Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists

[Dusky Mouse]

Christian Post October 22

 

[Eudaimonist]

From the OP article:

"When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability," Dawkins told Seth Andrews of "The Thinking Atheist" in a recently-published interview about his latest book, An Appetite for Wonder.

"They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists," Dawkins continued. "They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."


Richard Dawkins has a point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

His reasons seem fair.

 

[Gadarene]

Yes, it is a microcosm of their tactic to peddle their crap in schools.

 

[juvenissun]

From the OP article:

"When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability," Dawkins told Seth Andrews of "The Thinking Atheist" in a recently-published interview about his latest book, An Appetite for Wonder.

"They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists," Dawkins continued. "They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."


Richard Dawkins has a point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Richard does not debate them. Robert and Eric will.
Richard can never win no matter how many books he wrote.
I would say to Richard: Chicken! Stand up and fight.

 

[CabVet]

I would say to Richard: Chicken! Stand up and fight.

Of course, you would love the legitimacy of having Dawkins debating a creationist, wouldn't you? That doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Davian]

Richard does not debate them. Robert and Eric will.

Robert and Eric who?

Richard can never win no matter how many books he wrote.

He is already seen as winning. That is the motivation of the young earth creationists, to be recognized as having something of significance. Richard says they don't. I agree.

I would say to Richard: Chicken! Stand up and fight.

I would say to the young earth creationists, first demonstrate that you can bring more to the fight that just your religion.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists - YouTube

Dawkins also believes teaching religion to children is the equivalent of child abuse.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists - YouTube

Dawkins also believes teaching religion to children is the equivalent of child abuse.

Yes...

And?

 

[bhsmte]

This may give you an idea why Dawkins feels as he does about YEC's.

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) - YouTube

 

[Eudaimonist]

This may give you an idea why Dawkins feels as he does about YEC's.

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) - YouTube

Yes. A million times yes. [/endthread]


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It sounds like arrogance and bigotry cloaked behind the appearance of doing a service to the advancement of science.

It does not sound much different to me than Rush Limbaugh advising conservatives to not even talk to liberals.

To be sure, I did not listen to / view the video. I am going by what people here have written.

 

[bhsmte]

It sounds like arrogance and bigotry cloaked behind the appearance of doing a service to the advancement of science.

It does not sound much different to me than Rush Limbaugh advising conservatives to not even talk to liberals.

To be sure, I did not listen to / view the video. I am going by what people here have written.

I you have time, I would urge you to watch the video, it is enlightening.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

I you have time, I would urge you to watch the video, it is enlightening.

I'm surprised there wasn't a package video here where we could go from the first installment unto the next and so forth and to the end.
Then again, I tire already of that woman repeating the only phrase she appears to know in that first ten minutes.
"Show the evidence of evolution from one species to the other..."

I think she fails also to realize, and no I have not watched part 2, that as she decidedly focuses on repeating the question; where's the material evidence? As she refuses to realize DNA is evidence. She places herself in the position of having to answer in regard to an evidentiary standard that same question in defense of her own beliefs.

 

[KWCrazy]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws. It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack. For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website. The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie. Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.

Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.

One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.

Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God. If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God. In other words, he "knows absolutely" something which cannot be proved absolutely that nearly any Christian can refute by personal experience. That's not exactly my definition of intelligence.

The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.

 

[Paradoxum]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws. It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.

Why is that arrogant?

For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website.

I've personally seen lightning, but I don't believe in Zeus. Am I arrogant for not believing in Zeus?

What people claim to be miracles might not actually be miracles.

The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie.

Why would they be lies? Do you know any intelligent atheists? I avoid considering religious claims to be lies as much as possible. I know most religious people genuinely believe. I used to too.

Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.

I've experienced what you would call the presence of God. I know what it's like to be a committed believer.

Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.

Evolution has been shown to be true. It's as silly to argue that as to argue germ theory.

One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.

Why would God want humans to believe in him without enough evidence? Personally, I have more respect for the idea of God than that. If there were a God, he would understand why having justified beliefs is good.

Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God. If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God. In other words, he "knows absolutely" something which cannot be proved absolutely that nearly any Christian can refute by personal experience. That's not exactly my definition of intelligence.

Atheists don't believe in God, or believe there is no God. Both understandings can come under 'atheism'. They are called weak and strong atheism.

I'd say I don't believe in God, and that there is probably no Christian God. The lack of evidence, the human origin, the suffering, the lack of interaction, would lead me to think that.

The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.

Maybe the world was created a few seconds ago, but that doesn't mean I believe that to be the case. The evidence points towards the universe being 13.7 billion years old. If God wants us to think differently then he should come say hi and tell us the truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.

The sort of naturalism you describe is one sort of premise that an atheist might hold, but it isn't actually a premise of atheism.

I personally would not say that we live in a "purely" physical world, because I'm not a reductionist. While I think that mind is inextricably tied to and arises from physical phenomena, I agree that there are "mental" properties.

In any case, my precise views on the mind-body relation don't define my atheism.

It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.

Ah, yes. Those ignorant, well-educated, philosophical atheists. How lucky that you are devoid of arrogance.

The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie.

This is a false alternative. Miracles could come from a pantheon of gods and goddesses, for example.

The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.

I love Christian humility. Not a trace of arrogance there at all!

One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy.

Yeah, little details like that.

Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God.

The burden of proof is on you.

An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God.

This is not the way atheists tend to use the term.

Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God.

There's nothing to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws. It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack. For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website. The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie. Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.

I don't "reject God", I reject your claims for the existence of deities being anything more than characters in books. I also reject the claims of the existence of large primates known as "Sasquatch" that are similarly unsubstantiated. Same goes for UFOs that are supposedly extraterrestrial spacecraft, and are abducting people for the purpose of conducting experiments on them. There are people that believe some or all of that to be real, but that does not make it so.

Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.

Is there one - just one - biologist that can provide testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of their particular deity? There isn't, is there?

One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.

I am not asking for conclusive proof, just something testable, falsifiable.

For example, how does one tell the difference between accepting the existence of deities and an exercise in self-deception?

Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God. If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God. In other words, he "knows absolutely" something which cannot be proved absolutely that nearly any Christian can refute by personal experience. That's not exactly my definition of intelligence.

Do you construct these straw-man arguments to comfort you with your own doubts?

The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.

Despite claims by theists, there is nothing in regards to theology which can falsify the scientific observations of a world that appears to be a product of natural processes. It boils down to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of young age, gap age, or last Thursdayism are without scientific significance.

Is their god a "trickster" god? Did their god make the universe to appear scientifically to be billions of years old as some sort of validation test for a particular interpretation of a book for a particular religion? Or are gods just characters in a book, and the subjects in an exercise in self-deception? The latter would be far more parsimonious.

 

[Gadarene]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.

Wrong from the getgo, discarded the rest.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God;

"Atheism means you're not convinced that a god does exist, not that you're convinced that a god does not exist. Understand the difference?" - Aron Ra

that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.

That is not a necessary competent to being an atheist.

It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.

Such as?

For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website. The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie. Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.

A common misconception: that atheists reject God and pretend that he does not exist while secretly believing that he does.

Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.

The debate has already happened. At what point should we stop entertaining those who have lost the debate?

One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.

Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God.

We also can't prove the non-existence of the Celestial Teapot.

If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God.

Wrong. Could you at least take the time to ask us what we purport to know before making claims about what we purport to know?

The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity.

I think you're projecting your own incredulity here.

Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.

And yet he could not foresee that creating human beings without any concept of right and wrong and placing forbidden fruit within their reach was a bad idea.