Wednesday, October 21, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Hugh interviews atheist Richard Dawkins

by Hugh Hewitt Show

Thanks to Florian for the link.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=77fe9a0d-d15d-4f33-af90-d4685976f8e0

HH: Special hour of the Hugh Hewitt Show with Richard Dawkins, a fellow of New College, Oxford, where he taught for many, many years, the author of many bestselling books. He’s also a member of the Royal Society of Literature, a fellow of both of those, and of course, well known to the world at large as the author first of The Selfish Gene, and most recently, his brand new book, The Greatest Show On Earth. Professor Dawkins, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

RD: Thank you very much.

HH: Thirty years ago, I took Stephen J. Gould’s course in natural selection as an undergraduate, and we had to read The Selfish Gene back right after it had come out. And The Greatest Show On Earth, your new book, kind of produced déjà vu in me. How much has changed in the case for evolution in the past thirty years?

RD: Well first of all, I’m gratified and surprised that Stephen J. Gould made you read The Selfish Gene. I thought he’d have been very hostile to it.

HH: No, it was really quite a remarkable book. But this is, you know, thirty-two years ago.

RD: Yes, well, I haven’t changed my views on how evolution works. But there’s not a lot of The Selfish Gene in The Greatest Show On Earth, because The Selfish Gene was about a different way of looking at natural selection, and The Greatest Show On Earth is about the evidence that evolution is a fact, the evidence that it’s true. So The Selfish Gene rather assumed that evolution was a fact, whereas The Greatest Show On Earth shows the evidence that it is.
...
RD: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?
HH: Yes.
RD: You seriously do?
HH: Yes.
RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?
HH: Yes.
RD: My God.
HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…
RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.
...
Continue reading
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=77fe9a0d-d15d-4f33-af90-d4685976f8e0

Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 130 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #425518 by phasmagigas on October 21, 2009 at 2:36 pm

ive learned to never initiate any engagement with a moron like hewitt, i wait to be asked a question and then i'll concentrate on that single question until the person understands even if they dont agree with my position.

hewitt can say something like

Yes. My God, actually, not yours

because he knows that his slavish audience will love him for it and watch him again.

and this is a slimy tactic to persuade the ignorant that something major has changed since then(re the selfish genes publication)

No, it was really quite a remarkable book. But this is, you know, thirty-two years ago.

as if anything has actually changed with regards the basic premise of evolution

Other Comments by phasmagigas

2. Comment #425521 by esuther on October 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Poor Richard. After dealing with the lubricious smugness of people like Hewitt, he must feel the need to go home and take a long hot shower. It amazes me that he keeps coming back for more, and actually tries to untangle the twisted logic and point-scoring of the faith heads, and he never loses his cool.

Other Comments by esuther

3. Comment #425523 by Absinthius on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm

It's almost like trying to swim up a waterfall isn't it? The crappy arguments just keep coming and coming, and as one man in one interview it is hard to swat em all.

Other Comments by Absinthius

4. Comment #425524 by Mark Jones on October 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Hugh Hewitt has the patronising tone of the man who thinks the person he's talking to is going to hell in a handcart.

HH: And is that what you, Richard Dawkins, put your faith in?

Oh please, how transparent.

RD: You sound like a lawyer.
HH: I am a lawyer.
RD: Oh, for God’s sake.

LOL.

HH: ... You argue in the book at one point that the retina is so poorly designed, that it argues against the idea of a designer, because it’s such a messed up job. Conversely, though, if the object of the designer was to create a world in which faith was possible, but also disbelief, in order to make faith a choice and not an obligation, wouldn’t then you have to say that the world was wondrously constructed to that end, to preserve free will and the choosing?

It's truly hard to believe that an educated, intelligent human being could think this true.

HH: ... I’m saying that the world has been made as it is to allow for faith, because if it was made too easy for the simple-minded, it would simply be routine, and everyone would believe, and then there would be no faith.

