Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

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.”

Therefore “alternatives” to science have no place in a public school classroom, not even to discuss, the British biologist suggested.

“You may think that God oversaw evolution, and that’s a point of view that you could probably defend, but leave it out of the science class,” he told Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor.

Dawkins is currently promoting his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which was released last month.

In the book, Dawkins expounds the evidence for biological evolution, insisting that evolution theory is not a theory, but in actuality a fact, as much as it’s a fact that the earth is round.

“This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science,” Dawkins writes.

Read more: christianpost.com/article/20091013/dawkins-refuses-to-debate-intelligent-design-scholars/index.html

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.

Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out—Father John Corapi.


So he’s saying “I am absolutely right. Why waste my time debating with you since I can’t be wrong?”

I wouldn’t expect any scientist to debate with a creationist. Creationism and intellectual design are two forms of false science.

No, they are not scholars since they failed to do their research properly. They are politicians trying to make a political, not scientific, point.

A scholar would have researched Richard Dawkins’ website and found a piece entitled “Why I Won’t Debate Creationists”. Had they actually done any scholarly research they would have found:Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
Science does not proceed by debate. Einstein did not debate Newton over which theory of gravity to use. ID Creationism is primarily a political movement, and this offer of a debate is a political move. It has nothing to do with science.


I don’t know who’s more annoying: Atheist Evolutionists who think Evolutionary theory is poison to Religion and somehow antithetical to God’s Creation?..Or this new bunk science’ Intelligent Design movement willing to dupe fundamentalists that they’re “for God/Creationism” when they really present really, really bad science and an agenda of their own (that probably comes from their own shoddy implementation of the scientific method, or the lack thereof)

Intelligent Design proponents merely cloud and obfuscate the issue by creating this image of diametrically opposed views into the 21st century. The sudden discussion of ID as a legitimate counter-theory, really is suspect whoever is pushing these bozos into the forefront for “Religious” representation. It’s merely** a bad rehash** of the 19th century disputes as the Darwin vs. God “Monkey Scopes” Controversies seemed to be on the verge of petering out/ & waning in the second half of the 20th Century; that Evolution wasn’t so much a threat to Religion itself , nor the Catholic Church was coming to be realized. (with Mendel’s findings, genetics, 20th century breakthroughs, Catholic Church’s stance on the big bang),

However, at least the Evolutionist Atheists aren’t being patronizing to evangelical fundamentalists, like the ID proponents are. Not only is ID bad science, it’s a waste of time and bad religion as well. To them, “God could be any sort of creator-alien, programmer” which is more rooted in a pseudo-Aristotlean view of Plato’s Demiurge type god, rather than the true God. And they do it all the while pushing really, really bad science. Both of them miss the point of the ongoing observation of God’s creation. Intelligent Design needs to be blown out of the water in terms of debate so we can get over its nonsense.

[quote=Rossum]ID Creationism is primarily a political movement, and this offer of a debate is a political move. It has nothing to do with science.

  • 1

All I know is I heard the buzz word “Intelligent Design” floated and wondered why they came out of the blue? I’d hear them mentioned on NPR and such. And I wondered, were they pro-God? Then I looked them up and stumbled on their little articles/explanation/ for things (such as fruit bat stuff) and it read like Comic Book science. They’re just as **bad **because they push falsehoods and poor characterizations of theological origins just as much as the rabid activist atheists.

They’re really irresponsible with their fraudulent “expertise” it’s already bad enough that they’re already getting the benefit of the doubt by some.
I can see how they’d mislead people who’ve never learned basic biology courses or were steadfast fundamentalists…and what’s worse is whenever the secular media mentions them, they somehow tie them with all religious…and the stereotype of an “Anti Science” mentality amongst Religious. This Intelligent Design movement needs to be nipped in the bud. There’s nothing more dangerous than the disseminating of ignorance.

Stephen C. Meyer asks Richard Dawkins to Debate, Dawkins Refuses

Anika Smith has noted at Evolution News and Views that Richard Dawkins, author of the recently published book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the recent book The Signature in the Cell.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”
“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “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 intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”
According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. 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.

It’s a fair question to ask why Richard Dawkins won’t debate even a creationist, but much more telling that he won’t debate Dr. Meyer, who wants only to discuss science. Dr. Dawkins calls “Life” the Greatest Show On Earth, yet he will not debate someone in how that show was produced? Why won’t Richard Dawkins discuss the science? Claiming, as his grounds for rejecting debate, that Dr. Meyer is a creationist, seems like classic Bulverism as explained by C. S. Lewis:


So Dr. Meyer doesn’t want to discuss ID?



Pretty much. Do you have a problem with this?

Science has no such place (nor science in faith) and cannot, so, in that respect at least, Professor Dawkins shows far more understanding than far too many Christians - so kudos to him; for such a position is excellent theology as well as a sound approach for the sciences. To “give faith a place in science” is to bastardise & corrupt science and faith alike. The absolute necessity of keeping them separate is proved by the utter inability of too many Christians to understand why it is absolutely wrong to “give faith a place in science” in their sense** -** for these people completely ignore questions of method in the study of the sciences. Which means they have deprived themselves of any right to have their nonsensical position taken seriously. Fr. Corapi is right: why should Dawkins “be so open minded that [his] brains fall out? **By taking Fr. Corapi’s advice, and ignoring those foolish pe****ople, Dawkins is saving scientific method from corruption by God-bothering fanatics. **


He cannot argue with logic and reason, so he has to make up an alternate excuse for not being willing to debate them. He has no intention of considering all the data before coming to a conclusion. Dawkins is no man of science.

Dawkins is such a hypocrite. He continues to promote the separation of science and theology, while at the same time making philosophical, metaphysical, and theological statements. Dawkins needs to decide whether he is a scientist or a philosopher.

The purpose of philosophy is to consider (discuss and debate) the value of scientific findings. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Catholic Encyclopedia article on Philosophy:

Creationism and Intelligent Design are philosophical systems about science, and belong in a philosophy context. Dawkin’s personal philosophies about science are also philosophic.

Mind you, Dawkins is taking advantage of people’s ignorance about Philosophy and Science to promote his ideologies. Darwinists use the term evolution over Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species, because they know many people don’t know what the term evolution actually means. They know what the terms mean, but they are hoping you won’t know the difference (so they can win the argument on semantics).

Well of course he refuses to debate other scholars, because he knows full well that if he goes up against someone of intelligence he will get stomped to the ground. Dawkins understands that the only way his nonsense will pass is he is the only person speaking, so he tries to be the loudest and most out there, and refuses to consider other arguments.

I don’t think many people take him all that seriously anyway, except for atheists (mostly the militant kind)

I was multitasking last night I just reread you post and disagree with some of it. I guess you never heard of Copernicus?

A Polish Priest he had faith and didn’t separate the two.

Dawkins is like Al Gore is to global warming too afraid to debate because they maybe proven wrong!

You have to be careful in separating because then you will have babies being left to die in a broom closet in a hospital because science cannot prove these living children has a soul!

This is something the President of the United States we have right now; supports!

So Father Corapi is right don’t be too opened minded.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.