1. Comment #422839 by DeanZappy on October 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Bill O'Reilly really is pathetic.

Other Comments by DeanZappy

2. Comment #422840 by wainscotting on October 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm

"Stop shouting at me ... I've been warned about it."

Love you Dawkins

Other Comments by wainscotting

3. Comment #422842 by linbetwin on October 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Watch at 3:49, lol!

I still think atheists don't know how to answer these religious people. When BillO says atheists look down on believers, WHY doesn't Richard say that it's the other way round? That atheists are the most mistrusted group in America and that believers consider them un-American, evil Nazis? Why not talk about the widespread prejudice directed against atheists that makes them stay in the closet? I wish atheists learned to not let the ball fall into their own court.

I also think Richard fell intro Bill's trap by arguing about God instead of promoting his book on evolution.

Other Comments by linbetwin

4. Comment #422843 by koldito on October 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Honestly, I don't really know why Dawkins even bothers to go to such interviews. Even if O'Reilly let's him talk for a full 10 seconds uninterrupted and his IQ magically manages to go above double digits for that time so that he can understand he just *might* be wrong, he's such a proud bigot that he'll keep rooting for Jebus.

Other Comments by koldito

5. Comment #422844 by mdowe on October 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I don't know why Prof. Dawkins would concede to sit in the same (virtual) room with Mr. O'Reilly once, much less twice, but Richard always manages to make clear points in short sound-bites, even as his interviewer fills up most of the time with the sound of his own voice. The clips come across as heavily edited, and I find myself wondering what Prof. Dawkins said that Fox cut out (if anything).

Other Comments by mdowe

6. Comment #422845 by ods15 on October 10, 2009 at 2:54 pm

This clip had a severe case of "Lord Privy Seal" syndrome... Way way too many images constantly showing up adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and just distracting.. That was just annoying...

Overall, lame...

Other Comments by ods15

7. Comment #422846 by Spiral on October 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Always a delight to watch Prof. Dawkins' public appearances.

I love the way how O'Reilly says "faith-based beliefs like ID".
Spot on.

Other Comments by Spiral

8. Comment #422847 by godless_hoor on October 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm

If being Irish means being like O'Reilly I'm changing my nationality. That cretin makes my blood boil.

Other Comments by godless_hoor

9. Comment #422850 by brogan on October 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm

I seem to have lost my tolerance for watching O'Reilly.

Other Comments by brogan

10. Comment #422851 by azz_from_oz on October 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm

It seemed to me that Dawkins could have handled that interview alot better. Mentioning the Dover case in which the Judge (and hence the law) deemed ID and creation as 'not science' and using that statement as grounds to say that non-scientific ideals should not be taught in a scientific class room.

All in all, should have been handled far better. Dawkins has been in the political ring for some time now, this interview should have been a marker for his experience.

Other Comments by azz_from_oz

11. Comment #422852 by Ilovelucy on October 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Comment #422847 by godless_hoor on October 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm

If being Irish means being like O'Reilly I'm changing my nationality. That cretin makes my blood boil.

Well, most Irish Americans are only Irish in a purely homeopathic sense anyway!

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

12. Comment #422853 by pernickety on October 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm

O'Reilly doesn't really seem to get the idea of science does he? I like that he conceded that the story of adam and eve shouldn't be taught in science classes. Progress of a kind as Hitchens would say.

Other Comments by pernickety

13. Comment #422855 by AmandaKCampbell on October 10, 2009 at 3:28 pm

I love Dr. Dawkins' facial expressions throughout. They speak volumes. :-)

Not that I think O'Reilly has put actual thought into most of what he said, but I do wonder how he would explain the difference between "presenting" ID/Creationism in the classroom vs. "turning" to it as he repeatedly asserted.

Also, how is he going to split hairs to say don't bother presenting on Adam&Eve, but do "present" the concept of ID? It sounds like he's just unwilling to let go of the beliefs he was raised with, even though he knows at least some of it is "theology," a.k.a. myths and stories.

