Good morning.
Wendy Wright?
Yes.
I'm Richard Dawkins.
Very kind of you to do this interview.
Yes.
Where should we go then?
Well, how's this?
Okay.
Concerned Women of America.
I've looked up...
For America, I do beg your pardon.
I've looked up some of the things you're concerned about, and one of them is
something I'm very concerned about too, which is Darwin and evolution.
But why are you concerned about evolution?
Yes.
Well, what a person believes about how human beings were created shapes what they
believe about human beings.
That if we believe that human beings were created out of love, that is, by a loving
creator, and has given each one of us not only a material body, but a spirit and a
soul, we then are more likely to treat other people with respect and dignity.
Yes, but you have to contend with facts, don't you?
And, I mean, if evolution is a scientific fact, you might as well be concerned about
gravity or the Milky Way, mightn't you?
Yes.
Well, there's been an effort within the scientific community to censor out
information against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many
scientists believe.
There have been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to
bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent.
What's an example of that?
So what we argue for is to teach the controversy.
Don't censor out the facts that go against evolution, such as the famous pig's tooth,
the tooth that was claimed to be an example of a prehistoric man and turned
out to just be the tooth of a pig.
There are numerous examples like that.
So teach the controversy rather than try and censor out the information that shows
that evolution is questionable.
Seriously, there isn't a controversy.
There may be a controversy within evolution about certain details,
but the fact of evolution is uncontroversial.
I mean, whether you like it or not, we're cousins of chimpanzees, we're
slightly more distant cousins of monkeys, etc.
I mean, pig's teeth are really irrelevant.
Of course you can dig up mistakes and even outright fraud.
I mean, the piltdown hoax was an outright fraud.
But that was never used as evidence for evolution.
It was just a particular case of somebody in the 1920s who fraudulently made up a
fossil.
There's no evidence of evolution from one species to another.
There's microevolution within a species, but not going from one species to another.
Oh, really?
And actually, the way you have framed this and your very closed-mindedness really is
a very good example of the kind of censorship we see within the scientific
community that won't even allow discussion about the controversy, that says that we
can't even discuss any evidence that might show that evolution is questionable.
Where did you study science?
Well, see, that's the point.
Scientists are now claiming that they're the only ones that can speak on this
issue.
And yet, when people who look at the evidence go to the Smithsonian Museum on
Natural History, and when we look for where's the evidence to show evolution
from one species to another, all we find are drawings, illustrations.
There aren't the actual material evidence showing it.
So, while there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this,
what we have are scientists that are then creating an isolated community and saying
that it's almost like a religion in which only scientists are allowed to speak and
teach on it and to teach everyone else.
Everyone else must believe what particular scientists say.
But the scientists who question evolution are being censored out or being
blackballed out of the scientific community and being told that the rest of
the world cannot listen to them.
Yeah.
The evidence is actually rather substantial.
It's not just fossils, you know.
I mean, it's DNA.
Presumably, you're not concerned about DNA.
You accept the existence of DNA.
Do you?
I think DNA helps to prove that each person is an individual created and as
distinct from one another.
If you look at the DNA of all animals and all plants, what you find is a beautifully
arranged hierarchy.
You find that our DNA is close to chimpanzees, slightly more distant from
monkeys, slightly more distant still from rats, slightly more distant still from
lizards.
The whole thing falls into a beautiful hierarchical pattern, just like a family
tree.
It is a family tree.
How would you explain that?
And where is the evidence?
Well, the evidence is in the DNA.
No, no, excuse me.
Where is the evidence of evolution from one species to another species,
the macroevolution?
Well, it's in the DNA.
It's in the DNA.
It's in the geographical distribution species.
What we're talking about are commonalities.
But again, where is the material evidence of evolution from one species to another
species?
Well, we obviously have a different conception of what evidence is.
Scientists accept that as evidence.
It's overwhelming, massive evidence.
But let me come on to something else.
It sounds to me as though you've got some kind of another agenda.
Is it perhaps that your hostility to evolution, which by the way is not shared
by bishops and archbishops and people like that, your hostility to evolution perhaps
stems from something emotional?
Like, I mean, is it that you feel that evolution...
I mean, I've heard people say, for example, tell me I'm related to a
monkey.
You know, I'm not related to a monkey.
Tell people they're related to monkeys and they'll behave like monkeys.
Tell people they're related to pond slime and they'll behave like pond slime.
Is part of that the hidden agenda behind your rejection of science?
There's no hostility and there's no hidden agenda.
We've been very up front with what it is we believe.
And the ad hominem attacks that people who favor evolution use against people who
don't buy into that, I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence.
If evolution had so much evidence behind it, then those in favor of evolution would
not have to be reduced to ad hominem attacks against those who say,
show us the evidence, show us what's lacking.
Well, I think I dispute ad hominem, but I think you could understand a certain
annoyance.
It's a little bit as though a teacher of classics...
I'm talking about education now in schools and universities.
Imagine that a teacher of Latin had to... or a teacher of Roman history had to
contend with people coming along and saying, the Romans never existed,
the Latin language is a Victorian invention designed to...
And I think that's a perfect example of the hostility that those who favor
evolution have toward those who don't buy into the idea, who say, show us the
evidence, and yet those in favor of evolution can't show us the evidence that
we're looking for.
I'm sorry, but we can show you the evidence.
All you need to do is read an elementary textbook of biology.
It's all there.
Well, that's interesting you should bring out the textbooks on biology.
We still have textbooks today that show...
Yeah, I know you're going to talk about peppered moths and you're going to talk
about Heckel's embryos.
No, no.
In fact, what I was going to talk about is what they claim to be the evolution of a
fetus in the womb based on hand drawings, which have been proven to be false,
and yet they continue to be published in scientific textbooks.
Heckel's embryos are just one little thing.
It's a Victorian thing.
Plenty of people made mistakes in Victorian...
And yet continues to be published in today's textbooks.
Well, no longer actually, but I don't think it's really fair, is it,
to pick on particular Victorian mistakes.
It is a Victorian mistake.
Oh, but it was carried over into the 20th century.
Yes, and that was a mistake and that's been corrected.
