Taken from answersingenesis.org
If that does not work, try clicking HERE or HERE
Skeptics choke on Frog:
was Dawkins caught on the hop?
First published in:
Prayer News (both Australia and UK) p. 3, November 1998
Expose
the mythology behind macro-evolution!
|
From
a Frog To a Prince (Video)
Conclusively
shows that there is no mechanism for evolution, and that life could only
evolve by chance in fairy tales, not in the real world of true science.
(27 minutes)
More
Information / Order Online
|
Our
new video From a Frog to a Prince (right) is having a beneficial
effect. It illustrates the amazing design in living things, and the
encyclopedic information stored in the DNA, required as a blueprint for
all the designs. It also shows that mutations and natural selection merely
remove information, not add information, as particles-to-people evolution
requires.
One of its highlights is the stumping of the ardently
atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1
by the simple question: Professor Dawkins, can
you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which
can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information, Dawkins should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an answer completely unrelated to the question.
Dawkins is a hero of the Australian Skeptics, who helped bring him to
Australia (showing their anti-Christian bias contrary to their professed religious neutrality
— see How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist
Organisations?). It was obviously too much for the Skeptics that their hero was stumped.
In their magazine The Skeptic, the editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic article
accusing the video of deception, as well as smearing creationists in
general.2
These tactics should surprise no one familiar with the Australian Skeptics.
To us, allegations from the Australian Skeptics have a big question mark over their credibility. After
all, their leading light Ian Plimer in his book Telling Lies
bragged about
blatantly deceiving creationists, and that book has the full support of the rest of the
Australian Skeptics (see The Ian Plimer Files)
Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think
the end (combatting creationism) justifies the means (lies, deception and slander), how can anyone be sure that
anything else they write is not deception for the good of the cause?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in Gods written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false
witness; atheistic skeptics like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such inhibitions. We are
not saying that all atheists lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral basis for refraining from lies.
Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered the question!
The producer of the video, Gillian Brown of Keziah Video Productions,
has submitted the following response to The Skeptic (slightly
edited for our Prayer News), which thoroughly refutes their charges.
Gillian Browns letter to The Skeptic
You have written an article in The Skeptic, which claims to demonstrate the depths to which the creationist movement will stoop in order to try to discredit its critics, in which you denigrate my character and work, and that without having spoken to me at all.
Your article recounts Prof. Dawkins recollection of
an interview, which is included in the video From a Frog to a Prince,
which I produced, in which Dawkins is seen to pause for 11 seconds, and
evade a simple question. As you yourself say: It
beggars belief that someone of Richard Dawkins stature in the field would
have been stumped by such a simple question or would have evaded it.
So, you conclude that Dawkins was ‘set up,
with malicious intent, in a
piece of crude propaganda, deliberately
manipulated with deceitful intent.
First, if you are going to publish a libellous attack against someone, it is responsible journalism to inquire into both sides of the story. And in this case, before making accusations about the circumstances of an interview, it would have also been wise to have viewed the unedited tape. That way you could have presented a serious investigation of the matter, and avoided making ill-informed and false assertions.
You state: perhaps it could be
argued that Prof. Dawkins memories of the events might have deteriorated
with the passage of time since the interview
In fact, whether
from memory lapse or for other reasons, the recollection of Dr Dawkins
is riddled with inaccuracies and some downright untruths. Following is
an accurate account of the interview, which may be confirmed by viewing
the unedited video tapes.
Dr Dawkins makes a number of incorrect statements [marked
with RD Editor] as cited by Mr Williams to which my replies
are interspersed and marked with GB.
RD: ‘On
September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of
Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house
GB: I was accompanied by a former geologist, Philip
Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.
RD:
I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which
increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that
nobody except a creationist would ask
GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview.
At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the
origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may
be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the
exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped
the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information
were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded
that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important
to the evolution-creation debate.
RD: The
tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them
to leave my house.
GB: At no time did Dr Dawkins ask us to leave
his house. A second camera (newly purchased, which we were testing) was
inadvertently not switched off until later, so it recorded most of the
ensuing conversation. This remains on record to clarify supposed lapses
of memory.
RD:
As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has
an entire chapter (The Genetic Book of the Dead) devoted to a much
more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up
information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the
time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published
in November, 1998). That chapter would have been in the forefront of my
mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would
have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians.
GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off,
Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be
used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement,
but refused to take more questions from Philip.
We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.
After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.
Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the
pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question,
a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred
not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps,
but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited
tape you will be able to confirm my account.
RD: If
I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had
to do was talk about The Genetic Book of the Dead. It is a chapter I
am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound
it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept
totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something
quite different while struggling to keep my temper?
GB: Whatever he may have been thinking about I don’t
know, but it is clear that he did not answer the question.
[From here, Gillian responds to Barry Williams’ article in
The Skeptic2 (his comments
are marked by BW) — Ed.]
BW: If
it had been left at that, it might merely have been evidence of professional
incompetence on the part of the producer and editor of the tape
GB: Before making charges of incompetence, the original
tape should be viewed
The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey
Smith) was off camera, and thats why the question was re-recorded by
the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response
from Prof. Dawkins.
The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11
seconds, and Dawkins request to switch off the camera so that he could
think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever,
what is seen is Dawkins exact response, with a shortened pause, and the
(merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.
BW: Certainly
this is by no means the first occasion on which the creation science
movement has sought to misrepresent the words of eminent scientists to
bolster their own inept grasp of scientific matters, and to mislead their
own unfortunate followers.
GB: This accusation is beneath contempt now that your
willingness to make accusations without doing your homework has surfaced.
Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the
Internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection
of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview,
Dr Morton posted the following apology:
I had originally questioned
whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain
technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not
the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared
to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having
any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After
Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions
were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian
admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that
she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly
as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated
was acceptable Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the
original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine.
He sent the tape to me.
I will state categorically that the audio tape of the
interview 100% supports Gillian Browns contention that Dawkins couldnt
answer the question.
References
For scientific refutations of Dawkins works, see:
G.H. Duggan, Review of The Blind Watchmaker,
Apologia, 6(1):121122, 1997.
R.G. Bohlin, Up the River Without a Paddle Review of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(3):322327, 1996. See online review.
-
J.D. Sarfati,
Review of Climbing Mt Improbable, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal, 12(1):2934, 1998. See Online
review.
-
W. Gitt, Weasel
Words, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):2021, SeptemberNovember
1998 refutes Dawkins computer proof of information arising by mutation
and selection. Dr Gitt shows that the information was pre-programmed,
something Dawkins admitted but glossed over. See online
version.
Royal Truman,
The problem of information
for the theory of evolution: Has Dawkins really solved it? ((Technical)
refutes Dawkins belated subsequent attempt to answer the question
he couldnt in the interview).
Return to text
B. Williams, Creationist Deception
Exposed, The Skeptic 18(3):710. This article has also been widely circulated
on the Internet. Return to Text.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home
|