Perhaps the reason O'Reilly clings so steadfastly to Christianity is because of his personal insecurities. The promise of unconditional love must be pretty potent for a person who is so adept at erecting barriers between themselves and their fellow humans and pushing them away (so it seems from his TV persona, anyway). Poor thing, he just needs a time-out, a hug, and some consciousness-raising.

Other Comments by AmandaKCampbell

14. Comment #422856 by epicure on October 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm

"Poor thing, he just needs a time-out, a hug..."

After you...

Other Comments by epicure

15. Comment #422857 by steveroot on October 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Dawkins is grace under fire personified here. But one hardly notices because O'Reilly is such a moron. Also, linbetwin has a good point; the book is about evolution, which isn't to do with O'Reilly's chief concern, "how everything started". The controversy should have been over the moment Billy said he accepts evolution. But... there's time to fill, viewers to entertain, IQ points to lose...
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

16. Comment #422859 by Corylus on October 10, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Comment #422845 by ods15:

This clip had a severe case of "Lord Privy Seal" syndrome... Way way too many images constantly showing up adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and just distracting.. That was just annoying...

It was also very manipulative.* The man knows his audience.

*Edit - as was the introduction as 'Mr' Dawkins.

Other Comments by Corylus

17. Comment #422861 by wkriski on October 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm

News has become entertainment, short sound bites that really don't get to the heart of any discussion.

Other Comments by wkriski

18. Comment #422862 by AmandaKCampbell on October 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm

@epicure : Hahaha! Sure! I really see him as such a sad, angry little boy in a man-suit. The crazy he comes up with is mind-boggling, but it really only makes me feel a mixture of incredulity and pity.

I wonder if he even read Dr. Dawkins' book? I'm not sure if he veered them off onto the topic of The God Delusion simply to get the endorphin high of stimulating his own rage-center, or because he simply had nothing intelligent to ask about the NEW book. It seems that a lot of interviewers are focusing more on the previous book than the current one.

Other Comments by AmandaKCampbell

19. Comment #422863 by BigJohn on October 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm

I truly do not comprehend how BillO, and his ilk, can live from day to day with such a blockheaded outlook. How is it possible to completely ignore the science evident in daily life? I do understand how they became as they are, but, I wonder how they can remain that way in light of the plethora of available evidence.

Other Comments by BigJohn

20. Comment #422864 by NewEnglandBob on October 10, 2009 at 3:59 pm

The lower the IQ, the louder they talk and the more they talk over others.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

21. Comment #422865 by Big City on October 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm

What an asshole.

Nothing on Earth is more hypocritical than Bill O'Reilly saying we should all follow the teachings of Jesus and there will be peace on Earth. Not with clowns like him around, there won't. If Jesus were alive today, O'Reilly, Rush, and Glenn Beck would hate him. I think what he really means is that conservatives won't stop fighting until everyone thinks like they do.

Other Comments by Big City

22. Comment #422866 by glid on October 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Is it just me or does Bill O'Reilly not (obviously) only come off as an idiot but also as totally unprofessional?
It's like Fox drove to a christian school for troubled youths and kidnapped the most loud-mouthed, annoying, arrogant, chauvinistic and egocentric asshole - and threw him straight onto a news presenters chair in front of the cameras. If he's had some journalistic training, it certainly doesn't show.

Other Comments by glid

23. Comment #422868 by Misc on October 10, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Something tells me Bill'O would have been the first to blow up in indignation if somebody he disagreed with called one of his points "fascistic". I'm just amazed this idiot is not ashamed to throw around a term associated with some of the worst atrocities that flippantly.

Anyway, I can't help but think that Dara O Briain's quote "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" could have been wonderfully used in this interview...