But look at the massive evidence that there is today.
I can't help feeling that there's some sort of hidden agenda.
Maybe I was wrong to say it was a thing about...
tell people that they're descended from monkeys and they'll behave like monkeys.
Is it something else?
I mean, is there some other worry that you have?
If you're looking for a so-called agenda, I'll tell you what it is.
We believe that human beings should be treated with respect and dignity.
And the reason we believe that...
Well, so do I, of course.
The reason we believe that is because we can see that God created each one of us.
And what we find is that philosophies that are built on evolution oftentimes lead to
horrific abuses against human beings.
And you can see why, because it's drawn on a foundation that says...
human beings are just material and they should be judged according to their
utilitarian use.
What can they provide for society?
We don't believe that.
We believe that each human being, whether they can supply something to
society or not, if they are disabled, if they are young, that they should be
treated with the same amount of respect as you and I should be treated.
Yes, I mean, I accept all that and I agree with that.
I mean, I also think humans should be treated with respect.
But what we have here is an agenda.
It's that you want humans to be treated with respect.
And therefore, if the scientific facts go against what your perception is,
then you're going to distort the scientific facts.
Now, why don't you instead accept the scientific facts and say, but we still
want to treat humans with respect.
Let's look at evolution and let's see that we can indeed treat humans with respect
within the evolution framework.
What I go back to is the evolutionists are still lacking the science to back it up.
But instead, what happens is science that doesn't bolster the case for evolution
gets censored out.
Such as, there is no evidence of evolution going from one species to another species.
If evolution had occurred, then surely, whether it's going from birds to mammals
or even beyond that, surely there'd be at least one evidence...
Yes, an impressive amount of evidence.
I'm sorry, but you people keep repeating that like a kind of mantra.
Because you just listen to each other.
I mean, if only you would just open your eyes and look at the evidence.
Show it to me.
Show me the bones.
Show me the carcass.
Show me the evidence of the in-between stage from one species to another.
Every time a fossil is found which is in between one species and another,
you guys say, ah, now we've got two gaps where previously there was only one.
I mean, almost every fossil you find is intermediate with something and something
else.
If that were the case, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum would be filled
with these examples.
But instead, they're not.
It is.
When we talk about intermediates between species, we're of course not talking about
intermediates between modern species.
We're not talking about intermediates between dogs and cats.
We're talking about intermediates between ancestral dogs and slightly more recent
ancestral dogs.
Now, in the case of humans, since Darwin's time, there's now an enormous amount of
evidence about intermediates in human fossils.
And we've got various species of Australopithecus, for example.
And these are, I mean, some Australopithecus are intermediate between
others and ourselves.
Then you've got Homo habilis, Homo erectus.
These are intermediate between Australopithecus, which was an older
species, and Homo sapiens, which is a younger species.
I mean, why don't you see those as intermediates?
Evolutionists bear the burden of providing the evidence for those of us who are not
scientists to see it.
And if the evolutionists had the actual evidence, then it would be displayed in
museums, not just in illustrations.
So what I go back to, though, I think there is a bit of a... there could be a
hidden agenda on the part of those in favor of Darwin.
In Darwin's own words, in which he claimed that there was a difference among the
races.
And that was then used to promote racism.
Yeah, that's Victorian.
Everybody in Victorian times was racist.
That is the foundation, though, those who are in favor of evolution often
refer back to Darwin.
And he is quite a hero of the evolutionist movement.
Well, he is a hero, but not with respect to racism.
I just told you about Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens.
By the way, archaic Homo sapiens and then modern Homo sapiens.
That's a beautiful series of intermediates.
You're still lacking the material evidence.
The material evidence is there.
Go to the museum and look at it.
So what I go back to again is let's look at what evolution and Darwinism has
spawned.
Let's look at the philosophies that have come out of it that have been so horrific
to our world.
So we need to look at the philosophies behind and that have grown out of
evolution.
What we find are the societies that are the most loving and caring.
The societies that are the most well-functioning are the ones that have a
great respect for human beings, for others.
Because they recognize that each human being was created individually and is
distinct from one another.
Interesting enough regarding that you mentioned how the DNA is common among
various species.
But among human beings, each one of us has distinct DNA.
In fact, that's one thing that scientists will use to determine who has committed a
crime is basing it on the DNA evidence.
So even DNA helps to show that each human being was created individually.
DNA shows that each human being evolved individually.
And of course there are individual differences between human beings,
genetic differences.
Otherwise natural selection couldn't happen.
Now I presented you with, I don't have them here obviously, but you can go to any
museum and you can see Australopithecus, you can see Homo habilis, you can see Homo
erectus, you can see archaic Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens.
A beautiful series of intermediates.
Why do you keep saying present me with the evidence when I've done so?
Go to the museum and look.
I have gone to the museums and so have so many of us who still are not convinced
with evolution.
Have you seen Homo erectus?
And I think this effort, this rather aggressive effort to try and talk over us
and to censor us seems to come out of a frustration that so many people still
don't believe in evolution.
Now if evolutionists were so confident in their beliefs, there wouldn't be the
effort to censor out information that shows that evolution is still lacking and
is questionable.
I confess to being frustrated.
It's not about suppression, it's about the fact that I have told you about four or
five fossils and you seem to simply be ignoring what I'm saying.
Why don't you go and look at those fossils?
And certainly if they were in the museums, which I've been to many times,
then I would look at them objectively.
But what I go back to is that the philosophy of evolution has led to
ideologies that have been so destructive to the human race.
It's been misunderstood.
I mean, even Hitler could be described as a misunderstanding of Darwinism and that's
a grotesque and horrible misunderstanding.
And those in favor of eugenicists, and those in favor of euthanasia,
and those in favor of infanticide.
But wouldn't it be a good idea, instead of pointing to misperceptions of
Darwinism, which have been hideously misused politically, if you try to
understand Darwinism, then you'd be in a position to counteract these horrible
misunderstandings.
Well, actually, we are oftentimes forced by the aggressiveness of those who favor
evolution.
It's not as if we are hidden from this information that you keep presenting.
It's not as if it's unknown to us, because we can't get away from it.
It's pushed on us all the time.
