WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

irishconvert

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*groan*

--edit

I ****ing hate creationists.

Mena

Why argue with idiots.

I was going to expand a little on this after I had a cup of coffee, but as usual, Wicknight has hit the nail on the head and put forth the argument far more eloquently than I ever could.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Dawkins has always (or at least for a while) subscribed to the idea that debating with Creationists simply gives their cause the fuel they require to paint the picture that there is actually a debate going on about the validity of Evolution.

{EDIT} The "pause" Dawkins gives in that edited out of context video on the page you link to was actually Dawkins realizing he was debating with Creationists about Creationism, rather than what the documentary crew had request the interview for (for Christians Creationists spend an awful lot of time lying about stuff). The question asked by the interviewer (who is not the person edited into the video) has been answered many times, including by Dawkins. He would have no trouble answering the question, the pause was him thinking about how he was going to ask them to get out of his house :pac:{/EDIT}

As the Creationist thread on the Christian forum demonstrates, debating with Creationists is ultimately rather pointless because to a Creationist it is not about finding out the scientific truth of something, it is about attempting to put forward a particular religious position that they have already decided cannot be wrong

Time and time again Wolfsbane and JC (the regular Creationist posters on that thread) have put forward arguments and positions that they say undermines Evolutionary theory.

Time and time again these arguments have been refuted by other posters, often to the point of silliness (JC and Wolfsbane still go on about the probability of a protein forming by chance as being too high to be possible despite the fact that evolution has never claimed a protein formed by chance and such an assertion would go against the idea of evolution!) At no point in the entire debate have either Wolfsbane or JC ever acknowledged this or suggested that they accept that evolution is a sound scientific model.

As far as they are concerned they have already been informed by God himself that evolution is wrong, and now it is simply a case of finding out why it is wrong. If one misinformed argument fails they simply move on to the next misinformed argument.

So TBH I fully understand Dawkins position. The Creationists get some oxygen out of the idea that Dakwins is scared to debate with them (I don't think anyone believes that except people who are already Creationists), but the alternative is that they get far more oxygen out of Dawkins legitimizing their nonsense by debating it.

There is also the problem, again demonstrated by the Creationist thread, that the way Creationists debate is nonsense from a scientific position, because again they are not debating for the purpose of understanding, they are debating for the purpose of confusion, to allow space for their nonsense to live.

DapperGent

CAPS beat reasoned refutation everytime though tbh.

pH

Just to echo the above, I think Dawkins is correct, it's shown to be too easy by Creationist speakers (who know what they're doing) to open their cupboard of untruths, half-truths and delusions and throw them out. Whoever is defending evolution then spends their time back peddling and refuting nonsense, which turns the debate audience off them right away.

Evolution is a scientific theory, its correctness is not determined by debate, who's the best speaker or who's cleverest. If anyone wants to refute it then find the evidence and publish.

Also worth mentioning that Harun cannot tell the difference between a sea snake and an eel, nor the difference between a real fly and a fly-fisherman's fly, why would anyone want to debate him?
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins,page42

PDN

Challenging someone to a public debate is a load of crap. Insecure nobodies want to boost their publicity by debating someone who is streets ahead of them in terms of public recognition. If the famous person is stupid enough to accept the challenge then the insecure nobody adds 'Publicly debated Richard Dawkins' to their CV. If the famous person ignores this nonsense then the insecure nobody accuses them of running scared.

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

Dades

What is it they say?

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

PDN wrote: »

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

I want a front row seat for that debate.

Zillah

By the Gods of Kobol, that site is painful to read! They use the word "chance" dozens of times in reference to evolution (as we all know evolution doesn't depend upon chance, but natural selection), claim that evolution attempts to explain the origin of the universe and utterly mis-represents Dawkins' views.

Then, and this is where is gets bad, they present four crucial points that Dawkins must address in regard to the origin of species. I shall summarise them as follows:

1 - Justify our ludicrous misunderstandings about evolution.
2 - Justify our ludicrous misunderstandings about evolution.
2 - Explain the nature of subjective conciousness.
3 - Explain the nature of subjective conciousness.

Some of it is also phrased in rather unusual English.

Responding to this drivel is beneath me, let alone a renowned evolutionary biologist.

AtomicHorror

irishconvert wrote: »

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Why would Dawkin's argue in favour of Darwinism? Does he mean evolution?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Challenging someone to a public debate is a load of crap. Insecure nobodies want to boost their publicity by debating someone who is streets ahead of them in terms of public recognition. If the famous person is stupid enough to accept the challenge then the insecure nobody adds 'Publicly debated Richard Dawkins' to their CV. If the famous person ignores this nonsense then the insecure nobody accuses them of running scared.

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

Very true. In the case of creationism there's another motive:

They like to get new material that they can quote out of context, or (if they've got a video) edit out of context. I think someone mentioned a video that caused Dawkin's to pause a moment. Various edited versions of this have been uploaded to YouTube with the pause rather crudely edited to extend its length.

