Behold, my fave #DickieDawk interview (so far)!

Of the atheist triumvirate of Dawkins, Harris, and the late Hitchens, Dawkins is by far my favorite. I sometimes find Harris a little too dry and sometimes found Hitchens to be a little too rude. I know that last one is a little counter to my praise of Hitchens here. What can I say? I’m complex.

In the following interview, Dawkins chats with Howard Conder, founder of Revelation TV, about, among other things, evolution/creationism. I point out a couple of highlights below. (Times are approximate.)

To Conder’s credit, he’s extremely courteous, more so than most Christians, apologists, and generally religious are to most of us most of the time. This may seem like it should be able to be taken for granted, but, eh, it’s not.



Dawkins gives an explanation of the evolution of the eye and why it’s “well explicable by evolution.” I personally hate the perpetual need for apologists to toss out the eye as if that were the evolution killer. If you’re gonna pick something that’s “difficult” to explain through evolution, pick something far more complex like the brain. But that’s not the point. The point is that the eye’s evolution is supposedly too complex to have occurred without supernatural aid, and yet the explanation is so fucking simple.


I’m always mystified by the fact that, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, creationists insist on a literal
interpretation of Genesis as being a perfectly reasonable assumption of how the universe began. Conder finally makes it make sense. If you believe that 1. Jesus was who He’s claimed to be and 2. that therefore everything He said was true, then 3. you must believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if 4. Jesus referred to it. This in fact makes much more sense than the moderate Christian conviction that only bits of the Bible need to be taken literally only on occasion.


Conder reveals his ignorance of evolution by asking how we evolved to be able to poo (he actually euphemizes pee) if we always needed to do that. He shortly thereafter admits that he doesn’t believe Dawkins on the evolution of the eye because the Bible says that God made everything perfect in its own kind.


Conder explains the “electric” feeling he had when he claims that the Holy Spirit entered him. He then claims that he passed this feeling onto someone else while praying. He then explains that they buried a child who’d starved to death. He then found some girl who was suffering some disease, he laid hands, felt the electric woo and she was healed.

What I don’t fucking get about this is let’s just pretend that what Conder said happened did happen. All the “electric” shit. This still doesn’t explain why it was so fucking important for God to convert Conder, but not the least important to stop the starvation, (other people’s) disease, etc. that the people he was there to help were suffering.

Think about this. You’re God, an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, omnipresent being, and because you could provide food and health to people without even getting involved in that whole “free will” horseshit, wouldn’t you? Being omnibenevolent presupposes compassionate. And yet you don’t. You don’t do a fucking thing. But, BUT, you do find it in your infinite wisdom and power to give some old British dick an “electric” feeling so he can… heal one diseased chick (but no one else), start a TV network, and squawk about you?? In your infinite wisdom, you can’t prioritize any better than that?


Dawkins asks why Conder would go from his “electric” experience to believing that Genesis is literally true. Conder’s answer? The prophetic “value” of the Bible. Yeah, because it was important to God to have us write thing A. down, then a few years later, write thing B. down to conform to thing A. to prove His existence rather than simply reveal Himself to everyone all the time in ways that He knew would convince all of us.


Dawkins asks, “Why didn’t God just forgive?”


Conder answers, “He (God) could’ve done it that way.”


2 Responses to “Behold, my fave #DickieDawk interview (so far)!”

  1. omg. I just watched a interview with Howard Conder and Dawkins. I am now searching the internet for his name. I have NEVER ever ever seen a dumber person than him. He dosent understand ANYTHING Dawkins is saying cause he is not even on the same level. I am so EMBARRASED on behalf of mr Conder. I cant stand to watch this interview. He is such a moron even hes ‘religious points’ dosent make sense. Does anyone know this man, is he a simpleton?

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      If he’s the dumbest you’ve ever seen, you’ve not spoken to that many apologists, specifically young Earth creationists. I don’t think Conder’s a simpleton. I think it’s mostly an act. I actually think it’s a way of garnering sympathy from his audience. Look at him barely able to defend himself against Dawkins’ vicious attacks. I might be wrong, but that’s what it seems. As for his points, I kind of do understand them in the same way that I understand how the Force works in Star Wars. What Conder is describing has its own internal logic, it’s just that I don’t find his evidence and reasoning convincing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: