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 ...
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..
Indeed.
But the atheists still insist on teaching the "THEORY" of Darwin, a naturalist, who wrote to friends: "'My theology is a simple muddle"
Again, Indeed.
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.
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.