But I think your frustration comes from the fact that so many of us who have seen
your information still don't buy into your ideology.
Have you seen Homo erectus?
Have you seen Homo habilis?
Have you seen Australopithecus?
What I've seen is that in the museums and in the textbooks, that whenever they claim
to show the evolution from one species to another, it relies on illustrations and
drawings, not any material evidence.
You might have to go to the Nairobi Museum to see the original fossils, but you can
see casts of fossils, exact copies of these fossils, in any major museum.
Let me ask you, why are you so aggressive?
Why is it so important to you that everyone believe like you believe?
Well, I'm not talking about belief.
I'm talking about facts.
I'm talking about... I've told you about certain fossils.
And every time I ask you about them, you evade the question and you turn to
something else.
Again, I say that you can name a few of those, but they still don't show,
they still don't prove evolution from the slime to the intricate human body.
If we had gone from that broad of an evolution, there should be overwhelming
tons of material evidence, not just an isolated thing here and there.
But again, there is not evidence.
I happen to pick human hominid fossils because I thought you'd be most interested
in them.
But you can find similar fossils from any vertebrate group you care to name.
Of course, there are lots of...
But I guess I go back to, why is it so important to you that everyone believe in
evolution?
You seem to almost feel like it's dangerous for people to believe that human
beings were created individually and with a distinctness and created by a creator.
Why is that?
I don't like the word belief.
I prefer to just ask people to look at the evidence.
And I'm asking you to look at the evidence.
And I'm asking you, why does it seem so dangerous to you?
Why is it so important to you that people not believe in a creator?
No, that's not the point.
I mean, the point is that as a scientist, I'm concerned that children in American
schools and in schools elsewhere should be exposed to the evidence and allowed to
make up their minds about the evidence.
And we completely agree.
In fact, that's why the challenge in America, whenever this debate comes up,
is teach the controversy, teach the evidence.
Because as it is now, in many cases, school children are only being taught
about evolution.
They're not being taught about the frauds in evolution and the lack of evidence in
evolution.
So it's actually us who are arguing for teaching all the evidence, not just the
ones that are favorable to evolutionists.
Well, you could say which controversy.
I mean, there are, of course, other creation stories than Genesis.
Do you believe that the world is young, for example?
Do you believe the world is less than 10,000 years old?
Well, I believe that God created the world.
And the time frame, it can be unknown.
As we look in the Bible, it's hard to know what a day, the length of time that might
mean in that context.
So when I go back to those, the human being, because that's what I think we
really care about, are human beings.
And are human beings created through the loving touch of a creator or just came out
of slime?
Well, if you were to talk to a bishop, the bishop would probably say,
yes, human beings were created by a loving creator, but he used evolution in order to
do it.
I mean, that would be the position of the archbishop of Canterbury.
And that does show that there's a variety of opinions across the board among those
who may not buy completely into the hardcore ideas of evolution.
There are those who believe in different levels of evolution within creation.
And that really shows kind of a creative independence within our movement that
seems to be a bit lacking among those who believe in evolution and only evolution.
But as I've just told you, there are bishops who believe in evolution.
Just about all bishops believe in evolution.
You would have to clarify what denomination of bishops to say a broad
term like that.
Let's say the ones I'm familiar with are Anglican and Catholic.
But that's okay.
I mean, there are certainly lots of very, very senior church people who do believe
in evolution.
And so there is a broad... I mean, there are those and there are others who
are not bishops but who are scientists or also Christian or also Jews and who
believe in evolution but who think that the idea of God kind of intervening in
this sort of conjuring trick way is rather blasphemous.
I mean, I know evolutionist colleagues who are also devout Christians who think that
it's to the greater glory of God to study the way science actually is rather than to
try to bring God in as a kind of magician who kind of, you know, waves a wand and
things happen.
It's rather demeaning to God.
And that is a misinterpretation, misframing of what we believe.
We believe that God can and does intervene throughout history and in life.
And we see that as like a loving father that's involved in his family and his
children.
It's not that the father is dictating everything to his children, what they can
and cannot do.
As a Christian, I believe in free will, that God created us with the ability to
make our own decisions.
Some of those decisions are bad decisions, some are good.
And so to say that God intervenes in our lives, even in the creation, well,
perhaps even especially in the creation of our life, is reflecting a belief in a very
loving God.
Yes.
And there are others who say that God set up the laws of physics, the laws of the
universe.
He did it in such a cunning way that when the time came, evolution got going and
eventually produced us.
Isn't that a rather grand and noble vision of God?
It is.
And in fact, we believe that as well.
We believe that science is unlocking the mysteries of the laws put in place by God.
That God created this earth with certain laws, like the law of gravity,
to allow it to function.
And that science is actually discovering and unlocking the secrets of the laws that
God put in place.
Among which are evolution, which follows from the laws of chemistry and physics
under the right conditions.
And that could be the working out of God's purpose, couldn't it?
Couldn't evolution be the working out of God's purpose?
And there are many people who do believe that God does use a form of creation where
evolution is a part of that.
There are many people who do believe that God intervenes in this world and uses
various laws like gravity or progression to create a more stable world,
a better world.
So, I don't think that there is much... I don't think that there should be as much
dissension between our camps.
That we can come to respect one another.
In fact, we do.
We respect evolutionists for their beliefs.
What we would hope is that there would be as much respect on the evolutionist part
toward us so that we could have a dialogue without being reduced to ad hominem tax
and accusing others of having hidden, secret, hostile agendas.
I don't want to be respected for my beliefs.
I want you to respect the facts.
I want you to look at the facts.
Don't respect me.
I don't want respect.
I want you to go to museums and look at the facts.
And don't believe what you've been told that there is no evidence.
Just go and look at the evidence.
Yes, and what I would say...
I've told you about hominid fossils.
You can go and look at the evolution of the horse.
You can go and look at the evolution of the early mammals.
You can go and look at the evolution of fish.
You can go and look at the transition from fish to land-living amphibians and
reptiles.
Any of those things you'll find in any good museum.
Just open your eyes and look at the facts.
And I would say open your eyes and see the communities that have been built by those
who believe in a loving God who created each one of us.
