DAWKINS DODGES DESIGN DEBATE
Thursday 22 October, 2009
World
UK
Science/Nature
Education
Richard Dawkins: failing to take on his most capable opponents
By Andrew Halloway
The world’s leading Intelligent Design (ID) think tank has announced that prominent Darwinist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate his own evolution book with ID author Stephen Meyer.
Dawkins’ new book, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’, claims to be overflowing with irrefutable evidence for evolution. But the Discovery Institute has found that apparently Dawkins is not so confident of his case that he is prepared to debate it with a leading opponent.
Although he has debated atheism many times, Dawkins has a history of avoiding clashes over evolution.
Dr Stephen C. Meyer, author of the acclaimed ‘Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design’, has challenged Dawkins to defend ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Meyer says: “Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for Intelligent Design. But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents.”
Dr Meyer, who received his PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, continues: “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’, 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? The book was only launched this year yet has entered its third printing, according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins. It has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr Norman Nevin, US National Academy of Sciences member Dr Philip Skell, and a former Inspector of Schools for Science in Scotland – Alastair Noble (PhD, chemistry).
Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this autumn in Seattle and New York, but Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists” because he doesn’t want to give credence to their position.
But Meyer, although a committed Christian, denies that he is a creationist: “Dawkins’ response is disingenuous. 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 ID is based on scientific evidence.”
According to Discovery Institute, where 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.
But Dawkins is unlikely to take it up in the future. Since a few skirmishes with creationists early in his career, he has resolutely refused to debate evolution. One wonders what it is he fears? If evolution is as irrefutable as he claims, then he should win every such debate. Surely it’s better to defeat his opponents’ arguments in public than to let them develop unopposed?
It’s no use saying that debating anti-evolutionists will give them the oxygen of publicity that they don’t deserve. ID and creationism are already well-known and growing alternatives to evolution, especially in America.
Perhaps the real reason is that the former Professor for the Public Understanding of Science is worried that debating an ID scientist might give the public a better understanding of the shaky foundations of evolution.
Photo: catholicaudio.blogspot.com
Simon Phipp wrote:
Dawkins’ book the Greatest Show on Earth easily dispatches the ID crowd’s non arguments. Dawkins doesn’t engage in debate with creationists as it gives the creationists a credibility that they totally lack.
If you aren’t scared of science I suggest that you read Dawkins book and make your own mind up.
Muriel Anderson wrote:
Richard Dawkins obviously feels he can’t take part in a debate he couldn’t possibly win.
And to answer Stephen Harford: God loves us, and because of this He created humans with free will. To blame God for the sins of a power-crazed lunatic called Hitler is ridiculous - it’s like you blaming God every time you lose your temper. Yes, Satan influences many people to commit evil acts: God allows this to happen because we all have the freedom to follow His example or listen to the devil. But in the end we’re all accountable for the choices we made in life, and will be punished or rewarded accordingly. I’ve chosen to love and follow Jesus.
Maureen Leigh wrote:
One of the students at Bible College where I worked told me his uncle was a lecturer on evolution. When this student was trying to refute the bible to his Christian mates, he went to this uncle and asked him for advice. Uncle told him: evolution cannot work. It doesn’t work, it never has worked. It’s impossible, and yes, I teach it, that’s my job…
Words fail me…
Stephen Harford wrote:
Just coming from a slightly different angle on this one. Funny though when I ask this question I find certain people looking down to the floor with nothing to say. It’s a point about the balance of power in the universe. Imagine a six year old Hungarian Jewish girl being marched into the gas chambers of Auschwitz. At that moment who holds the balance of power in the universe, God or the Devil? Surely this must mean that both God and the Devil are constantly vying for every sub-atomic particle in the universe or else the universe would either be perfect or it would all be evil or destroyed. In the end though God had either not got the power to stop this happening or he did not care. Either way that proves he cannot be god. Why not just finish the devil -simple!
Alex Woods. wrote:
Evolutionist Will Provime, professor of biology at Cornell University, said : “There are no gods, no goal directed forces, no life after death, no foundation for ethics, no meaning to life, no free will for humans.”
Whereas beliving in God negates everything he said.
Comment on this article
Please Note: All comments will be subject to moderation before showing up on the page, subject to approval.If you would prefer to discuss the issue in more depth and interaction, try the new forum here.