Not Just Notes!

Search & see

14th May 2007 (Updated 17th May 2007)

THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION

Hi Guys,

This heading is taken from the website address below my post today.

The Creation Vs Evolution debate is a very passionate one from both sides.

According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Science is: "knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example by experiments".

Can any one really prove what happened at the very beginning of time?

A large body of Scientists hold to Evolution as the means of our very beginnings. A smaller body, hold to Intelligent Design.

But evolution does not have "facts that you can prove...by experiments". It is at best a theory that experiments have been "trying to prove", but not an established fact.

Even saying it is a "theory" is being generous. It is really a hypothesis on its way to becoming a theory, if tests prove it. A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory. (Remember the scale: Hypothesis - Theory - Law. e.g. law of gravity). But we'll stick with it being a "theory" for now.

Both systems (Creation and Evolution) are Faith-based when it comes to origins.

Creation: Faith that is based on the belief that the production of the 1st kind of every living thing was by a Creator, who then established a self-perpetuating cycle (birth). The self-perpetuating cycle is directly observable today.

Evolution: Faith that is based on the belief that there was spontaneous generation of living organisms without any assistance (or as some say, "by aliens"! See quote below.), as well as production of entirely new kinds from pre-existing ones. This (spontaneous generation) has never been observed. Millions of years are used to help cover up this glaring deficit.

Which version is more scientific?

"In 1981, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, published a book, declaring that "directed panspermia" was responsible for life on earth. According to this theory, people from another planet sent a rocket down here, with living creatures on it, in order to populate our planet! Crick admits that this does not explain how nearly all our plant and animal species came into existence. Nor does it explain the transportation problem." (Quote Source: http://ufo.whipnet.org/creation/evolution.theory.history/index2.html)

That's just a brief summary. There are good sites to look at the various arguments. Check these http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm   and www.drdino.com

The sadness of it all is why it is pushed down our throats as an established fact (right from nursery!), and why any one with a different view is vilified.

Tony

Related: To All Scientists

--------------------------------------


[The Tracts below are taken from http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/]

The Atheist Test

The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana -- the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

  1. Is shaped for human hand
  2. Has non-slip surface
  3. Has outward indicators of inward content:
    Green-too early,
    Yellow-just right,
    Black-too late.
  4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
  5. Is perforated on wrapper
  6. Bio-degradable wrapper
  7. Is shaped for human mouth
  8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
  9. Is pleasing to taste buds
  10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
     ___ A. Intelligent
     ___ B. A fool
     ___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

EyeDid you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Einstein

 

Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."

 

 

TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
___ YES  ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
___ YES  ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
___ YES  ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.

Oranges

TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?
___ YES  ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?
___ YES  ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?
___ YES  ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.
___ YES  ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.
___ YES  ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.
___ YES  ___ NO

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

ChartLet's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to proved that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

TEST FIVE
The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:
     ___ A. Intelligent
     ___ B. A fool
     ___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.

tv setSecond, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

receiverGod is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal Spirit-immortal and invisible. Like the television waves, He cannot be experienced until the "receiver" is switched on. Here is something you will find hard to believe: Jesus said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21).

Either that is true or it isn't. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it, if it doesn't, forget it.

Or have you an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God, for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman? Could it be that your love for sin is clouding your good judgment? If the Bible is true, and Jesus Christ has "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel," then you owe it to yourself just to check it out. Here is how to do that:

TEST SIX
With a tender conscience,
check this list of the Ten Commandments:
  1. Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength?
  2. Have I made a god in my own image�a god to suit myself?
  3. Have I ever used God's name in vain?
  4. Have I kept the Sabbath holy?
  5. Have I always honored my parents implicitly?
  6. Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)?
  7. Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)?
  8. Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)?
  9. Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)?
  10. Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)?

____YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO
___ YES  ___NO
___ YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO
___ YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO
 
___ YES  ___NO

guiltyIf you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2.000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God...as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Thank you for taking the time to read this booklet.