And what I find is that that is the kind of world that most of us would want to
live in.
One in which there is a deep respect for other human beings because they are
created by a loving God.
However that creation came about, you can have your beliefs, we can have our
beliefs.
And both can be based on evidence, even the same evidence.
But I think fundamentally where our differences come down to is whether there
was a creator or whether there was not a creator.
I liked one phrase you used there.
You talked about the sort of society in which we wish to live.
And I'll tell you quite freely that a society based upon Darwinian principles is
exactly the sort of society I do not wish to live in.
It would be a terrible society.
It would be a sort of George Bush kind of society, if I can put it like that,
or Margaret Thatcher kind of society.
I do not wish to live in a Darwinian world.
I do, however, respect facts.
And I do recognize that the facts of science show that the world of nature is a
Darwinian world.
It's a very unpleasant world.
It's a thoroughly unpleasant world.
Not the kind of world we wish to live in.
So let us understand it so that we can construct the kind of society in which we
wish to live, which will be a non-Darwinian society.
It will be the sort of society which departs from Darwinian principles.
A society that was based on Darwinian principles would be a ruthless,
free-market economy in which the rich trample the poor, in which it would be the
sort of opposite of a liberal socialist society, in fact.
In a way, I'm rather surprised, if we're talking politics, that the
right-wing in America is so hostile to Darwin.
If we're going to be naive about applying science to politics, you ought to be in
favor of Darwin.
I'm against Darwin where politics is concerned, but you cannot argue with
scientific facts.
You actually helped to make my case quite well, and that is that a philosophy that
is drawn out of Darwinism would be extremely brutal.
And, in fact, has been.
That has been the experience.
I've just said that.
I've agreed with that.
And that's why the societies that have been built on a viewpoint that God created
each one of us, however He did it, that's part of the science of unlocking,
of discovering how that was done.
But recognizing that there is a loving Creator helps to build a society that is
more than just livable, but pleasant.
At Concerned Women for America, we have state chapters and even more local
chapters.
And one of the things they've been involved in is the debate over teaching
evolution or intelligent design in the schoolrooms.
And the position we've taken is teach the controversy.
Teach all the information, not just selected information that promotes one
viewpoint, which most of the time, that's evolution.
But let's teach all the information so that the schoolchildren can learn how to
think for themselves and come up to their own conclusions.
Nobody could possibly object to teaching children to think for themselves.
I wish that were the case, that people would not object to teaching all the
information or teaching children in a manner so they can think for themselves.
But sadly, there's been a very heavy-handed effort in the United States
to clamp down, not allow any teaching that is contrary to evolution, even to the
point of court orders.
When you say teach the controversy, it would be nice.
I mean, of course, scientists teach controversies all the time.
There's a lot of controversy in science.
There's evidence on one side, there's evidence on the other side.
In this case, however, we have a very large amount of evidence in favor of
evolution.
But the evidence on the other side is not evidence in favor of anything else.
It's actually looking for little gaps, looking for little things that allegedly
evolution can't explain.
Look, we found something they can't explain.
That must mean God did it.
That doesn't sound like science, does it?
That sounds like looking for gaps.
If it's evidence, then scientists should be in favor of teaching evidence,
even if they may discount the evidence, even if they think it's inconsequential.
As a scientist, scientists should be committed to teaching truth.
Yes, but I think you didn't understand what I said.
I said on the one side, there is evidence.
On the other side, there is a looking for apparent lack of evidence.
There is no positive evidence.
But that is what science is about.
Science is taking a theory and challenging it to see if it can stand up.
That's right.
And so, while people may not like when the evidence doesn't stand up to further
testing, but that's what science is about.
Yes, well, that is what science is about, but there are no cases, known to me at
least, where science... where it doesn't stand up.
There are cases where work needs to be done, and of course, science flourishes on
finding places where more work needs to be done.
That's how science advances.
As you mentioned, what's known to you.
And I think that's why we need a variety of people looking at theories and
challenging it.
Because if it's one person who's dictating what can be challenged or can't,
or what evidence is substantial or not, then we have a dictatorship.
In science, scientists should be free to challenge theories and not be hemmed in,
not be restricted by the current zeitgeist of those who are almost the high priests
of science of that day.
Well, that of course is right.
I mean, I agree with that.
But can you point to any positive scientific evidence in favor of creation?
I think the fact, as you pointed out, DNA.
I think DNA helps to show that each one of us are individuals.
Yes, but they have to be individuals for evolution to work.
I don't think that's the case.
I think that the fact that each one of us are distinct, that no two of us are
exactly alike, that that helps to show that there is some intervention at the
point of each person's creation.
Do you know about the Darwinian theory, that it's about individual variation being
selected?
There has to be individual variation or Darwinism wouldn't work.
What also seems to be shown in the scientific evidence is that mutations die
out.
And we don't have good evidence of positive mutations being the ones that are
then built on.
Because if they're a mutation, they're alone.
So in order for something to rise up and have more of it, you need to have a good
base to choose from.
For example, a recessive gene in a person.
Both parents may have brown eyes, and yet a child may have blue eyes.
And that's because there's enough of the gene in their ancestors to have brought
out that recessive gene.
And that's evidence against evolution.
I think that shows, that helps to show the individual nature of each person.
That God created us with genes, with DNA, and that He'll even use that to
show His creative element in each person.
The fact that you can have two people, a man and a woman, could have 13 children,
16 children, and each one is completely distinct from one another.
That shows that even though they came from a common parentage, that yet there's still
a creative element for each one of those human beings.
Do you actually know what Darwin's theory of natural selection is?
I think I know enough, because it gets pounded into us by those who simply won't
allow for other information.
I won't do any pounding, but just let me tell you what it is.
There is individual variation.
Every individual, apart from monozygotic twins, is different from every other
individual.
That's absolutely fundamental to the Darwinian theory.
Now what happens is that among that variety of individuals, some survive
better than others, some reproduce better than others.
That's how we get evolution.
You couldn't have evolution unless there was individual variation.
You must not keep thinking that because there's individual variation, that's
somehow evidence against evolution.
