I wrote a post in reply to comment in another thread where someone was using Richard Dawkins to give weight to their argument. You can see how straw man arguments work in action.
“I was hoping someone might recognize the reference from Richard Dawkins and other atheists that they at least admit to the appearance of design in life, though they still do not believe in a designer.”
They were referencing propaganda spread by Ben Stein to promote his movie on creationism. Dawkins never claimed that there was an appearance of design in life.
You can watch the video and judge for yourself. Ben Stein was asking questions like “who created the universe?” which you would have to assume that someone created the universe to even answer. Dawkins pointed it out and refused to answer that question.
Notice how they have to switch to Ben narrating the question about putting a number on it before Dawkins reply. It’s because his question was not the same as the narrated question. He probably pressured him for a while with “just put a number on it” repeated at him a few dozen times before he gave the following response. He even states he couldn’t put a number on it.
Also notice how Ben doesn’t answer any questions or propose any ideas. He asks complicated questions and expects simple answers.
Then when he actually talks about intelligent design Dawkins never claims to believe there is any evidence, just that “I guess it’s a possibility.”
Dawkins basically says that the intelligent designers would be aliens from another planet, who released some basic organic matter onto earth, which then evolved over billions of years. That is not the same as saying God exists, and is the intelligent designer. And he even points out that it’s not the same immediately after making. Then Ben basically narrates his misinterpretation in a tone to make what Dawkins said sound dumb.
Listen to how many times Ben asks “you don’t believe in any god anywhere”, and then changes his phrasing of the same question so that he could ask it over and over again. Then Dawkins is like… that’s a stupid question. Meanwhile Ben is not listening and trying to find new ways to ask the same question. And then he asks it a few more times.
He narrates over the top to twist Dawkins words. It’s littered with logical fallacies. It’s intentionally misleading. And now I have absolutely no respect for Ben Stein. When you have to use arguments like “scientists believe it so it’s scientific” as supporting evidence; it only suggests that you have no real evidence. And besides, misrepresenting a scientist is not the same as scientists actually having a belief. And why not use science as evidence instead of trickery?
Here’s the severely edited copy of the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