Dawkins just got tired of being lied about, so he stopped engaging with them.

Zillah

This guy gets better and better. He published a book claiming the holocaust was actually just caused by disease, his research institute lost several civil suits for defamation, he's been convicted for running an illegal organisation, and many believe he's engaged in rape and blackmail. He also thinks terrorism, Nazism and Buddhism are caused by darwinism. Also, Intelligent Design is a tool of Satan...for some odd reason. Well, off you go Professor Dawkins, you can fit him in after golf with Putin.

jill_valentine

What a carefree secret agent lifestyle Dawkins has, eh Zillah?

cavedave

Originally Posted by PDN View Post
I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

If you are on to the intelligent designer can you ask him to explain the scrotum? I mean I can appreciate creationists talking about the wonder of the eye but why do they always ignore the obvious intelligence needed to hang a wrinkly bag off mammals?

DapperGent

Indeed on many unfortunate occasions during my life I have had cause to wish our illustrious creator had seen fit to stow the nutsack in a more protected area.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

titanium shielded nutsacks would be all the evidence I needed of a divine creator.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote: »

titanium shielded nutsacks would be all the evidence I needed of a divine creator.

God couldn't do that, it would interferer with our free will, the choice to pay a woman (or man, what ever is your bag) kick you in the nut sack :pac:

jill_valentine

I'd quite like to able to shoot lasers out of my eyes.

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism.

Given that the White-Suited-One is either inside a Turkish jail or heading into one shortly, I think it's unreasonable to expect Dawkins to follow him in.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

If one misinformed argument fails they simply move on to the next misinformed argument.

Until they get to the end of their list of misinformed arguments... and then they start again!

irishconvert

Zillah wrote: »

This guy gets better and better. He published a book claiming the holocaust was actually just caused by disease, his research institute lost several civil suits for defamation, he's been convicted for running an illegal organisation, and many believe he's engaged in rape and blackmail. He also thinks terrorism, Nazism and Buddhism are caused by darwinism. Also, Intelligent Design is a tool of Satan...for some odd reason. Well, off you go Professor Dawkins, you can fit him in after golf with Putin.

Who wrote the content in that Wikipedia page?

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

ChocolateSauce

I own a copy of his "Atlas of Creation". I misappropriated it from the library in my secondary school (I figure the good I did outweighs the wrong of stealing). It is 1000, fully coloured, glossy A4 pages of unadulterated tripe (unadulterated by fact). The first half of the book is comprised of pictures of fossils along with a statement to the tune of "This fossil is xxx million years old, and is no different from the organism of today. Therefore, evolution is false." The second half of the book is a series of essays about why evolution is wrong and about the bold Darwinist-Atheist-Communist conspiracy to take over the world. There is a picture of Darwin next to Marx and Trotsky.

Finally, and most chillingly, the last 20 pages of the book are filled will the index of books he has written. 20 pages listing books, some of which are clearly written jointly between the extremes of Christianity and Islam. The funding is massive and clandestine, a huge anti-scientific alliance designed to destroy modern and western society.

Zillah

irishconvert wrote: »

Who wrote the content in that Wikipedia page?

Many people, presumably. Its all referenced. They claim it was revealed over the course of the civil court case.

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

Well if the insane, lying, rapacious, blackmailing creationist/convict said he didn't write it then who are we to believe otherwise!

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says. You will notice in the interview he doesn't deny this, he says it isn't one of his books (meaning he didn't write it).

BTW what do you think of the comments people have made in reply to your original post?

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says.

Nu uh!

Wikipedia wrote:

During the trial in September, Baykam exposed the real author of the book as Adnan Oktar.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Nu uh!

ah, so he is a liar as well as a nut case

irishconvert

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says. You will notice in the interview he doesn't deny this, he says it isn't one of his books (meaning he didn't write it).

BTW what do you think of the comments people have made in reply to your original post?

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

true about Wikipedia, but then that also applies to this guy. He is an "anybody"

Anybody, with enough money, can self-publish a book of nonsense and then challenge Richard Dawkins (or the Pope, or George Bush) to a public debate about it.

What about this guy is making you take your time finding out more about him?

marco_polo

irishconvert wrote: »

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

You must have way too time on your hands if you are prepared go to great lengths to find out about every anti-semetic nut job in the world.

O'Morris

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins has always (or at least for a while) subscribed to the idea that debating with Creationists simply gives their cause the fuel they require to paint the picture that there is actually a debate going on about the validity of Evolution.

There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution. Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate. By refusing to engage in that debate evolutionists are leaving it up to Darwinist supporters who are far less capable of arguing the case for evolution than people like Richard Dawkins are. I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact. He's a scientist and so his energies would be better spent engaging in scientific debates rather than in philosophical or theological ones.

Dades

O'Morris wrote: »

I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible.

Post an argument you find potentially plausible here, and I will guarantee you someone will have a logical, rational, scientific rebuttal for that argument in very short order.

The ID argument will undoubtably (and possibly deliberately) have been born of incorrect or misleading science.