Adapted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists
by Ray Comfort (Living Waters)
available through your Christian bookstore.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE BIBLESCIENCE NOWSCIENCE THEN
The earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22).
The earth is a sphereThe earth was a flat disk.
Incalculable number of stars
(Jeremiah 33:22).
Incalculable number of starsOnly 1,100 stars
Free float of earth in space
(Job 26:7).
Free float of earth in space.Earth sat on a large animal
Creation made of invisible
elements (Hebrews 11:3).
Creation made of invisible
elements (atoms).
Science was ignorant on
the subject
Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41).
Each star is different.All stars were the same.
Light moves
(Job 38:19,20)
Light moves.Light was fixed in place.
Air has weight
(Job 28:25).
Air has weight.
Air was weightless.
Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Winds blow in cyclones.
Winds blew straight.
Blood is the source of life
and health
(Leviticus 17:11).
Blood is the source of life
and health.
Sick people must be bled.
Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16;
Jonah 2:6).
Ocean floor contains deep
valleys and mountains.
The ocean floor was flat.
Ocean contains springs
(Job 38:16).
Ocean contains springs.
Ocean fed only by rivers
and rain.
When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13).
When dealing with disease,
hands should be washed
under running water.
Hands washed in still water.




The Science of Evolution trailer

This DVD is unique in that it doesn't follow the usual format of Christian experts exposing the theory. Instead, it lets evolutionary believers put their own foot in their own mouth, simply by asking them probing questions.

Join Kirk and Ray as they take an orangutan to lunch, and call major airlines and ask if a "relative" can join them on a plane. The graphics on this DVD have been designed so that there is no indication that it is Christian or anti-evolution. The content is derived from episode 21 of the Way of the Master series.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins Confounded

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Mr. Dawkins was asked the key question concerning increases in information in the genome. You will see his response. After a few seconds, which you won’t see, he said, “Cut!” When they began filming again, he expounded on something totally different from the question asked.

There are 2 versions of this. Why? See the explanation is below(typos corrected by me):


http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199807/0117.html

Dawkins Video

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:01:51 -0500

Last month (June 1998) on the evolution reflector, there was a bit of a
discussion concerning the Video From a Frog to a Prince which is put out by
Keziah Production which is headed by Gillian Brown. The tape showed a
narrator asking Dawkins the 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?"

Dawkins is shown starring at the ceiling for 11 seconds which includes a
sharp in take of air. and then he resumes with the unresponsive :

"There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish
turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and and so somehow we
ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors."

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. Gillian sent a
copy the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of
mine. He sent the tape to me. I have just heard it tonight.

I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100%
supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the
question. Here is the relevant transcript:
**begin ***
Gillian Brown: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the
genome?

[19 seconds of silence which includes a sharp intake of air which is seen
on the video and heard on the audio tape-grm]

Dawkins: "Can you just stop there I think ...[tape then has a second or
two of silence-grm]"

{When the taping starts again the audio tape demonstrates that the
unresponsive response was what was there==grm]
Gillian: "I'm recording."

Dawkins: "OK"
"There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish
turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and and so somehow we
ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors.
We ought to be able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles and
..."
***end**

The only alteration to the question posed by Gillian originally to Dawkins
is the narrator's addition of the words "Professor Dawkins," in front of
the question. That is such a minor change that it does not alter the
substance of Gillian's claim.

I find it disappointing that Dawkins wouldn't respond to my later e-mails
trying to get his response to Ms. Brown's claims and indeed his lack of
response says a lot to me about this incident. I also found it
disappointing that Dawkins wouldn't admit that that the incident had occurred.

I owe Ms. Brown an apology for my initial skepticism and I offer it here. I
was unequivocally wrong in my suspicion of her. While we have in general
been on civil terms, I do want her to know that not all evolutionists
disregard truth as many creationists believe. After listening to the audio
tape, her video, I firmly believe records an accurate account of the
Dawkings incident.

I might add that I think Ms. Brown did Dawkins a favor. While Dawkins is
shown staring at the ceiling for 11 seconds on the video, the actual time
on the audio is 19 seconds. She spared Dawkins 8 seconds of embarrassment.

I am sending a copy of this to both Dawkins and to Ms. Brown.

glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information

---------------------------------------------------------
Read Dawkins Response below:

One Version

Other Version

Dawkins Response:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of  "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

See this site for the rest: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

This is from: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867

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 Brown’s 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.’ [Ed. note: see refutation of this book]

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 that’s 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 Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.'