This supposes that belief is a choice. If this were the case then HH could choose to not believe in his god for a day. Perhaps he could conduct the next interview under that 'choice'? I suggest Richard puts it down in a rider, then he won't be subjected to so many fatuous questions next time.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

5. Comment #425526 by zeroangel on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm

I really can't stand clowns like that.

People like Hugh are the kinds of people that would say you are stupid for saying 2 plus 2 = 4.

Why? Well they would go on to say that you had not established that you were speaking about real numbers under ordinary addition as opposed to some undefined set under an undefined operation represented by 'plus'.

That is, they would say that, if they weren't so busy saying far stupider things.

Other Comments by zeroangel

6. Comment #425527 by bash the bish on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm

What a complete tit

Other Comments by bash the bish

7. Comment #425528 by phasmagigas on October 21, 2009 at 3:12 pm

i'd love to see an experiment which would probably be considered unethical (although it repeats itself millions of times across the planet daily)and that would be to show just how easily kids can be persuaded to believe anything and if sufficiently reinforced they wont let go of the idea. something like telling different kids different lies regarding the same object or phenomena, its essentially demonstrated by the water/wine belief of hewitt, theres essentially NO reason why he would believe that apart from the fact it is (likely)something he was told as a youngster and even doubting it was frowned up and so reinforced.

Sometines it seems that its got a lot to do with group mentality too, there could be great solace in knowing there are millions of people who you can immediately find solidarity with evevn if what they believe is utter nonsense. hewtts staement about water/wine would win him millions of fans immediately even if its just to reinforce their own beliefs they could know are really, really idiotic, maybe its kind of saving face, a grown ups version of being caught with your pants down and pretending it never happened.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

8. Comment #425532 by Sally Luxmoore on October 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm

This Hugh Hewitt is a slimy git. It is dishonest to put yourself across initially as someone interested in science and evolution as he did, and then only gradually reveal the real situation.

It becomes more and more obvious that he is a hostile creationist trying to 'trap' Richard. Did he really expect an admission such as, 'Oh, ok, you've got me there. No, we have no real evidence. I was only making it up'?
How incredibly stupid.
Fancy denying that Richard receives letters from science teachers! It's so easy to prove otherwise - but was he interested in receiving any proof? No, of course not - he just moves on to the next ill-founded slur.

Poor Richard for having to put up with it.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

9. Comment #425534 by Katana on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm

It started out quite well, then he tries to throw Richard off guard for the rest of it, wasn't until he said he was a lawyer that his tone and style seemed obvious, a lawyer cross-examining a witness in the box.

Other Comments by Katana

10. Comment #425535 by phasmagigas on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm

zeroangel

Why? Well they would go on to say that you had not established that you were speaking about real numbers under ordinary addition as opposed to some undefined set under an undefined operation represented by 'plus'.

i cringe when theists use 'wishy washy' (to coin RD's words) fluff to try and suggest that the rationalist position is all relative when they are the ones who are (arguably-see, theres my concession) ultra conservative in their beliefs, they will even go so far as to start babbling on about christians (for eg) being the real rebels, the real mavericks. those argumenst get nobody anywhere.

i might just start arguing that i dont believe anything christians say as true as if they cannot see that coolwhip is the most disgusting manmade material ever concocted then i cannot trust their ability to discern nonsense from stuff that is real.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

11. Comment #425539 by phasmagigas on October 21, 2009 at 3:28 pm

i call this the divide by 1 god

you see god in a beautiful sunset, in a flower, an insects wing but also in a parasite riddled brain, a child raped and dismembered by the next clan, sure my position could be considered the same but opposite(no god anywhere in all situations) but im not adding the extra thing so i might as well assume its not actually there.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

12. Comment #425541 by Caesars0331 on October 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Everbody take it easy... HH IS

"The Stephen J. Gould student that you’re dealing with now"

LMAO...how snarky and lame to even utter that

Other Comments by Caesars0331

13. Comment #425546 by moniz on October 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm

From his Wikipedia entry

"Hugh Hewitt (born February 22, 1956) is an American radio talk show host with the Salem Radio Network and author. An outspoken socially conservative, evangelical Christian, he comments on society, politics, and his perception of media bias in the United States."

