Skip to comments.Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution...(what a coward!)
Posted on 10/07/2009 8:18:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Seattle Richard Dawkins, the worlds leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the new atheism, has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design, says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.
But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and wont debate its leading proponents, adds Dr. Meyer. Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.
In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?
Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majestys Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate creationists.
Dawkins response is disingenuous, said Meyer. Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I dont think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.
According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.
Remember, the presumed enemy these threads fight is not evolution — which is religion neutral — but godless evolutionists (of which there are some, I guess).
the latest news is that apes evolved from humans. apparently a million years ago two groups separated, one became human and the other were liberals.
“an advocate of the ‘new atheism’”
How can there be a new or old atheism? Nothing more is covered by the term than that there is no God. What do Old and New sects discuss at the summit meetings? Issue #1: Is there a God? Unanamous answer: No. Summit adjourned.
The problem as I see it are the “Evangelistas” on both sides of the the argument, the ones on one side are completely certain that God does exist and the ones on the other side are completely certain that he doesn’t exist.
I prefer the “Skep-gnostic” approach, as in show me irrefutable physical proof either way. We simply do not know if there is a higher being in charge of every minor change or not. We know evolution / natural selection is a process that works to enable plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment or take advantage of certain conditions by rewarding success. That part is certain, but to say with absolute certainty that god doesn’t exist is just as arrogant as pushing your view of what god should be down someone’s throat.
I don't know how he is on Evolution, but I really liked him on Family Feud, Hogan's Heroes...not so much.
My point was that many of these scientific theories that are treated as absolute fact and pushed hard in schools and in the media can turn out to be wholly bogus.
Why would anyone engage the poo-flinging creationist monkeys in debate?
Dawkins is smarter than that.
Evolutionist are facing a daunting challenge from DNA data. DNA data indicate that we are not related to any of the fossils of ape like creatures. Without this relationship evolutionists cannot come up with a missing link between “early man/ape” and modern man. It seems like man was created unique and separate from apes.
So they believe we are just protoplasim and just be left in the ground for fertilizer? To me, I say they are cowards because they will feel the real wrath that will befall them.
I don’t blame him after the shellacking he got in Expelled speculating that Aliens planted the first life on earth.
I did like him in “Running Man”....
Quote...Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.
That pretty much says it all! or we could just ignore the evidence???
Human and apes are as unrelated as humans and dogs, even if we share 94% of the genetic code of a dog. Both being mammals and all.
Are you a dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic like I am?
He is smart in a dishonest sort of way, because he knows what happens to Temple of Darwin fanatics who dare to debate Creation and ID scientists:
As such, Richard Dawkins has adopted a different approach:
I forgot about that!!!
Dawkins prefers (indeed, wants to enforce!) the latter.