing religious authority - in the form of religious persecution).

I would suggest, save for the sociopath, morality and ethics are within human nature and need not external power to manifest. I would argue it is what it means to be an adult to take personal responsibility for your own beliefs and defy external authority to the extent your reasons for your beliefs are your own and not because any authority say so.

[Maezeppa]

05:14 PM on 10/13/2011

Creationism is fraudulent. It claims to be scientific but is in fact a religious/conservative agenda.

[Justaskin2011]

03:26 AM on 10/18/2011

Mae, if you don,t believe in God, where do you find your hope and purpose in life. If we are born, live a few years and die, why does any thing we do good or bad really matter?

[Maezeppa]

11:59 AM on 10/18/2011

Whether our actions have any ultimate cosmic importance at all is a matter of conjecture but clearly our actions matter to us and to others living in the here-and-now. I'm satisfied with that being enough justification to strive for decency and good relations with others.

[Barbara DeZan]

11:28 PM on 10/25/2011

It's up to YOU to find your purpose in your life. If you choose to sit on your sofa all day and mindlessly watch TV...that's your choice. If you decide to volunteer at the local food bank, or feed the homeless, or marry and have children...that's your choice.

Your life is what YOU make it.

And, we humans are the same as every living thing on this earth from the smallest microbe to the biggest mountains and trees and all else.

Everything has a beginning, a period of growth, and a time to die.

Life is a circle....for all living things.

[jm26dream]

01:22 PM on 10/13/2011

Thank goodness all bad people are religious so we know which side is right or wrong: http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

[Maezeppa]

05:13 PM on 10/13/2011

This topic isn't about whether we think people are good or bad. The topic goes to the pseudoscience of creationism. Creationism has no scientific value and no scientific evidence.

[jm26dream]

07:24 PM on 10/13/2011

...so I Googled scientific evidence FOR creationism and found several results...

[paulsword]

09:04 PM on 10/12/2011

For those who have been interested in the detailed explanations and actual evidence that strongly indicates the presence of an Intelligent Designer... The Institute for Creation Research is a good place to start:) One of the researchers in the study of Biology and its beginning at Creation is Dr. Randy Guliuzza... who retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of "Made in His Image: Examining the complexities of the human body". Even the leaders in the field of "evolutionary theory"... which was actually the title of Stephen Gould's last publication... never present the hypothesis of evolution as fact. Even though there are over 2 million species of God's Creation available... most of Gould's study was done on snails. Again, one only has to look around at the incredible diversity in colors and designs in nature in order to begin to realize that... since cells and genes do not have "brains"... an Intelligent Designer was necessary to create all that is on the Earth... in the air... out in space... and under our feet:) Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/

[paulsword]

09:33 PM on 10/12/2011

NOTE: Nowhere did I say "creation" should be taught as a "religion".... or for the purpose of worship. We study the sun and the planets... which some people worship. Much of what we learn about them are "suppositions" and "theories":) Kids are not taught to "worship" them. Egyptian and Greek gods are taught in school... but not for the purpose of "establishing a religion":) The Bible, as a long time best seller, is a very important piece of literature... much more important than scores of works that are currently being taught. Many here are still confused over this issue. There is a current movement now in the courts that may very well result in the addition of "creation" as the alternative to the opposing belief... the "hypothesis of evolution":)

[UnderTheHedgeWeGo]

10:05 PM on 10/12/2011

Why not tells us that the courts will soon determine that pigs can fly?

[inthelandoftheblind]

08:36 PM on 10/13/2011

For those who wish to study religion, there are plenty of believers of each religion, who stand willing & eager to teach as they have been taught.We don't need to interject religious study into the public school systems.There simply is no need or reason.

I'd rather see music taught, which is enriching to the soul, while developing lifelong skills & appreciation for music, while enhancing brain & learning capacity, as well as personal & social development.Music also helps diverse types bridge the chasms of mindsets & life experience each student comes into this study with, via a universal, not at all divisive language or sorts, so has a very positive set of benefits to offer.

Religious teachings in public schools, on the other hand, would undoubtedly create conflicts aplenty - offending & disturbing students, causing discord, on a daily basis - no doubt, & situations no teacher, principal or parent would enjoy having to sort out, or have the qualifications to sort out.

[Maezeppa]

11:08 AM on 10/13/2011

*WARNING* The ICR is the place to go for propaganda and disinformation. Creationism/ID has been invalidated as a science for about 200 years, even before Darwin published. The ICR is a ministry that rakes in the dough selling propaganda tracts, trinkets, and bus tours of the Grand Canyon.

[jm26dream]

01:18 PM on 10/13/2011

I sense a trend: "anything I disagree with is propaganda and disinformation"

i wish atheists would post more links to support their arguments and I'll just respond the same way regardless just to be annoying.

[jm26dream]

08:01 PM on 10/12/2011

Thank goodness Dawkins never lost a religious debate and pretended it never happened