Explains so much now about this sad interview.

Other Comments by moniz

14. Comment #425547 by Sally Luxmoore on October 21, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Comment #425546 by moniz

Maybe Richard should do a quick Wiki check before agreeing to interviews.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

15. Comment #425549 by rod-the-farmer on October 21, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Oh, how I would love to see the video of this (should it exist) so I could see the look on Richards' face as he realises just what an eejut he is dealing with.

Woo hoo Hewitt. It is to laugh.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

16. Comment #425550 by Jos Gibbons on October 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm

There's another person I can add to my growing list of those I hate. I wish I didn't have to do that. Has anyone here noticed how every break coincides with RD handing his arse to him, only for the topic to completely shift when the commercials end?

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

17. Comment #425552 by Lucas on October 21, 2009 at 4:06 pm

RD: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: You seriously do?

HH: Yes.

RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: My God.

HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…

RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.

Laughed my ass off at these bits. Also, anybody notice how HH capitalized "He" in reference to Jesus, even when Richard was saying it? I mean, I knew they did that for God, but Jeebus too? As a professional editor of audio transcripts, I often have to make the choice of whether or not to capitalize the word "god." The rule is that if they say it as slang, like, "I was like, oh my god!" then it is not, but if they say it as a personal pronoun, "But then God told me what to do," then it is. Sometimes its hard to tell. If they are obviously religious, I tend to capitalize it just because I know they think he's a real being.

Other Comments by Lucas

18. Comment #425554 by kaiserkriss on October 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Sally:

From what I've read and seen of Richard in interviews, he is too big a man to stoop down to the levels of the like of HH. (a la "you couldn't possibly insult me with your poor arguments and intellect").

While I'm sure just like the rest of us, Richard's buttons can be pushed, he is careful and controlled. Such a response always reflects poorly on the other person. They usually end up making an ass of themselves.. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

19. Comment #425555 by Stafford Gordon on October 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm

HH Did you ever believe in God?

RD Of course, I was a child.

HH And when did you put off your foolish belief in God?

RD When I put away childish things.

I think that this passage goes to the heart of the matter; a degree of cognitive dissonance which amounts to arrested development.

As for changing water into wine; only someone with a serious drink problem would be desperate enough to do such a thing.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

20. Comment #425560 by sillygirl on October 21, 2009 at 4:30 pm

I'm only pretending to listen to your answers to my questions because I'm waiting to spring my Gotcha. I'm sure you've never heard my bullshit before, and could never come up with an answer to my fresh, original argument. Even though it's the exact same lame crap that everyone thinks they've gotcha on.

Other Comments by sillygirl

21. Comment #425561 by RichardofYork on October 21, 2009 at 4:33 pm

If god did a miracle it would be something he couldnt normally do otherwise it wouldnt be a miracle, it would just be god stuff which is easy peasy for a god .I once read a Michale Crichton novel with a similar interview in, it must be difficult

Other Comments by RichardofYork

22. Comment #425565 by Tyler Durden on October 21, 2009 at 4:50 pm

I just read the entire transcript, man, that was painful. It read like Richard was talking to a 6-year old child.

HH: I am a lawyer

Ah, I see. All becomes clear now.

Richard, you have my sympathies when dealing with close-minded, transparent fools like this. Well done.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

23. Comment #425568 by Nunbeliever on October 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Oh my GOD ;-) How on earth did they get Richard Dawkins on that show??? That was pure lunacy. What a moron.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

24. Comment #425571 by debridement on October 21, 2009 at 5:04 pm

These interviews make me sad...

To us, HH's arguments seem tired and trite. But most of HH's listeners will believe that Richard got schooled. It makes it hard for me to imagine a future where those who base their beliefs on evidence are in the majority.

