Richard Dawkins Vs. Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete)

Ok, Challenge time!

I made it to 17.37. The look on Dawkins mirrored the feeling I was having. The interviewee is just all new kinds of stupid.

Really guys, give this a watch and post your times, don't lie now :P see how far you can make it :P

Views: 258

Comment by David Smith on January 7, 2014 at 1:13am

oh, forgot to say, if you take this challenge up, no pauses!  You cant go watch a few hitchslaps and then come back to it.  I'l be very impressed if anyone makes the full hour or so without having to stop, you have no idea how circular this girls argument it.

So, Time to beat 17.37

Comment by Karen Hardy on January 7, 2014 at 5:24pm
If we are all wrong and there is a hell; then listening to this on a permanent loop for all eternity would probably be our torment. How Richard Dawkins remained so calm is amazing - not sure I could have met such certain ignorance with such charm.
Comment by David Smith on January 8, 2014 at 12:46am

You know, I think thats spot on.  He probably wasn't trying to have a proper conversation with her, but tying to show us what having conversations with people like that is like.  Don't tell me you all managed to watch that start to finish tho? lol, I'm so sorry for posting that :P

Comment by MikeLong on January 8, 2014 at 10:01am

Watched the Wendy video many months ago. You are certainly a resolute individual to have made it to over 17 minutes. I'm not about to repeat my attempt but I'm certain I would not have made it to double digits before my audible screams prompted me to hit the stop button.

Comment by David Smith on January 8, 2014 at 10:44am

yes, it is a real challenge.  I felt like smashing my head off the wall even to get that far.  I linked it to a friend, he said he watched it the full way through.  I cant see how its possible, listening to that woman must kill more brain cells than drinking absinthe by the bucket!

Comment by Facts Before Faith on January 8, 2014 at 1:29pm

Such an infuriating video to watch. Simply denying that the transitional fossils are in museums is silly. It would be like someone who denies there being a land mass on the other side of the San Francisco Bay.

"Have you been to the Bay and seen the Golden Gate Bridge?"

"I have been to the Bay, but there's no bridge there."

Perhaps a bad analogy, but that's what it brings to mind.

Comment by Ward Cressin on January 8, 2014 at 2:46pm

Notes I made while watching:

She almost never directly answered Dawkins' questions.

At about 24:00 her expression and laugh seem very brittle. I'm not good at noticing such things but even I noticed this one. (Unless I didn't understand her expression which is possible.)

I noticed at least 4 gaps which means this was originally even longer. (Saw 5 but one seemed so short and/or unimportant I don't know whether to count it.)

An especially condescending snipe by Wendy Wrong at 29:12 but start at 28:52 for some context.

At about 40 min she goes into the persecuted Xian routine.

At 44+ min in response to Dawkins she starts spewing crap how she doesn't mean the biblical creation myth but it is obvious she does.

At 46:20 Dawkins says about the "nastiest" thing he ever says in this which is really a lot nicer than many of her responses and she gets very condescending again – projecting her own idiocy on him. Then they move into politics and she shows her stupidity even more.

@Facts Before Faith – I'd amend your analogy to:

"Have you been to the Bay and seen the Golden Gate Bridge? It's amazing that it crosses the entire three mile width of the Golden Gate strait."

"I have been to the Bay and seen the structure there but it's not a bridge and it doesn't cross the whole strait."

Comment by Ward Cressin on January 8, 2014 at 2:47pm

(2 posts due to character limit.)

She has been trained very well to present otherwise intelligent points (meaning intelligent within the belief in biblegod and creation) but it is clear she has a huge blind spot regarding her own beliefs and lack of knowledge. There are many times it seems like she's memorized a script with the way she "backs up" at times – she even uses that phrase. Part of why I think so is that she keeps repeating herself – almost verbatim. I think she's the personable but vacuous front person but her script was written by someone smarter who doesn't want to be in front of the camera.


I managed to watch the whole thing – almost didn't but after a while it got to be sort of like a verbal dance. The elegant partner, Dawkins, who is either naturally talented or so very skilled that he seems so and the technically competent but so very graceless partner, Wendy, who only stomps on his toes on purpose only occasionally.


Another point I thought of after rereading all my stuff here: she really doesn't listen to him – she has a view of who he is and what he stands for and she almost exclusively responds to that image, not to Dawkins himself. She presents herself as nearly blind and almost deaf.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service