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.
Previous related Post
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.
Tags: Science & Medical
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
‘ID and creationism are already well-known and growing alternatives to evolution, especially in America’.
Are there ‘alternatives’ to gravity as well?
October 25th, 2009 at 2:15 am
“Are there ‘alternatives’ to gravity as well?”
What general trajectory of adaptation has “evolution”* been used to predict in a group of organisms? Where has the theory of evolution been specified in the language of mathematics and verified empirically?
*Whatever evolution may be given the general lack of theoretical specification typical to evolutionary theory and the propensity of many of its proponents to cite imaginary events in the past as the equivalent of empirical evidence while making propagandistic arguments of association (e.g. “It’s just like gravity or something.”). It’s curious how many biologists make arguments of association yet how few physicists do the same.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Richard Lenski and his team have shown evolution to occur. ID has no evidence for design. Nor will they produce any in the future.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I’m not surprised Richard Dawkins doesn’t want to have this debate. It’s not a suitable subject for debate in that the alternatives are drawn from totally different premises.
A belief in ID is just that – a belief – and trying to compare science to belief is just a frustrating waste of time. People who believe in ID will not be convinced by any argument because their belief isn’t drawn from fact but from faith.
Describing ID as science is a category error – a term that should, I feel, be more widely understood.
There’s a helpful link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
March 29th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
This trumpeting of Dawkins refusal to debate with ID advocates is yet another example of wilful and devious misinterpretation of Dawkins reasons for not taking up the invitation. I know it should not, but this misplaced arrogance they display makes me so angry.
How can you sensibly debate an accepted scientific theory founded on excellent evidence against an obscure and unfounded set of deductions tailored to fit a religious doctrine? To do so would be a complete waste (yet again) of Dawkins’ time.
It seems these people will continue to massage any fact to fit their narrow view of the World, and yet they have the temerity to accuse reputable mainstream scientists of “being scared of the truth”. What a travesty.
How many times do we have to say this? How many times will the ID fraternity choose to misunderstand this? If it were not so sinister in it’s wilful efforts to convince a gullible isolated band of the faithful, the whole ID idea would be laughable!
Grrrr!
March 29th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
OTOH, Jim, you also know that lots of Christians don’t believe that religion and science are incompatible. I think I’m right in saying that most British Christians are in my camp. For people like me, the ID/Creationist business is irrelevant in terms of science. It’s art, not science.
I have to say that this robust separation is very British. In the US more and more Christians wholeheartedly support Creationism/ID, though these beliefs are directly linked to educational achievement, with the least educated the most convinced. These beliefs are even taught in schools which, considering the USA’s clear separation of church and state, is very worrying.