So I come back to you, and why do you reject the idea that there is a creator
who's involved in the creation of human beings, whether it was the initial
creation and then he left, or is involved in the creation of each human being who's
ever lived on earth?
As I've said, there are plenty of ways in which God could be involved in creation of
the universe, in creation of life, but Darwinian natural selection demands
individual variation.
That's why you must stop using individual variation as evidence against evolution.
It's evidence for evolution.
Once I was going through the Smithsonian Natural History Museum with dear relatives
of mine, and one of them was a severely handicapped little girl who can't do
anything for herself.
She can't talk, she can't walk, she can't feed herself, she can barely sit
up.
And when a person, one of the people I was with, turned to me and said, do you
believe in evolution?
And I said, I think this little girl is a perfect example of why evolution is wrong.
Because here's someone who cannot take care of herself, and yet she has a spirit.
She's not just a material being.
And that's one difference I find between the ideology of Darwinism and evolution,
and those who believe in a loving God, is the idea of a spirit and a soul that is
not material.
And it's something that makes us distinct from animals.
Do you think that children should be taught critical thinking at school?
In fact, what we argue for is that children should be taught evidence so that
they can decide for themselves, so they can figure out for themselves what
is truth.
Right.
Do you understand what I was saying when I was explaining about natural selection
requiring individual variation?
I do.
But I also come back, and I haven't heard you answer, whether you have a problem
with this idea of God being involved in the creation of each individual human
being, not just perhaps being the one that got it all started.
Well, I do have a problem with that, because I've seen the evidence,
and I know that individual variation comes from genetics, it comes from DNA,
and I know where it comes from, and it's a very well-worked-out story,
it's in every textbook.
I mean, we differ because we have different genes.
Do you believe in a spirit or a soul?
I believe in a spirit or a soul in the sense of my own consciousness,
which is a manifestation of my neurons and my brain physiology.
I don't believe I have an immortal soul, no, but that's my personal belief.
And what about a disabled person who is severely mentally disabled and is not able
to make choices?
Do they have a spirit or are they a human being?
They're a human being.
They belong to the species Homo sapiens.
Their ancestry is Homo sapiens, so of course they're human beings,
yes.
And do they have a spirit or a soul?
It's not a meaningful word.
They have a spirit or a soul in just the same sense as I have, but I only have a
spirit or a soul in a very much different meaning than your meaning.
The way I understood you to say it, it's because of your conscious,
or even your consciousness, which would be different things.
But for someone, though, who is not capable of making decisions, do they have
a spirit or a soul?
Well, if you mean somebody whose brain is so disabled that they have no
consciousness at all, then they have no consciousness.
I've answered your question.
Well, no, because a spirit or a soul is different.
That's your word.
It's not a word that I acknowledge or recognize as a meaningful word.
From what I understand you're saying, then, if someone does not have the ability
to be conscious, then they would not have a spirit or soul.
A human placenta is a genetical identical twin to the baby that it nourished.
I don't think either of us would wish to say that it has a spirit or a soul,
because it doesn't have a brain.
So, if only a being that has a material... well, let me back up on that.
It's the material, the matter, the brain, or the consciousness.
Well, let me back up, because those are two separate things.
I guess I'm confused in what you're saying, that a brain means you have a
soul.
A consciousness means you have a soul.
But someone whose brain is not functioning, would they then not have a
soul?
Someone who didn't have a brain that was capable of consciousness, somebody who was
a human vegetable in effect, would not have the properties that you call a soul,
and that I might call a soul for the sake of argument.
But I don't think it's immortal.
That's the main difference between us.
And I think that's very key, because that then would work out in how you and I,
or someone who believes like you do and someone who believes like I do,
would treat someone who is in what's been called a very... I think it's a horrible
term, but a vegetative state.
That we would still treat that human being as a person who's deserving of loving
respect, that should be fed and cared for, even though they can't for themselves.
How would you treat a chimpanzee who was in full command of her faculties?
Yes, and that's where we would differ.
We believe that human beings have souls, have spirits, and that animals should
absolutely are cared for.
That's a great teaching that comes from our beliefs, that we care for animals.
But we recognize that there's a difference between animals and humans, and one of the
differences is a spirit.
Wendy, you use the word we quite often for people who think like you, so would it be
right that the CWA is part of a sort of wider constituency within America?
Yes, we represent 500,000 ourselves, but that's just a drop in the bucket of
the number of people who believe similarly.
And we find that as these challenges come up, say in school districts, that there
are a number of parents and families and communities who will rise up in concern
over the fact that only evolution is allowed to be taught, and not the
questioning of evolution.
So it's quite widespread in the United States.
The belief that human beings are distinct is a widespread belief in the United
States.
And that's remarkable because evolution has been so heavily taught in the last
number of decades, and the fact that it's being taught so strongly and isolated from
other information or evidence, and yet many people continue to believe
that God has a hand in creating us, I think helps to show that people are
using their critical factories.
They're not just believing what's being taught in the schools.
And that evolutionism is going to continue to have a bit of a challenge here in the
United States and beyond.
I've been reading your website, and I get the feeling there's almost a
feeling of sort of persecution.
I mean, as though somehow you feel that the establishment in the United States is
against Christianity.
That puzzles me a bit because, I mean, you've got the White House,
you've got the Supreme Court, you've got... well, you've had both houses of
Congress until quite recently.
How can you feel persecuted in the face of this overwhelming Christian dominance in
the United States?
Many Christians have experienced the hostility toward our beliefs, but beyond
hostility, the attempts to even censor and punish us for our beliefs.
And the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, that we must continue to fight
for our freedom in order to have it.
And even though some may believe that the three branches of government reflect our
views, that's not necessarily the case.
But let me give you my own experiences.
A number of years ago, I was praying in public across the street from an abortion
clinic and was sentenced to six months in jail for simply praying.
It's these kinds of experiences...
Excuse me, you were sentenced to six months in jail for praying?
For praying.
Could we get a bit more detail about that?
Sure.
A judge had signed an injunction stating that certain things could not be done
within 100 feet of abortion clinics in that city in Houston.
And so four of us knelt and prayed across the street from the clinic and the judge
sentenced us to six months in jail and a $500 fine.
What law was that?