Other Comments by debridement

25. Comment #425573 by LWS on October 21, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Richard Dawkins amazes me for holding it together while being verbally attacked on almost every front by those who feel threatened by his mild mannered, philosophical and insightful approach to social issues. The challengers insist that he know everything about any subject, a superhuman demand of a mere mortal surely. Pointing out that religions are not predicated on facts and that evolution is continues to rattle cages. Hopefully future human animals will intellectually evolve brains better able to invent and create without falling back on supernatural whimsy.

Dawkins must be physically and emotionally exhausted from this book tour yet he steadfastly continues. It is too bad that he wasn’t told ahead of the interview that Hewitt is a lawyer and that the man holds irrational religious views. Talking to people like Hewitt and D'Souza isn’t likely to achieve much as no matter the evidence put to them they stick their fingers in their ears and cry la, la, la. Defending belief in dead corpses resurrecting and talking snakes validates their audiences yet makes them seem rather unsophisticated. Hewitt at least is courteous while D'Souza tends to panic, shout and interrupts when challenged and hence a waste of time.

I am really trying to stop using OMG and to remind self to use the French phrase when expressing incredulity and that is ooo la la.

Other Comments by LWS

26. Comment #425574 by eiskrystal on October 21, 2009 at 5:17 pm

If Richard Dawkins does want some examples of evolution teachers being harrassed, killed, threatened, losing their jobs and being demoted he could do worse than check out the relevant pharyngula thread on this interview for next time that comes up.

Perhaps HH with his great journalism skills will be happy to investigate them...lol.

Other Comments by eiskrystal

27. Comment #425575 by Stephen Maxwell on October 21, 2009 at 5:33 pm

For those of you not familiar with Mark Roberts, mentioned by Hewitt, here's a question posed to him from Christopher Hitchens on Hewitt's radio show about an account of the resurrection in Matthew's Gospel.

Christopher Hitchens: Do you think, that at the time of the crucifixion, the graves in the greater Jerusalem area opened and many of the dead came out and walked the streets? That's one account. You do believe that?

Mark Roberts: It's in Matthew's Gospel.

CH: Yes

MR: As a believer I think it happened. If I put on my historian hat, I say this is one account...uh...one gospel...uh...one eyewitness.... This makes it...again...now speaking as a historian, historically unlikely. As a believer, I believe it.

CH: I find that absolutely flabbergasting.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

28. Comment #425576 by MMAtheist on October 21, 2009 at 5:35 pm

"RD: They can infer what the hell they like. I don’t care. I have a job to do, and I’m going to get on and do it."

Yes! :)

I knew this interview would be one of those annoying ones as soon as I saw the name Hugh Hewitt. I remember his small debate with Sam Harris. He naturally had nothing on Sam and had to resort to childish comments like "you're not that smart", "you're not original", etc.

Here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N239VRKjh38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaHs47KYsh8

PS. Don't judge all lawyers based on this arrogant douchebag. Pretty please?

Other Comments by MMAtheist

29. Comment #425578 by Tyler Durden on October 21, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Comment #425575 by Stephen Maxwell

MR: As a believer I think it happened. If I put on my historian hat, I say this is one account...uh...one gospel...uh...one eyewitness.... This makes it...again...now speaking as a historian, historically unlikely. As a believer, I believe it.

D'oh! Cognitive dissonance raises its ugly head once again.

And who keeps telling these "believers" about these supposed eyewitnesses? The gospels weren't eyewitness accounts. And as we know from criminology, and sociology, eyewitness accounts of crimes or events are notoriously bad. Who would want to live their lives based on that fragile reckoning?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

30. Comment #425583 by popeye on October 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm

I have never heard of this guy but it seems like his show would be the kind that gets my blood boiling.