Other Comments by Misc

24. Comment #422872 by c4chaos on October 10, 2009 at 4:23 pm

someone please send this letter from Albert Einstein to Bill O'Reilly - http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

O'Reilly probably would scoff at it too.

~C

Other Comments by c4chaos

25. Comment #422873 by yanquetino on October 10, 2009 at 4:27 pm

It was more than obvious to me that O'Reilly hadn't even opened Dawkins' book. He didn't ask anything about it! Rather than show even a single example of evidence for evolution covered in TGSOE, O'Reilly instead displayed an array of pictures of Jesus, for crying out loud! This was NOT an interview about Dawkins' book: O'Reilly simply wanted to repeat for all his devout viewers that he chooses to "go with Jesus."

What galls me the most is that O'Reilly's program is supposed to be a "no spin zone," yet religion is the most notorious example of "spin." How the "no spin master" O'Reilly can keep a straight face while asserting a belief in something for which there is not ONE iota of evidence is beyond me.

What a crock of caca. I have lost all respect for him.

Other Comments by yanquetino

26. Comment #422875 by jamiso on October 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm

RD...Please Please Please go on Glen Beck.

Seriously, it would be like the most funny thing ever

Other Comments by jamiso

27. Comment #422876 by Magic Banana on October 10, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Bill can't seem realize that his Christian beliefs have nothing to with science. Dawkins should have said that if Bill wants the Christian God overseeing evolution crap taught as an alternative, then they should also teach that a magic purple mongoose also could have overseen evolution etc etc...

Other Comments by Magic Banana

28. Comment #422882 by Quine on October 10, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Comment #422862 by AmandaKCampbell:

I wonder if he even read Dr. Dawkins' book?

No. Bill does not read books; he has staff for that who prep his talking points. That is why he goes straight to what he wants to say, which in this case was calling science education methodology "fascist." Richard did better this time, and calling B.O. down on the shouting was the best moment, given that no actual reasoning was going to happen in any case.

Other Comments by Quine

29. Comment #422883 by Big City on October 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm

I wonder if O'Reilly thinks that, at the beginning of every Math course, teachers should say "Christians believe God gave us mathematics so we could quantify the different aspects of our marvelously created world." or, at the beginning of every English course that "Christians believe God gave us language so that we could spread the news of his glorious love."

Other Comments by Big City

30. Comment #422884 by funkydrummer on October 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm

I love how Bill thinks that because a majority believes it then it must be true and has to be taught. Would love to see Richard on Glenn BecK I have not seen Glenn cry in a while!

Other Comments by funkydrummer

31. Comment #422885 by Sally Luxmoore on October 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Hard to call this an interview at all. What an unpleasant, even hateful character O'Reilly is.

Kudos to Richard for standing up to the bullying - I think he will have won over a lot of the audience at that point.

FASCIST ?!!! Good grief.
O'Reilly doesn't understand even the simplest thing about science if he thinks that things are decided by majority vote.

The Irish should complain at Bill O'Reilly calling himself Irish. I'd feel insulted at having such an ignorant bullying bigot claiming to be Irish. (Incidentally, I bet I'm more Irish than he is - I have one Irish grandfather.) Unluckily for America, O'Reilly is American.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

32. Comment #422886 by WEseekTHETRUTH.ORG on October 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm

This interview is so edited. He didn't let Prof. Dawkins get in two words.

Other Comments by WEseekTHETRUTH.ORG

33. Comment #422890 by digibud on October 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I was hoping RD would make the point that if one should provide the Christian story, one should also provide the Muslim story and the Hindu story and the Wiccan story, ad nauseum. I think that's an important point. Another important point that needs to be drilled home in these interviews/debates is that Evolution does not speak to creation - the creation of "us" and/or the universe. HOW we got here is not the question of evolution, it is the process of our development that evolution seeks to explain.
RD never fails to be interesting and the topic is always engaging. Less so for Bill O.