It was an injunction.
And an injunction is essentially a judge-made law.
It only applies to certain people.
I was not named on the injunction and yet the judge found me guilty of it.
Thankfully, she was overturned by a higher court.
But there are experiences like that throughout the United States where certain
people are told and punished for acting out their beliefs.
And it's those kinds of cases that make us very sensitive to protecting all of our
liberties.
I kind of have a feeling the context must have been... had that abortion clinic been
threatened with firebombing or anything like that?
No, it had not.
There were protests that were going on during that time.
Now, the abortion clinic had argued to the judge that women would be intimidated from
coming into the clinic if there were protesters outside.
Well, at the same time that four of us were quietly kneeling in prayer with no
signs or anything like that, there were about a hundred pro-abortion demonstrators
in front of the clinic blocking the entrance, screaming and yelling with signs
and bullhorns.
But it was those of us who were quietly kneeling in prayer who were sentenced to
six months in jail.
So I think maybe you can understand then why we are so sensitive to wanting to
protect our religious freedoms and the ability to act on our consciences because
we do have cases like this where people have been punished for acting on their
beliefs.
Yes, I can't comment on a particular anecdote like that, of course.
I just want to come back one more time to the idea of teaching the controversy.
In science we are well used to controversy and we have controversy all the time.
Since Darwin's time, plenty of things that Darwin thought have now been shown to be
wrong.
I mean, Darwin was completely wrong about genetics, for example.
And so there are modern controversies in Darwinism.
There are controversies between people who think that natural selection is all
important in driving evolution.
And there are people who think that natural selection is only part of it and
that there are other things that drive evolution.
Nobody seriously doubts the fact of evolution, but there are controversies
about whether evolution is largely driven by natural selection or only partly driven
by natural selection, for example.
There are controversies about whether evolution goes smoothly and continuously
or whether it goes in jumps, whether there are sort of long periods where not much
evolution happens.
And then a rather sudden burst of evolution, which represent a kind of step
in the fossil record.
Those are genuine controversies and of course it's extremely right and proper
that children should be taught those controversies.
But when you say teach the controversy, by which I think you mean the controversy
between science on the one hand and probably biblical creation on the other,
there are lots and lots of creation myths.
I mean, the Genesis myth just happens to be the Babylonian Jewish myth,
which for historical accident reasons is largely prevalent in the United States.
But I mean, why not teach the Hindu myth that we're the product of a cosmic butter
churn or an Australian aboriginal myth that we come from the green time?
Why pick on the Judeo-Christian Babylonian myth?
Well, we have argued when we say teach the controversies, teach the controversies in
evolution and to teach the evidence that shows intelligent design.
I'm not aware of people arguing that in public schools it ought to be taught the
biblical accounts of creation.
So when we say teach the controversy, we mean teach all the evidence,
including the evidence that goes against evolution, teach the evidence for
intelligent design.
Who do you think the intelligent designer was?
Well, see, that's something that I think scientists can debate.
But the idea that there was an intelligent design to the process.
In fact, what you've mentioned regarding even natural selection and that there
could be somebody or something that put all these laws in place that now the world
is operating off of, does back up this idea that there was a being, an
intelligent being, that caused all this, the whole world, to happen.
Yes.
I mean, that's what a bishop might say.
I wouldn't say that, but there are plenty of Christians who would say that.
Wouldn't your life be a lot easier if you went along with the bishops and said the
evidence in favor of the fact of evolution is overwhelming, so let's accept it and
bring God in there?
I think one issue is this idea that we take orders from a hierarchy.
Okay, no, that's fair.
And there are some bishops that believe like you do and there are other bishops
that don't, that believe differently.
And so it's easy to select those who believe like you do and rely wholly as if
they speak for everyone.
Yes.
But those bishops don't speak for all Christian leaders.
I mean, I accept that and I would hate to suggest that you take orders from
authority.
I do want you to look at the facts a bit more, though.
I mean, they are actually very interesting.
I mean, you'd be fascinated.
Just read a book.
Yes, I think, well, I find that to be quite demeaning to claim that we don't
read, that we don't read books or that we don't know what evolution is, when in fact
most of us have been through the museums that you and your folks have put together.
Yes.
It probably would be helpful to the dialogue if the evolutionists were not so
demeaning and degrading to others.
And again, I kind of go back to perhaps that comes out of the philosophy of
evolution, that some people are better than others.
You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution and I told you
about five fossils.
And what I say, if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence.
There is.
Because there are so many different species that there ought to be tons of
evidence.
Even, let's say, for one percent of the macro evolution that's taken place,
there should be evidence.
But there's not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.
There is a massive amount of evidence.
You just need to go into the books and go into the museums and look at it.
It's there.
You're believing in people who are telling you there's only one percent.
And again, I go back to, it's very demeaning to say that we only believe what
we believe because we've been told that.
And yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of
society what is fact and what's not fact and to censor out information that is
inconvenient.
I'm asking you to go look at the facts.
I don't want you to believe me.
Just go look at the facts.
Yes, and I have.
And again, I go back to, let's look at the differences of what your philosophy lives
out, the evolutionary philosophy, and how does that end up working out in a
society.
I've accepted that if we worked out society on Darwinian grounds, it would be
a very, very unpleasant right-wing society.
I've accepted that.
Well, I don't know right-wing.
Again, it seems to be that you fall back on ad hominem, name-calling.
All right, then, free market.
Free market.
Ruthless trampling on the poor.
That's what it would be like.
What I find interesting, though, is...
We don't want a Darwinian society.
I don't want a Darwinian society.
Communism was based on atheistic beliefs and evolutionary beliefs, and communism
resulted in a decade that had more deaths, over 100 million deaths committed because
of communism, than all the killings combined of every century prior to that.
So, when you talk about socialism, which is a close cousin to communism,
being a better way of life, I look back on what beliefs was communism and socialism
based on, and the atheistic belief that human beings are not distinct and should
not be respected.
When you say distinct, do you mean distinct from each other, or do you mean
when human beings are not distinct from each other?
That human beings are created as distinct from one another and should be treated
with respect, even if they are not utilitarian, even if they are not able to
provide something to society.