Other Comments by popeye

31. Comment #425585 by Sally Luxmoore on October 21, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Richard obviously has PZ Myers' sympathy:
Pharyngula:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/dawkins_vs_hewitt.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

32. Comment #425588 by glenister_m on October 21, 2009 at 6:21 pm

I wish Richard hadn't used the water/wine question, as opposed to something the audience might have recognized as more unlikely/unbelieveable/outrageous (eg. all the animals of the world living within walking distance of Noah's house).

It's a common magician's/chemists trick to turn "water" into "wine", so that isn't a "miracle" that is hard to swallow (pun intended) for the average believer.

Other Comments by glenister_m

33. Comment #425589 by Border Collie on October 21, 2009 at 6:29 pm

This guy should star on some sort of young-cretinist-cop-doctor-lawyer in love soap opera. Twits like this are exactly why religion makes me nauseous. Richard, please write books and don't waste your time with such creeps.

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #425590 by Lisa Bauer on October 21, 2009 at 6:35 pm

I'm not sure who's setting up these media interviews, or what the criteria are for deciding which ones to accept, but surely it couldn't hurt to investigate the sources a bit and give Richard a bit of a heads-up when there's an encounter with this kind of...personality (shall we say) so that he can come prepared instead of finding this out only midway through? I can understand the rationale that this kind of thing increases his exposure to unfamiliar audiences, but you can't assume that he knows who all these media people on this side of the pond (or elsewhere) are or what hostile agendas they may have!

Other Comments by Lisa Bauer

35. Comment #425593 by popeye on October 21, 2009 at 6:43 pm

This might have been a mistake, but it also could be intentional. These people are exactly who the book is directed towards. The people listening to this show might actually pick up the book and change their minds, though I doubt that.

Hitchens did a similar approach in his book tour by going to the bible belt instead of the friendly areas of the country.

Other Comments by popeye

36. Comment #425594 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Hugh Hewitt: cognitive dissonance.
Richard Dawkins: dignitive consonance.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

37. Comment #425599 by TIKI AL on October 21, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Back in the day, I worked hard to help get Richard Nixon impeached.

Hewitt's first job out of Harvard was working as one of Nixon's ghostwriters.

He also worked on the Nixon library, and tried to ban Bob Woodward from using it because he "wasn't a serious journalist".

Richard the Lionhearted understands you have to go into some scary dark age places and speak with some bible brainwashed godbots to get the message out. Bravo, Richard!

Other Comments by TIKI AL

38. Comment #425602 by Sally Luxmoore on October 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm

How some of the audience heard this interview:

(This is a nut-job catholic site I've been looking at recently)

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/10/richard-dawkins-interviewed-by-hugh-hewitt/

The comments section is depressing.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

39. Comment #425606 by Quine on October 21, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Every time I hear this canard I get a big laugh because it reminds me of the scene in the movie "ET" when Gertie's brother tells her that only little kids can see ET, and she replies "Give me a break!"

Other Comments by Quine

40. Comment #425608 by Kmita on October 21, 2009 at 7:24 pm

I thought this was a serious interview at first...

I was just reading the excerpt here (instead of the original article via the link) and out of nowhere it makes the jump from proper interview to silly b.s. I have to say I was caught completely off guard.

Other Comments by Kmita

41. Comment #425609 by TIKI AL on October 21, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Sally Luxmoore @ 38: I actually found what appears to be ONE unbiased honest comment on your Catholic link:

"Re: “how lacking Dawkins is in knowledge of Christian philosophy/theology”.
His viewpoint is – do you have to be an expert on fairyology / leprechaunology to reject the existence of fairies / leprechauns?
Or: Do you have to know what the Egyption high priests believed in order not to believe in Ra, the sun god.
He does have a point there.

Comment by Salsta — 21 October 2009 @ 1:59 pm "

I was shocked, shocked I tell ya. But you are correct, the rest of the comments are quite depressing.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

42. Comment #425610 by BeyondBelief on October 21, 2009 at 7:36 pm

@ Phasmagigas, who wrote

Sometines it seems that its got a lot to do with group mentality too, there could be great solace in knowing there are millions of people who you can immediately find solidarity with evevn if what they believe is utter nonsense. hewtts staement about water/wine would win him millions of fans immediately even if its just to reinforce their own beliefs

Spot on. A very LOT of what people claim to believe is in fact just badge politics. A public statement to express to their "team" or "clan" just whose side they are on.