Other Comments by digibud

34. Comment #422894 by cristinabories on October 10, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I think RD here did not do a 'lessons learned' from his first interview with this lout. He allowed himself to be dragged into the gap "logic" and did not stop right away the nonsense of 'how it all started' As other member commented, his book is not about the origins of life.
I also was somehow dissatisfied with his arguments on why this ID nonsense should not be allowed in the classroom.He should have a quick two sentence blurb on what science is and how faith based explanations are not that.

Other Comments by cristinabories

35. Comment #422895 by Big City on October 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Magic Banana:

Dawkins should have said that if Bill wants the Christian God overseeing evolution crap taught as an alternative, then they should also teach that a magic purple mongoose also could have overseen evolution etc etc...

digibud:

I was hoping RD would make the point that if one should provide the Christian story, one should also provide the Muslim story and the Hindu story and the Wiccan story, ad nauseum.

That wouldn't have worked, because in O'Reilly's world, Christianity has a place in school because of the high percentage of Americans that believe in it.


mdowe:

The clips come across as heavily edited, and I find myself wondering what Prof. Dawkins said that Fox cut out (if anything).

WEseekTHETRUTH.ORG

This interview is so edited. He didn't let Prof. Dawkins get in two words.

O'Reilly gives new meaning to the term "home field advantage". I'm surprised they left in the part where Richard told him to tone it down. There's hardly a more jackass response to that than "Well turn your earpiece down."

Other Comments by Big City

36. Comment #422896 by root2squared on October 10, 2009 at 5:45 pm

Kudos to Richard for standing up to the bullying - I think he will have won over a lot of the audience at that point.

I doubt anyone who watches the O'Reilly show can be won over to anything.

brilliant men, smarter than you

O'Reilly trying to decide who is smarter is like a blind man trying to decide what is more colorful.

Richard's expression around the 1.52 mark is priceless. O'Reilly may accept evolution, but I doubt he knows how it works. He probably accepts it out of fear of being thought whacko.

Other Comments by root2squared

37. Comment #422898 by rdubya on October 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm

This interview is rubbish. Richard please don't even give this guy the time of day. The interview had nothing to do with the new book, other then showing the cover.

The only people who watch his show are tiny minded republicans and us liberals who want to laugh in his face.

Other Comments by rdubya

38. Comment #422899 by channeller on October 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm

I think Richard D got in a very good closing statement considering he was hardly let in a word edgewise.
And that Bill O'Reilly fella... ffs, you're NOT Irish - you're AMERICAN! But hey, keep shouting and maybe it'll come true...

Other Comments by channeller

39. Comment #422900 by GBile on October 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm

The backbone of mr. O'Reilly's 'belief' statements was:

science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way ...

Boy, is he wrong.
Science, once and for all, proved that all humans are equal. How more moral can you get. This means that amalekites are equal to jews. But mr. O'Reilly already admitted that the 'adam and eve' stuff (the old testament) is irrelevant. He rather concentrates on the moral example of jc. So mr. O'Reilly is a love and peace guy. Good for him. I would say to mr. O'Reilly: Join the club, but leave the superstition and certainly the 'holy books' behind. There is better literature around.

Other Comments by GBile

40. Comment #422902 by Scandinavian07 on October 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Wow, I'm almost speechless.

A briliant piece of journalism... quack quack.

The smartest people at this studio is without doubt the technicians. The research an editing department must be filled with Glenn beck clones.

Other Comments by Scandinavian07

41. Comment #422903 by thomas guihen on October 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm

You can have God in religion, philosophy, psychology and history, but he must be kept out of biology. He has no business there at all.

Other Comments by thomas guihen

42. Comment #422906 by yanquetino on October 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm

I have written to O'Reilly and told him point blank:

Sorry, Bill, but if you cannot provide one iota of cold, hard, verifiable evidence to back up that so-called alternative "explanation," it is NOT an explanation: it is only spin --no matter how many Americans "believe" it. I would have thought that you, of all people, would want our schools to likewise be "no spin zones."

