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.
It’s funny to watch those that fling poo demanding proof via the fraud of peer review, never offering any proof themselves.
Like Chrissy Fit Matthews and his “settled science” poo.
But in the liberal world, up is down, down is up.
It’s actually the strongest argument liberals have for evolution...they fling poo just like their supposed ape ancestor cousins.
And let’s not forget their high profile liberal handlers like al gore with the “debate is over” poo, shutting it down, because embarassingly; like Dawkins here, they can’t handle the heat in the kitchen.
Thus the lawsuits...and these liberal tactics.
Again Sparkles...keep up the good work, as anytime a liberal opens his mouth and is busily destroying his own argument, the best thing to do is get out of the way!!!
So tell us more!
Keep it coming...Filo!
Spot on post and good tagline too!
Obviously another buffoon who got his degree from a degree mill.
Yup...along with all these too...MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton...
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
George Bush dodged debate with Cindy Sheehan
Only Sheehan’s the liberal evolutionist, while W is the conservative creationist.
Here we merely have the situation in reverse with Dawkins.
Do you ever wonder why NO liberal is a creationist, head in sand boy?
Or did the indoctrination centers teach, (pardon the pun) you not to think too?
I know liberals are self-absorbed, but perhaps you're both incredibly self-absorbed and honestly believe what you're saying, sans your earlier Freudian slip about evolutionists being laughable.
But many a liberal has been demanding "peer review proof" and "evidence" on these threads sparkles.
That you don't care the slightest bit about it, doesn't surprise anyone, the worst of the evo-cultists just squeal really loud with their hands over their ears anyway...
...but just understand alot of your liberal friends just aren't as far down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole as you are sparkles.
The rest was pretty sad even for you..."plant-like"...?come on...give it a little more liberal punch...I bet there's even a few of your fellow Chrissy Fit FR poo-flinging liberals pulling for you and just a good bit embarassed for you as well!
Yet, you would have us believe that not only was there no driver, but that the car was actually a motorcycle, as it braked, before hitting the tree.
And you think we're idiots....
You wave it all away with the statement "nonsense".
A more honest man would admit that that portion of "evolutionary theory" is indeed assumption, regardless of the consequence. Many in the scientific community do. The admission itself does not nor would not negate the idea, in and of itself.
What are you so afraid of?
The immature people who defend him in spite of his secular religious evolutionary dogma wrapped in the typical cowardice along with his painful sophomoric leftism, all end up sounding exactly like the emotional adolescent that Richard Dawkins has proven himself to be.
Radical leftist clowns like Dawkins do not deserve any respect, nor should they be defended for their Barney Frankish hissy fits.
Why on Earth would anyone bother?
The creationists don’t need proof. Their little book tells them what to believe.
They also don’t understand the concepts of proof, logic or science.
Asking a ‘thumper for proof would be like asking a moth to do calculus.
Better to just appreciate them for what they are. . .
Now that’s the spirit!
Exactly....better yet...just throw a box of plastic, metal and some wiring up in the air and watch a car rain down from the sky like magic and THEN it hits a tree with no driver...
and call THAT “proof” of “science”.
Thanks for the ping!
I see. So your response is to just call people idiots and imbeciles. I stand in awe at your superior intellect....
Evolution is not the enemy, any more than pond scum is.
The opening statement, above, is a straw man. There is no "leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution." There are hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions, who accept the principle of darwinian evolution without there being a "leading spokesman." If I were a planner in the Russian intelligence services, charged with finding ways to make America's conservative movement appear ridiculous, I'd start by arranging to increase the posting of threads like this one. Because they are beyond ridiculous.
You haven’t seen my pond scum.
ID is just the lipstick on the pig of Creationist science.
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.