Dawkins again shows himself to be Mr Chicken Man
Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.
“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer. “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, Dr. 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?
Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
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.
[...] won’t debate Craig (or Stephen Meyer apparently), so it seems someone much braver has stepped up to the plate. A debate between Dr. Francisco J. [...]
[...] won’t debate Craig (or Stephen Meyer apparently), so it seems someone much braver has stepped up to the plate. A debate between Dr. Francisco J. [...]
As Dawkins rightly points out when refusing to debate with creationists like Meyer “a debate with me would look far better on their resume than on mine.” You see his point, right?
Richard Dawkins is my hero. He always manages to epically own all god believers in debate and it is a sight to behold. Respect.
John, you show your ignorance by calling Meyer a creationist. The reality is, Dawkins has done other debates. He was in the same geographical location as Meyer. The offer to debate was made. Meyer has just written a new book on Dawkins beloved subject. Meyer did his PhD at Cambridge University. Meyer has done other debates on ID (think Peter Ward). The only conclusion that I can draw is that Dawkins is a chicken. He is scared to be faced by an expert with an opposing view that would debunk his philosophically-driven science.
Ok, I could be wrong, but the evidence does seem quite obvious to one who has been following this whole thing for a while.
Dawkins could easily shut the mouths of the ID people by trouncing Meyer in a 3 hour formal debate. What is that clucking noise I can hear???
PS. Have you seen this : http://christiannews.co.nz/2009/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala-is-intelligent-design-viable/
Dawkins has also refused to debate Craig – I wonder why!
It is of no surprise Admin that you would draw that conclusion, typical of the delusional.
I wonder sometimes if Dawkins just wants to bang his head on a wall repeatedly in utter frustration and despair.
I think chicken is one thing Dawkins is not. Sick and tired of the ignorant – likely.
And the picture of Dawkins above? Does God condone mockery in the bible? I guess not, but however in true Christian style you seem to be able to interpret anything for your own purposes.
If creation happened as the Bible describes it, then what created god?
God is eternal, uncreated, existing forever… while science tells us that the universe had a beginning.
Science does tell us that the universe had a beginning; science has focused it down to approx 13.7 billion years ago. There is a chain of evidence that supports this which isn’t as strong as the evidence for evolution, but is so strong as to be almost unreproachable.
The question though is who told you that your God didn’t have a beginning? It seems absurd that God existed forever. How do you support such absurd hypothesis?
John, sorry but I think you are bluffing. Even tonight I went to a scientific lecture on cosmology and Einstein’s cosmological constant, dark matter and dark energy and so on by a world expert. You never hear these guys claiming their theory is as strong as “evilution” (as Dawkins pronounces it).
Have you read this: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/getting-over-our-love-for-darwin/
Finch beaks and peppered moths are NOT evidence for goo-to-you evolution. If you disagree, then give me an example (real evidence) where there is a gain in information in a genome.
William Dumbski is a creationist so of course he’s going to find ways to discredit the mountains of evidence for evolution. The irreducible complexity argument is dead. The discovery institute has not provided any papers that support the hypothesis that creationism actually occured. It is nothing more than a muddying of the waters that might work on the majority of faith heads who are scientifically illiterate and who blindly put their trust in ignorant men of the cloth, but it truely won’t work on me, so don’t bother going there.
The Dover Trial, you’ve heard of it , yes? Read the transcript and smell the roses.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
I’m assuming you won’t bother so I’ll summarise: The Judge was a christian conservative; was considered by both sides to be extremely fair; at one point called some of the creationist witnesses liars, and decided, against his own personal beliefs, that ID isn’t science and must not be taught as such in public schools. The children narrowly escaped your lunacy being indoctrinated into their fertile minds when they were at school. Of course nothing can be done to stop their moronic parents indoctrinating them at home, which is a pity.
John, if you are correct then you have no *consistent* basis for criticising anyone or labeling what they teach as “moronic”.
For your future reference I would suggest you look up the logical fallacies “poisoning the well”, “appeal to authority”, “ad populum” lest you discredit your arguments further by employing them again.
This just in:
http://www.themysteriousislands.com/
Dawkins uses his “I don’t debate creationists” mantra as a form of self defence, nothing else. His arrogance is further revealed by his self aggrandaising claim that such a debate would “benefit his opponent’s resume more than his”.
As if Meyer needs anything about Dawkins on his resume for God’s sake.
Of course Dawkins and others reserve the right to label someone as a creationist in order to then invoke the defensive mantra, irrespective of a persons credentials or reputation, just label him a “creationist” and move on.
For those who admire the supercillious Dawkins rememebr one thing: He is not a scientist, his academic research is medicore, his contributions to science are minimal, he is a popular science writer, unschooled in history, philosophy, physics, chemistry or mathematics.
Many of those who disagree with him are scientists, who know their subject, Dawkins uses deception to hoodwink the gullible, he appears knowledgable but is he really?
Hugh
Dawkins will only debate when he is sure he can win. The truth is when it comes down to the real scientific evidence, Dawkins is afraid of debating a scientist (whether or not he is a creationist has nothing to do with it) who can capably defend his position.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT