Saturday, October 10, 2009

How not to debate Richard Dawkins

Even though Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Intelligent Design advocates or Creationists, every once in a while he will appear on a major media outlet, as he does with Bill O'Reilly:



This is not how you should debate Richard Dawkins, or an atheist for that matter. Its a shame that the few times Dawkins opens himself up enough for a public challenge, its from the worst advocates of the other side. Maybe this is why Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is so silly. Or maybe its because he doesn't read their works and refuses to interact with them? Either way, Dawkins pulls the wool over his eyes and plugs his ears when it comes to acknowledging the other side.

8 comments:

micheygirl66 said...

Colbert is far from silly!He figured out the best use for Dawkins' book..mirror.And then was brave enough to admit it.

Mike Felker said...

You mean O'Reilly?

Rey Discomfort said...

I'm not seeing the point to this, this wasn't a debate. Dawkins was only on Bill O' to promote his book.

//

I'm not sure how I came across your blog exactly but I do remember you typing up a comment that was down on Dawkins for refusing to debate with a particular ID'er and poking fun at YEC, but a few posts down you cite AiG ... I haven't put anytime into trying to figure it out .. but are you an YEC?

Mike Felker said...

I realize this wasn't a formal debate, so maybe it could be more properly be referred to as an "exchange." But the point is, Bill O'Reilly is far from the type of opponent i'd be interested in seeing Dawkins debate. Unfortunately, this is the most exchange we are going to get from Dawkins, as he refuses to debate someone like Myers.

And yes, I am a YEC.

Rey Discomfort said...

Well then, I don't see your point with wanting Dawkins to debate .. who will he debate? Although I am aware of those 2 you've suggested .. but why waste his time debating people who believe the earth is a young earth?

I've never seen an comprehensive argument for intelligent design, and yes it is creationism repackaged at least assuming that the intelligent design being postulated is the same intelligent design presented by the discovery institute.

Either way I don't care to see Dawkins debate, if anything I think he's ignorant to and easily baited into turning a debate of evolution vs. intelligent design into a theological discussion.

Mike Felker said...

There are many people Dawkins could debate, such as Michael Behe, or Stephen Myer whom he recently turned down. And i'm not suggesting that he debate YEC's, though i'd be interested in seeing that as well, since he regularly takes cheap shots at them. The problem with that is, Dawkins is a biologist, so the age of the earth is a bit outside his field. But then again, so is philosophy, to which he seems to address anyway in his books--and does so rather poorly.

Personally, I want Dawkins to debate because he is the world's leading atheist and people follow him at every whim, as if he's the "pope" of atheists. I just want his followers to see him challenged.

And you've never seen a comprehensive argument for intelligent design? Have you not read Myer's new book? What about Dembski? Behe? Gitt? Their books are pretty detailed, so i'm not sure what you'd mean by "comprehensive."

Rey Discomfort said...

I honestly don't have an interest in seeing Dawkins debate, because in the end all a debate proves is who is the better debater. I'd much rather the evidence for evolution be address, the mountains of it. IDers (creationist) really have no argument that explains the evidence for evolution better than what is already there. The irreducible complexity argument doesn't really explain anything, and Behe really doesn't have an argument as he has proven at the Dover trial.

As for YEC's, I'd rather not see Dawkin deal with them. They refute themselves.

Mike Felker said...

For me, what this boils down to is that Dawkins needs to put his money where his mouth is. He talks way too much smack to not to interact or debate with ID'rs and creationists.