Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution...(what a coward!)
Discovery Institute ^ | October 6, 2009

Posted on 10/07/2009 8:18:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s 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 won’t 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 Majesty’s 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 don’t 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Washington; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; dna; evangelical; evolution; evosexposed; genetics; genome; historicalscience; id; informationscience; intelligentdesign; judaism; liberalfascism; medicine; notasciencetopic; operationalscience; originoflife; propellerbeanie; protestant; richarddawkins; science; signatureinthecell; stephenmeyer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2009 8:18:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Remember, the presumed enemy these threads fight is not evolution — which is religion neutral — but godless evolutionists (of which there are some, I guess).


2 posted on 10/07/2009 8:20:27 AM PDT by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
The evos may be able to wield the power of the state against their opponents, but it is clear they are nevertheless on the run...LOL!
3 posted on 10/07/2009 8:21:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


4 posted on 10/07/2009 8:21:50 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“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.


5 posted on 10/07/2009 8:25:15 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


6 posted on 10/07/2009 8:27:46 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution...

I don't know how he is on Evolution, but I really liked him on Family Feud, Hogan's Heroes...not so much.

7 posted on 10/07/2009 8:28:29 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

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.


8 posted on 10/07/2009 8:31:16 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why would anyone engage the poo-flinging creationist monkeys in debate?

Dawkins is smarter than that.


9 posted on 10/07/2009 8:31:35 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


10 posted on 10/07/2009 8:32:47 AM PDT by Fee (Peace, prosperity, jobs and common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

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.


11 posted on 10/07/2009 8:33:35 AM PDT by cameraeye (A happy kufir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I don’t blame him after the shellacking he got in Expelled speculating that Aliens planted the first life on earth.


12 posted on 10/07/2009 8:34:06 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Obamanos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I did like him in “Running Man”....


13 posted on 10/07/2009 8:35:24 AM PDT by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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???


14 posted on 10/07/2009 8:37:33 AM PDT by MGBGUN (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

YUP.

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.


15 posted on 10/07/2009 8:38:19 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Are you a dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic like I am?


16 posted on 10/07/2009 8:39:13 AM PDT by wolfpat (Moderate=Clueless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Filo
==Dawkins is smarter than that.

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:


17 posted on 10/07/2009 8:39:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

I forgot about that!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!


18 posted on 10/07/2009 8:41:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MGBGUN

Dawkins prefers (indeed, wants to enforce!) the latter.


19 posted on 10/07/2009 8:45:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
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.

Now that I would believe.


20 posted on 10/07/2009 8:45:10 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Hope....Change...Bullsh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat

>> Are you a dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic like I am? <<

I am not dyslexic, though my keyboarding tends to be that way, I am not an insomniac if I take melatonin 1/2 hour before wanting to go to bed. I am a bit of a mix between absolute skeptic / doubting Thomas and agnostic.


21 posted on 10/07/2009 8:48:16 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

Macro-evolution is not neutral. Thanks for playing...


22 posted on 10/07/2009 8:54:44 AM PDT by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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:

Nope. He's smart in a smart kind of way.

There is no debating with fanatical idiots like creationists and jihadis. You have three choices. Ignore them (as Dawkins does), make fun of them (as I do) or kick 'em in the junk ('cause it's fun and funny.)

Debate is simply not possible since the opposition doesn't have any grounding in reality.
23 posted on 10/07/2009 8:59:26 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

[[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:]]

Precisely! He’s afraid of the very science he abuses to ‘support’ his assinine comments on evolution, and knows that the scientific evidence does NOT support his idiotic claims, and is afraid to have the impossibilities of his hypothesis exposed for all to see- He knows that he can’t defend himself, and so he’s takign his ball and goign home like a spoiled rotten little brat!


24 posted on 10/07/2009 9:03:21 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Posting dated Monty Python clips in response to another’s post is not as clever or witty as you seem to think it is, I’m afraid.

Why would a scientist bother to debate a theologist? Apples and oranges.