It's all about flashing gang signs. Some gangs are just known as religions.

@ Tyler Durden, #29 who wrote:

And who keeps telling these "believers" about these supposed eyewitnesses?

The same people who tell us that the US is founded on Christian principles, and push legislation affirming it.

The same people who keep pushing the idea that evolution must be a lie until you can produce a CrockoDuck.

It's really very simple, paraphrasing an old Chicago voting motto: Lie Early, Lie Often!

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth... well, at least for enough people that you can put together a faithful army and go kill the folks who disagree. :-)

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

43. Comment #425613 by rod-the-farmer on October 21, 2009 at 7:47 pm

A lot of the responses on the other web site (mentioned by Sally in Comment 38) make that same old claim "Dawkins should study theology before he criticises it". I know he did not have time during the discussion, and not having the book myself yet, perhaps the molecular clock evidence for evolution is not described in detail. I wonder, just off the top of my head, how much science education this "lawyer" has ?

Five gives you ten he skipped science once past high school. Perhaps RD could meet him again, and lay out the DNA evidence for him. As he almost said, we don't need no stinking fossils.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

44. Comment #425617 by Quine on October 21, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Comment #425613 by rod-the-farmer:

Perhaps RD could meet him again, and lay out the DNA evidence for him.

He would just reject it. I suspect he has already seen it. It is better to present the DNA evidence to young people who have not hardened their minds against change, and let time take care of the older generation. It has always been such.

Other Comments by Quine

45. Comment #425619 by keithapm on October 21, 2009 at 8:02 pm

I mean no offense to any lawyers here, but would it be unfair to suggest that most lawyers act like mentalists and magicians, in that they specialize in making holes appear in arguments that just aren't there. They use lots of identifiable tricks of the trade to confuse and distort the information the jury/judge is receiving (Hewitt even mentions a jury in this interview).

Lawyers of Hewitt's ilk (not obviously the fine fellows represented on this site) are not scientists, they are not interested in the truth, they are interested only in making their argument APPEAR stronger than anyone else's at any cost; Reason, evidence and talking sense be damned.

Other Comments by keithapm

46. Comment #425620 by Kenny18 on October 21, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Why should Richard Dawkins have to "lay out" the evidence for this Hugh Hewitt prick? Can't he go look it up for himself with his clever lawers brain.

Other Comments by Kenny18

47. Comment #425621 by BeyondBelief on October 21, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Here's anothe quote from the far right RC website comments, on Richard's understanding of theology, and why he won't talk about it in interviews (i.e. they assume that he "REALLY" knows a lot, but denies it to avoid giving air-time):

He is attempting, by means of forceful repetition, to establish his naturalism and atheism as the default view. This is certainly not anything new within atheism, but something to be aware of

OMG!! Can you say "projection?" It's funny how the most deeply religious recognize their tactics in others implicitly. My other favorite "Oh Yeah, well you did it too!" moment is when the radically faithful call atheism a religion "just like ours, so you're not so smart after all, are you."

yikes.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

48. Comment #425622 by Sally Luxmoore on October 21, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Comment #425609 by TIKI AL

HA!

Salsta = ME...

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

49. Comment #425623 by root2squared on October 21, 2009 at 8:10 pm

"HH: I think you understand what I’m saying, and you’re saying no, you don’t believe that, that it would not in fact fit that, a giant…for example, have you read the Harry Potter novels?
RD: No."

He should have added "Because I'm not 13 anymore".

Other Comments by root2squared

50. Comment #425625 by markg on October 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm

I think Richard would get a decent and intelligent interview on Rachel Maddow's Show. Check her out in this clip talking about Darwin Day and the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#29171520

Other Comments by markg

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last