Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the New Bananas

Richard Dawkins was The Colbert Report last Wednesday. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do; it's an enjoyable, humorous interview (and Dawkins wore a croco-duck tie), although you'd probably have to appreciate Colbert's style.

However, we can't have anything good in the world without someone trying to destroy it with stupidity, so... Anne Godlasky from USAToday steps in with this:

His conversation with Stephen Colbert went something like this:

Dawkins: "You asked me for the evidence for evolution, where's the evidence for God?"

Colbert: "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups."

Amen, Stephen.

I'm going to assume she's being serious here; if it turns out she was joking and doesn't actually think that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are evidence for some sort of deity, disregard all of the following.

Why is she agreeing with something that Colbert said in character? One would think that his well-known reputation as a satirist would make people leery of accepting what he says at face value, but that apparently doesn't stop people. And for that matter, it's a stupid argument (and no doubt Colbert himself thinks it's a stupid argument). Why is she supporting a stupid argument? It's as if she doesn't want to be taken seriously.

She ends her column with

If Dawkins asked you that same question, what would you say?

which makes me suspicious that she thinks there's actual evidence for one or more gods existing. But, seeing as how the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup was obviously intelligently designed for human consumption, as it fits so nicely into our hands, as it comes with a convenient wrapper to keep it clean until we choose to eat it, as it deliciously combines chocolate and peanut butter, I have a hard time disagreeing.

Looking at past columns of Godlasky, she tends to end with an open ended question for readers. Which makes this question particularly annoying, as, unless I'm horribly misreading it and "there is no evidence for god, which is why it's irrational to believe one exists, especially an interventionist theistic deity" is an expected answer, the question presumes the readers are all religious. Being untrue, I have to question the wisdom of this assumption.