25 posted on 10/07/2009 9:14:12 AM PDT by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Fighting evolution is a loser’s game and I don’t play.


26 posted on 10/07/2009 9:16:23 AM PDT by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

I don’t spend much time on it either because macro-evolution is a loser’s game. But irrespective of our preferences regarding time allocation, macro-evolution is not neutral.


27 posted on 10/07/2009 9:18:29 AM PDT by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Filo

Well seeing how revolutionary evolutionists were the genesis of the modern Islamist terror network, I really don’t see why you would have any problem with it.


28 posted on 10/07/2009 9:24:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

IDers to employ theology. Perhaps you should spend some time learning the difference between Creation and ID scientists.


29 posted on 10/07/2009 9:25:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

(fixed) IDers do not employ theology. Perhaps you should spend some time learning the difference between Creation and ID scientists.


30 posted on 10/07/2009 9:26:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

[[Fighting evolution is a loser’s game]]

Not when it might cause soem young person to actually question the impossible hypothesis of Macroevolution instead of just taking everythign they are handed by big government agendists as fact- The truth is never a losing game- exposing hte serious problems associated with Darwinism at least gets the word out to others that Darwinism isn’t nearly as ‘settled science’ as the macroevolutionists claim in their propoganda classes


31 posted on 10/07/2009 9:27:51 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Well, I lay awake at night wondering if there really is a doG.


32 posted on 10/07/2009 9:45:25 AM PDT by wolfpat (Moderate=Clueless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

Are you saying Dawkins is a scientist? Who knew?? The guy sure does not ever come across as ground in science, scientific knowledge and scientific methodology.


33 posted on 10/07/2009 9:46:30 AM PDT by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat

Yes there is a doG and it is outside barking it’s head off which is why you are not getting enough sleep.


34 posted on 10/07/2009 9:52:39 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Filo
Why would anyone engage the poo-flinging creationist monkeys in debate?
...asked Filo, as he flung poo...

35 posted on 10/07/2009 9:54:46 AM PDT by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
...asked Filo, as he flung poo...

More of a rebound, really. . .
36 posted on 10/07/2009 9:57:09 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Dawkins is a coward. He says he does not debate creationist or intelligent design advocates, yet takes opportunity to ‘dry gulch’ cretionists and intelligent design advocates in his appearances and his writings. He know Dr.Meyer would eat his launch. Meyer’s credentials are impeccable to the secularist, atheist. Beyond that he is an expert debater. Dawkins snivels and retreats beneath the rock he believes is his mother. Dawkins reminds me of Obama out in San Francisco referencing Pennsylvanians as clinging to their guns and Bibles, with antipathy towards the government. Damnable coward.


37 posted on 10/07/2009 9:57:22 AM PDT by katlynne11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
show me irrefutable physical proof either way.

A god completely provable by physical evidence would not be god as defined by the vast majority of religions.

We simply do not know if there is a higher being in charge of every minor change or not.

Depends on your epistemology. We "know" a great deal that cannot be proved by science alone. Science is, by design, the firmest and therefore smallest set of knowledge. No one limits themselves to only that which can be known by science.

I wouldn't put stock in any attempt to prove God scientifically. It is an error either way - to say that science proves there is no God, or can prove God exists.

38 posted on 10/07/2009 9:58:48 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: katlynne11
He know Dr.Meyer would eat his launch.

He must be a rocket scientist.

39 posted on 10/07/2009 10:03:57 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Filo
More of a rebound, really. . .
Ah, I see. You are claiming that what I saw (poo flying from your locale) wasn't flung by you at all, no sir, it was just bouncing "off" of you.
40 posted on 10/07/2009 10:13:26 AM PDT by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Ah, I see. You are claiming that what I saw (poo flying from your locale) wasn't flung by you at all, no sir, it was just bouncing "off" of you.

Nah. I'm pretty sure none of it actually hit me. All I'm saying is that there were a lot of poo flingers there, and a lot of poo being flung. . . ;-)
41 posted on 10/07/2009 10:15:50 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t 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.