The atheistic belief, the evolutionary belief, is that you're unnecessary and
unneeded if you cannot provide something for society.
Ah, that's an extraordinary thing to say.
I mean, you equated atheistic with evolutionary.
That means that's wiping out most of the bishops.
They wouldn't take very kindly to that.
I know not all bishops do.
Well, and I recognize that there are varying degrees within the evolutionary
beliefs.
It's the hardcore evolutionists that reject the idea of a creator, that then
pave the foundation for very brutal societies.
Well, I have accepted that if we were to base our societies on Darwinian
principles, they would be brutal, harsh, and unpleasant.
I have told you that I want not to live in a Darwinian society.
I've suggested to you that it might be a good idea to learn something about
Darwinism so as to know what to avoid in setting up society.
And it would be helpful to learn what are the characteristics that make a successful
and healthy society.
And let's build on those characteristics.
I agree with that.
And among those characteristics would be critical thinking, a respect for
education, a respect for evidence...
And respect for human beings.
And a respect for human beings, very much so.
Regardless of whether they can provide for society or provide something to society.
Yes, indeed.
That's the essence of the liberal philosophy which I espouse.
That human beings should be respected, their health should be taken care of...
Even if they don't have a functioning brain that is conscious.
Yes.
Their hospital care should be taken care of by the state.
That's a liberal principle which I espouse.
It's an un-Darwinian principle.
See, I believe that it's not a state, because a state is an institution or an
entity.
It's human beings that provide care for others.
Well, okay, human beings provide care for others.
None of that bears on the truth of whether evolution actually happened.
And that is a matter of fact.
It's like gravity.
You can't get away from fact.
Study the fact.
Learn the facts.
And then make up the society that you want to live in on the basis of the facts as
they are.
And the facts that would include what makes a better society is one where there
is deep respect for each human being.
And all for deep respect for each human being.
And the way to inculcate respect for human beings is by seeing that they were created
by a loving creator.
Would you actually distort the scientific fact in order to create respect for human
beings?
There's no need to distort, because as I mentioned, science is a technique,
a tactic, for discovering and unlocking the keys of how this world works.
And so we don't need to deny any facts, because the facts end up bearing out our
beliefs.
Sometimes it takes time for science to catch up with the beliefs that have made
the best societies.
Sometimes it takes a while for science to stumble across something and take the
wrong interpretation from it and build a philosophy on it.
And then later realize, oops, that wasn't correct.
So science oftentimes changes its own beliefs based on new evidence that comes
forward.
But oftentimes what ends up happening is, as science progresses, it backs up the
belief that there's an intelligent designer.
Science proceeds by what the philosopher Karl Popper called conjectures and
refutations.
You have an idea, you have a hypothesis, and then you see if you can refute it.
And a theory, a well-substantiated theory, is always one that has yet to be refuted.
So the more a theory has been attempted to be refuted and has yet to come through
with flying colors, the more accepted it is.
And after a point, de facto, it gets called a fact.
The theory that the Earth goes around the Sun is only a theory.
It's only a theory, but it's never been refuted, and we all know it never will be
refuted.
That's how science proceeds.
It's conjecture and refutation.
That's the state that evolution is in.
It's a bit like the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun.
It is only a theory, but to a scientist that can mean, in this case does mean,
that it's never been refuted.
And the more it goes on from decade to decade to decade and is not refuted,
the more closely does it approximate to what everybody calls a fact.
Then evolutionists should have no problem with there being questioning of it and
challenging of it and to be willing to teach the challenges to it.
To be willing to talk about the evidence against it.
And that's where I find the hardcore evolutionists have a bit of a problem.
It's like an oak tree in a storm.
Because it is so rigid, it's more likely to then fall and break.
Whereas those that are more open to being challenged can then bend with the facts
that come forward.
So that's why what many of us in the United States are arguing for,
teach the controversies in the schools.
Allow the information that shows the flaws in evolution to be taught.
Don't blackball scientists who may not agree wholeheartedly with the hardcore
version of evolution to be blackballed out of the profession.
Allow people to have enough respect for people to allow them to have all the
information so they can make up their own minds.
It's a difficult question, this thing about blackballing.
It's a nasty idea to blackball, of course.
What about somebody who's teaching geography, who believes in the flat earth?
Would you blackball them?
Well, always extreme cases are used.
That's not what we're facing here in the United States.
What we're facing are scientists who may not agree wholeheartedly with the hardcore
view of evolution.
Who do believe in intelligence design.
They're being denied their careers.
So it's better to argue from the facts of what's happening rather than some
hypothetical.
Okay.
Let's take intelligent design.
I mean, the leading intelligent design proponents in this country believe in
evolution.
They believe that we're cousins of chimpanzees, we're cousins of kangaroos,
etc.
But what they don't believe is that God is completely absent from the process.
So they believe in evolution, but they believe that God, as it were, helped
evolution over the difficult jumps.
There are some things that they call irreducibly complex, and scientists
dispute that they're irreducibly complex.
But the point is they do believe in evolution.
They do believe that we're descended from reptiles, for example.
It's just that they think that God helped over certain of the difficult stages.
So it would be wonderful to interview them and let them speak themselves,
present their information and their evidence.
Yes.
And to show that there are a variety of views.
And that's why the hardcore evolutionists should not have a monopoly on what is
allowed to be discussed or researched in science.
Would you accept... well, nobody's going to make any restriction on what you're
allowed to research, of course.
Well, that's done, of course, through funding, through grants, through positions
at universities.
There are ways to restrict what can and can't be researched.
Yes, funding of scientific research is always a problem, and all scientists have
a time when they grumble about not getting funding.
You're competing in a marketplace, and the NSF and other grant-giving bodies
have to give money where peer review suggests it's going to be most useful.
That is definitely a problem, of course.
Would you accept that what you call teaching the controversy should be done in
classes of religion or classes of history of ideas, rather than classes of science?
Teaching the controversy refers to teaching the evidence and the facts that
dispute evolution.
So it should be taught in the science classes because it's teaching evidence.
Yes, I mean, when I asked you about evidence, you said there are no fossil
intermediates.
And when I told you about fossil intermediates, you changed the subject.
No, when I don't change the subject, what I say is that if there had been
evolution from slime to human beings, there would be a massive amount of
evidence showing interspecies, from one macrospecies to another.
And that's where I find the concept of evolution lacking.
And so the burden really is on the evolutionists.
Oftentimes it's been thrown back at us that we just need to look at the
information.
But no, but let me throw it back on you all to say, look, this is what's needed to
convince us.
So you need to come up with a large amount of evidence to back up this claim that
there's been a large progression of macroevolution throughout the years.
Yes.
How are we going to make you look at it, though?
Because, I mean, I told you...
Well, no, no, no, we look at it.
We look at it.
Again, when I go back to...
It's easy to blame the other person and to blame by saying that we're ignorant.
But what I'm saying to you is, if there were enough evidence,
it would convince even...
It will convince those who are open to the information.
There's such a vast number of people in the United States and elsewhere who do
believe in an intelligent design, that there is a creator.
If there was a vast amount of evidence, solid evidence, to back up evolution,
that would influence a significant number of the vast number of people who believe
in intelligent design.
That sends me close to despair, because the evidence is there.
I mean, I keep telling you about it.
Just let me tell you some of it.
There is evidence from, for example, the transition from fish coming out of the
water onto the land.
It's beautiful evidence.
It's elegant.
I mean, they're lovely fossils.
Go to Philadelphia and have a look at the wonderful fossil they've got there.
I'm sure they have replicas in the Smithsonian here.
Just look at that evidence.
It's beautiful.
The evidence for the transition between the reptilian jaw and the mammalian jaw.
The reptilian jaw has several bones.
The mammalian lower jaw has only one bone.
And the other bones that were in the reptile have now moved into the inner ear.
It's a beautiful transition.
So what is your cause in life?
I would think that if your cause was to convince others that evolution is correct,
not just a theory but a fact, then you'd be devoting yourself to finding this
information and making it readily available.
What I find is that you're spending a lot of time arguing with me, trying to
convince me, instead of showing the evidence or spending your time producing
evidence.
Was I not just telling you about fish that are intermediate between the sea?
But again, what I go back to is if there was a large enough amount of evidence,
which there should be, if we have gone from slime to human beings, there should
be an overwhelming amount of evidence, not these isolated cases that could be
interpreted differently.
One problem that evolutionists have is that in the past, when there's been great
acclaim of a discovery to show from one species to another, it's been proven to be
fraudulent.
So evolutionists have a problem in their own history.
The fact that there have been so many cases of fraud or misinterpretation of
information that now we have a problem believing what you say.
There was the Piltdown Man in the 1920s.
I suggest we forget about the 1920s and look at today.
Go and look at some modern paleontology labs.
Go and talk to some modern paleontologists.
Go and talk to the people who are looking at the transition from fish to amphibians.
Go and look at the fossils about the human transition.
Look at the evolution of the horse.
Look at the evolution of the elephant.
Look at the evolution of the whale.
There are so many beautiful stories.
I mean, you would be fascinated.
You would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God.
So, would it make you happy if we were to agree that there is some evidence
regarding macroevolution?
Would that alone make you happy or would you still be unhappy and feel that your
cause is unsuccessful if many of us still believe that there is an intelligent being
who caused this to happen?
It would make me enormously happy.
I would love it.
If you said, yes, yes, yes, evolution is obviously a fact.
I accept evolution, but God did it.
I mean, I wouldn't agree with that, but it would make me hugely happy.
At least you looked at the evidence.
And I don't understand why that's so important to you, that I believe exactly
like you believe.
No, no.
It's not important to me.
I am an educator.
I'm a scientist.
I'm a university professor.
I teach.
I love it when people see the beauty of nature, the beauty of evidence,
and just look at it and appreciate how elegant it is.
It really is beautiful.
Look at it.
And what is the danger in believing in an intelligent designer?
I don't think that's a danger.
As an atheist, which I am, a very strong atheist, I have a quite separate agenda.
That is an agenda, but it's not my agenda as a science educator.
I'm now talking purely as a scientist and a science educator.
And I am distressed that somebody as intelligent as you is refusing to look at
the evidence.
And what is your agenda as an atheist?
Because that is going to influence the work that you do.
Well, I like to think it's not, actually, but whatever I might say about
that...
I've done another television program about that, and I was a very strong atheist in
that program.
This program is about Darwin, and there are many Darwinians who are not atheists,
and all I'm talking about now is the factual evidence.
And I'm suggesting to you that you might do a better job for your religion if you
would open your mind to the factual evidence and realize that actually you
could use the genuine scientific factual evidence to the greater glory of your God,
rather than running away from the evidence.
But again, that's where we differ.
We don't believe we are running away from the evidence.
And what we are seeking to do is to help people to understand who God is,
that He's a loving God.
And part of His love toward us is that He created us, the fact that He wanted us to
exist.
Maybe He did it via evolution, though.
And helping people to understand that there's a God who has created order in
this universe, and that there are certain, as you've mentioned, laws in this
universe.
That even includes moral laws, moral laws of how we are to treat one
another.
Then, the work that we're working toward is helping people to understand these
moral laws and live according to these moral laws, because not only will they
benefit living healthier and happier lives, but our society will as well.
And so, each of the work that we do through Concerned Women for America is
toward that end.
Now, you have your own cause.
You're going to devote your life to that.
And I would hope that you could respect and appreciate the work that we're doing
to help make society a better place by helping people to understand the moral
laws not only exist, but they're the best for each one of us and as a society.
And you can go to sleep at night happy, hopefully, knowing that we're being
successful in our work, because it will make a better society, one that Darwin's
beliefs would not have made.
Yes, well, I've gone into that, haven't I?
I agree with you that Darwinian beliefs would not make for a good society.
I've said they'll make for a bad society.
And what's lacking, as you've mentioned, what's lacking in Darwin needs to be made
up with somewhere else.
The fact that Darwinian would lead to such a harsh and brutal life means that there's
a great need for other people to be making this world a better place.
And that's what we're working on.
And even though I may not agree like you do, hopefully you can appreciate the work
that we're doing to make society a better place.