I hope that every member of RichardDawkins.net floods O'Reilly's inbox today to upbraid him for his shameless hypocrisy: oreilly@foxnews.com.

Other Comments by yanquetino

43. Comment #422908 by Clairebear on October 10, 2009 at 6:37 pm

Yay, this made me laugh so much. God, Bill O really is a crackpot, isn't he? I like people who are assertive, but not to the point where they can't even hold a proper conversation. Jeez... Go Richard :)

Other Comments by Clairebear

44. Comment #422910 by scaryatheist on October 10, 2009 at 6:40 pm

If richard goes back on that show he needs to get O'reilly to admit that based on his logic, a science classroom in ancient greece needs to teach that an explanation of lightning is an angry lecherous god is throwing bolts at people.

Other Comments by scaryatheist

45. Comment #422912 by Muetze on October 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Not him again.

Other Comments by Muetze

46. Comment #422921 by Sonic on October 10, 2009 at 7:57 pm

O’Reilly puts down science (science: the body of knowledge) for being incomplete, and this shows O’Reilly does not understand science (science: the method). O’Reilly is saying that when we teach children science, we should should insert (his) revealed religion into the gaps of scientific knowledge. But revealed religion is not the scientific method.

I mainly care that students are educated to recognize the scientific method when they see it. If someone has a religion too, I don’t mind, as long as they recognize the scientific method when they see it. This is where O’Reilly fails.

Richard did great in my opinion -- I think he fielded everything O’Reilly hit his way very well. Call me crazy, but I really liked this interview. Will this sway any of O’Reilly’s audience? Well, this is just my opinion, but I see O’Reilly’s audience as a pie chart. If you imagine the pie chart is filled in with only one color, then nothing can be done. But I imagine some fraction of the pie chart is filled in with some of the social conservatives I know where I work. They watch Fox News because they’re social conservatives in the high value they place on social cohesion and loyalty, but they can still recognize the scientific method when they see it, and they can want their kids to have it. So I think some Fox News viewers will register and remember some of the things Richard said, and maybe more lastingly, how well Richard carried himself, for example when he kept the high ground on the spurious charge of fascism.

Other Comments by Sonic

47. Comment #422934 by TCM on October 10, 2009 at 8:37 pm

I felt the point that was being missed here is that if science can't shed light on it, it doesn't belong in the science class. It's inappropriate to 'mention the alternatives' because talking about religion is not what science class is for, to do so is confusing and could potentially waste a lot of time.

Other Comments by TCM

48. Comment #422940 by Code7R on October 10, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Man... that looked really painful for Richard.
But I guess he knew who he was talking to. Billo is always painful... ;-)

What I ask myself is how anyone can "like" that guy... I hear there are some people that do.
That guy screams jerk so loud I still hear him here in Germany... ;-)

I just registered on this site just to get that of my chest. ;-)

Other Comments by Code7R

49. Comment #422942 by FUNTASTIK on October 10, 2009 at 8:58 pm

The format of these superficial cable talk shows is designed for the average American with the attention span of a fruit fly. No topic is ever discussed in depth, the host talks more than his guests and it inevitably turns into a shouting match. I think Hitchens has mastered the art of quick quips and one liners (who can forget the one about burying Fallwell in a matchbox on Hannity!) while Dawkins does brilliantly in longer interviews or town hall formats when there is more than 30 seconds to make one's point.

I really wish he would host a science show in the US where he could explain not only evolution to Americans but how science works in general.

Other Comments by FUNTASTIK

50. Comment #422943 by Sally Luxmoore on October 10, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Comment #422940 by Code7R

I just registered on this site just to get that of my chest. ;-)

Hi! I hope you stick around. This site is very good for the relieving of things that have been stuck on chests...

There's plenty more to get annoyed about - which I suppose you already know if you have done much lurking beforehand.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore