Skip to comments.Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars
Posted on 10/14/2009 8:47:36 AM PDT by bogusname
Atheist author Richard Dawkins has made it loud and clear that he believes faith has no place in science and that a public debate between him and a creationist of any type is out of the question. The objection to having debates with people like that (creationists) is that it gives them a kind of respectability, Dawkins said during a recent appearance on the Michael Medved show. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned, he told Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, whose organization is best known for its advocacy of Intelligent Design. Following that same logic, Dawkins insisted in another media appearance that only evidence can lay the groundwork for science, not superstition, authority, holy books or revelation.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Hey, Mr Dawkins: ETERNITY IS FOREVER! You need to decide where you want to spend it.....
A person can choose to be an theist in this life but there are no atheists in hell. Everyone there is quite sure there is a God.
Hey Mr. Dawkins, it would be very easy to set up a debate where only scientific evidence is discussed, not the bible or other religious books, and you know that. However, you choose to hide behind your ridiculous argument because you know you will be easily beaten on the evidence alone. You are a chickensh*t of the worst kind.
Since intelligent design is just another name for creationism, how can it be debated scientifically?
Easy, just debate the evidence. For example, in Expelled Dawkins was presented the near impossiblity of life originating on earth by chance given the evidence collected to date. Based on that evidence Dawkins postulated that the life was planted on earth by aliens. Ok fine. Based on the same evidence, IDr’s postulate that God created the first life on earth.
There you have it, a debate, so what is wrong with that?
It takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe that the universe simply 'happened' by chance than it takes to believe in a Creator. There is a greater probability of a tornado hitting a junkyard of spare airplane parts and leaving behind in its wake a fully assembled, fully functional Boeing 747 than there is that advanced life 'evolved' out of some primordial ooze.
Actually, the chance of DNA assembling and self-replicationg is less than 1 in all the particles in the universe. Dawkins has never shown proof of anything at the DNA level and chance doesn’t get it.
I have heard this smarmy elitist speak- ignorance doesn’t sound better with a British accent. trust me on this.
the scientists sympathetic to ID have a good case to make and Dawkins can’t answer it. that is why he won’t debate them.
I agree 100%. I had a little debate with a person yesterday and I sent him the following post.
Use your head.
If you were to travel to some distant planet and found a bolt, washer and nut miles from your ship, you could make a list of accurate conclusions.
1)If I didnt put these here someone else did.
2)These are the products of a society because no single person would go to the trouble of making such devices for himself alone.
3)These people know something of metallurgy.
4)They have a knowledge of math and measurements.
5)They use tools
6)They build things or they wouldnt need a fastening device.
All of these statements would be true regardless of where these things came from. You would never come to the conclusion that nature created them by happenstance. Yet you would, upon seeing the infinitely more complex design of human beings conclude that nature did the handiwork?
and he also said:
” That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein “
and again: regarding a “superintelligence”
“an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
I submit that, according to Einstein's thinking, Dawkins postulations are of “utterly insignificant reflection.”
Dawkins thinks he’s the god of true logic. What logic is there in believing that something as complex an a human being evolved from soup through billions of random genetic mutations over millions of years? If he’s willing to buck odds like that why can’t he conceive the notion that by chance there is a God? Atheism is an elaborate form of self deceptioon and a rebellion against God.
Dawkins postulations are significant in regard to where Richard will spend eternity.
I suspicion that atheists believe that since they don't believe in God, He doesn't exist. The ultimate in pomposity.
I often imagine God having a good laugh at their puffed up ignorance.
In arguing for evolution, they cite examples of animal life where that particular species adapted to its environment. Yet when it comes to plants, they offer no such explanation. If plants adapted to their environment, then they would have figured out a way to make food from nitrogen since it is the most common compound in air. Yet instead, they utilize carbon dioxide which makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
That is a good point!
Dawkins avoids debate with theists because he is beaten every time he tries.
Check out his debate with Alister McGrath, for example. Dawkins nearly broke down in the end.
I’m guessing that’s on YouTube? I’ll check it out. Thanks
There is no such thing as an “ID Scholar.” IDers have a belief, not knowledge.
Debating them about scientific principles would be tantamount to debating a shrubbery.
I found it now but could not get the video to run. I saw it last year. It is quite long.
I used to get a kick out of these debates. People believe one way or the other. That won’t change. I now think these debates are little more than intellectual masturbation.
Have you been reading Sigmund Freud?
It was soon after the scientific community recognized that the earth/universe did, indeed, start with a Big Bang.
He writes: The dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot Universe must have been beyond description. The picture suggests the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb. The instant in which the cosmic bomb exploded marked the birth of the Universe.
and in calculating the age of the Universe, using scientific data, he says: When did the Universe explode into being?...the birth of the Universe must have occurred very recently.
and in conclusion, he summed it up: that the Scientist who lives by faith in the power of reason the story will end like a bad dream. He will climb the mountains of ignorance, and conquer the highest peak, and is greeted, as he pulls himself over the last rock, by a group of theologians who have been there all along..
But the atheists still insist on teaching the "THEORY" of Darwin, a naturalist, who wrote to friends: "'My theology is a simple muddle"
1 Corinthians 3:19-”For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
Those findings are in a study done by a Richard Dawkins.
It’s titled, “How I took advantage of the less gifted and easily fooled.” Dawkins found that the lower a person’s IQ is the more likely he is to accept atheism. He boldly stated that he had conceived a method of extracting money from the most ignorant portion of society. Since these poor folks without sense could so easily be convinced that there is no God, Dawkins wrote a book wherein he pretended to support this foolish notion.
It worked! All of his studies of “stupid people” if you will, paid off. Dawkins is now a very rich man with a large following of dedicated fools. Dawkins is indeed a scientific genius.
Yes Dawkins did indicate that he believed that was a possibility. I saw that in “Expelled.” To Dawkins, intelligent design is possible...but if it’s true it was done by aliens and not by God.
Dawkins is a nut case.
Actually I would think that such a debate would actually give Dawkins some respectability.
Yes but then again you have good sense.
Friend, my point is, the scientific evidence supporting evolution is nothing “but stupidity.” You should have known. Read it again. Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
You are without evidence or excuse.
Sorry, but you are wrong. He allowed for the possibility, but discounted it as laughable
And so thats his debate answer, and it makes him look silly. And that is the reason he won’t debate ID.
ID has NO scientific basis. It cannot be debated scientifically. It is an opinion. One religion’s creation story is no better that anyone else’s from a scientific standpoint. You cannot debate taste or opinion.
Wrong. ID simply points out phenomenon for which a naturalistic explanation is implausible. If John Armstrong found a slot machine on the moon, nobody would be postulating that it was formed by natural forces, all discussion would be about what intelligence force created it and put it there. The DNA molecule is far more complex than a slot machine. Yes, naturalism can explain much complexity but it has its limits.
Abiogenisis and evolution are also a Creation Story. If Dawkins would just stop using science as a basis for Ahiest evangelism then he wouldn’t put himself in the repeated pickles he gets into. Same goes for science in general, stop using science to promote the religion of Athiesm and ID will probably just go away.