A funny video that has been circulating on YouTube for a couple of years now is the “Richard Dawkins Stumped video.”
I think this is funny, but first let me back up and give some background. As many of you may know, Richard Dawkins is one of the leading (and most aggressive) evangelistic atheists in the world right now.
He was also the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and is also the author of several books, with his most recent book being “The God Delusion,” which seeks to mock those who believe in God as delusional, and suggests there is no God.
Richard not only writes about evolution, teaches about evolution, but he even debates about evolution. So I would think that someone who has spent such a great amount of his life preaching that there is no God, and is so sure evolution is the answer, would be relatively knowledgeable about it. Don’t you agree?
In order for macro-evolution to make sense, we would expect that a significant amount of information would be added to the genome by some process, and then ran through the riggors of “natural selection” over gazillions and gazillions of years, in a place far far away. If evolution is true, is should be very very easy to provide tons of examples of this.
So Richard Dawkins (the leading atheist and evolutionist) is asked a very simple question:
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Okay, so how does one of the leading atheists and gurus on evolution answer the question? He doesn’t! Here is the video below. First let me warn you of what will happen:
- Richard will blink about 10,000 times as his mind desperately works to answer such a simple, yet IMPORTANT question that should come easy if macro evolution is true from a guy who has studied this his whole life. In fact, I think his blinking was the cause of a major windstorm that occurred that same year in that region and damaged a few homes in the area. It nearly blew me away just watching it.
- When the video cuts back on, he gives the most off-topic answer I have ever heard in my life, which totally dodges the question!
He literally goes on and on for like 1 minute about how fish don’t just turn to reptiles, and something about we have ancestors, but they aren’t ancestors, they are cousins! What? He totally lost me, and didn’t even come close to even answering the question. What does that have anything to do with an example of new information? So your cousin is a monkey. Cool, mine isn’t but hey, if you are proud of that, go for it Richard. Here we go:
Isn’t that sad? One of the top evolutionists and atheists in the world, and yet he cannot answer such a simple and direct question that would be absolutely necessary to prove macro evolution?
You see how religious you must truly be to believe in the fairy tale story of slime turning to humans in the absence of intelligence? You have to be more religious than any person I know to truly believe in the entirety of macro evolution and atheism.
Some YouTube Rebuttals Which Were WORSE Than Dawkins Response
I guess this really hurt the feelings of some of Richard Dawkin’s disciples, so some of his YouTube disciples immediately worked to create rebuttal videos to defend him and prove first hand how easy it is to add useful information to the genome.
So what is their brilliant response that they all used: Down Syndrome! WHAT? Great examples guys! Is that all you could come up with? To prove your case of macro evolution you give an example of a condition that can produce a mild to severe mental disability, countless physical problems, difficulty reproducing (and if it is successful there is a high chance of inheriting the potentially disabling syndrome, premature births, and severe birth defects) and more?
I have a close family member who was born with down syndrome, so this remark is not only slightly offensive, but just ridiculous. She is a very beautiful girl, and very sweet, but it is been very difficult challenge for the family (and her). It is a struggle every day for her to just have a “normal” life.
She has had heart problems and surgeries, and is lucky to even be alive at her young age, and we have shed many tears and prayers over the years due to this condition. She has really had a lot of struggles with this condition, and even a few near death experiences. Having down syndrome certainly doesn’t make life easier for the person or the family, trust me on that. If you are unsure, ask any person or parent who has experienced it.
Many down syndrome children have severe physical defects (as did my own family member), and have to have heart surgery very early in life to just survive, plus so many other physical and mental challenges, and sometimes cannot even reproduce.
So I think it would suffice to say that using down syndrome would NOT be any kind of a ideal example of increased information in the genome that helps prove macro evolution…sorry! You would think they would be able to easily come up with another example other than a condition that causes so many potentially deadly problems. Especially after studying this for an entire lifetime!
What next, are they going to start showing examples of the “bat boy” that always pops up on those nonsense Weekly World News magazines at the checkout counter. Or perhaps “big foot” is nothing but a mere example of new information that was mysteriously added to the genome…Hmmm. I guess they are struggling to come up with anything.
Seriously, if I couldn’t give a better example than down syndrome of increasing genetic information, I think I would have just given the old “dodging” act by Richard Dawkins and rambled a bunch of non-sense the whole time. His response made much more sense than the down syndrome example.