If there's no evidence for intelligent design in life, how could the universe give the illusion of design?

No wonder Dawkins doesn't have the wherewithal to debate.

The guy shoots himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth.

42 posted on 10/07/2009 10:27:01 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Richard Dawkins is an amateur liberal philosopher who behaves like a spoiled brat when he is not behaving like Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnell or some other radical leftist fraud.


43 posted on 10/07/2009 10:38:35 AM PDT by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Don’t debate the subject, it was Richard Dawson. (with a mild chuckle)
44 posted on 10/07/2009 10:43:00 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government
Ahhh...but it is evolution that is the enemy. And it should be attacked as such.
45 posted on 10/07/2009 10:59:24 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Filo

A stealthy admission, with the added "but others are doing it".?

Ok, lots of that sort of thing goes on here. I indulge myself in wiseguy comments, too.

Getting back to the article; I can see easily enough that from Dawkin's perspective, debating with anyone who doesn't agree with what can be termed neo-Dawinism wouldn't be profitable to him at all.

His book sales and speaking engagement fees, are likely doing quite well as things are now.

So what is the major difference between these two writers, what is the crux of the issue separating them?

One assumes life some how self-organized, randomly sprung into existence.

The other writer postulates that some evidence for what has become known as "design" can be seen in lifeforms.

"Proof" for this latter can only be inferred from the evidence perhaps, but first, one must be able to accept the possibility that the neo-Darwinian philosophical outlook may be quite wrong, at least as far as the abiogenisis assumption is concerned.

All the poo-flinging merely distracts from the set of ideas being discussed.

Dawkins will not approach the idea whatsoever. He states his case, but adds much poo-flinging along with it, towards any who dare challenge the assumption.

Are you following in his footsteps here?

46 posted on 10/07/2009 11:00:19 AM PDT by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Are you following in his footsteps here?

Absolutely.

Why?

Because there is no "assumption."

The concept of a creator and/or some implied design is just dumb. It doesn't deserve the credibility of debate, it deserves to have poo flung at it.

There is no evidence for creation, none for "design" and every single fact points to evolution with none pointing any other way.

Sure, as the creationists say we didn't witness abiogenesis (which is an entirely separate topic from evolution) to which I reply we didn't witness creation either and the latter is a cop out which makes no sense.

So, rather than debate the facts which, as Dawkins and others have learned, creationists are immune to, I'll sit here and make fun of those with the silly flat-Earth ideas.

Times are tough and this is cheaper than a movie!
47 posted on 10/07/2009 11:15:24 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Standard procedure to avoid debate, it doesn't work out well for the Darwinists:

““Box 2. Natural divisions
From the following article:
Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students’ minds?

Geoff Brumfiel

Nature 434, 1062-1065(28 April 2005)

doi:10.1038/4341062a

Evolution advocates say that researchers should be careful about how they respond to such overtures. If the request is for a public debate with an intelligent-design advocate, the best answer is ‘no’, argues Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science at Michigan State University in East Lansing. “A public debate is an artificial setting for getting into scientific issues,” he says. “There's no way in that format to thoroughly give a scientific response, especially to a lay audience.”
“A formal debate is not how we do science,” agrees Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. “But I think it's appropriate for scientists to meet with students and educate them about what the real science is saying.”
That's what Victor Hutchison and his colleagues in the zoology department at the University of Oklahoma in Norman have been doing for the past few years. “We will not agree to debate the creationists publicly,” he says. “But we encourage faculty members and graduate students to attend their meetings and challenge them in the discussion.”

Debate is not good for Darwinists.

48 posted on 10/07/2009 11:18:09 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

“Posting dated Monty Python clips in response to another’s post is not as clever or witty as you seem to think it is”

It made me laugh


49 posted on 10/07/2009 11:26:10 AM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

“Aliens planted the first life on earth”

I never expected ‘Expelled’ to be funny, but him saying that made me laugh hysterically, how can anyone find him credible? Dawkins seriously jumped the shark on that note.


50 posted on 10/07/2009 11:33:03 AM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson