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.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Atheist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins Refuses Evolution Debate
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dawkins is right to decline
Intelligent Design is not science unless you consider the argument "I don't know, so God" to be a valid argument for any scientific hypothesis.
Dawkin's statement is meant to show exactly who Intelligent Design folks are, the level of logic employed by them, and to properly deligitimize Intelligent Design proponents into the class of "scientists" they really are: (old earth) creationists
- Rice klowN
October 6, 2009 3:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No need for debate
Simply because ther are mysteries in life that haven't been answered is not a justification for believe in a supernatural cause.I feel that Richard Dawkins is right to refuse a debate.The invitation is just being used as a hook. The same as when someone asked if you believe in god and when you answer no they ask why. They don't care why you don't ,they just throw the hook to push their beliefs.
Dawkins doesn't have to justify his position because science backs him up. Meyer however claims that the answer is well we can't explain so there must be a god. It comes down to if the creator created everything who created the creator. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
- bug
October 6, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have to agree with the previous posters
There is no reason to debate intelligent design in a scientific setting. ID is theology, not science . If someone wants to have a theological debate, they should do so, but debating theology as science is a recipe for time-wasting.
- Babaroni
October 6, 2009 7:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Debate.
I agree that debating ID as science is a waste of time but Dawkins is also an atheist that uses evolution as an argument against God. Dawkins should then be open to a theological debate.
- mike1948
October 7, 2009 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not so sure
I'm not so sure that I agree with you.
Science can absolutely have a place in a theological debate. For instance, when Galileo proposed that scientific data did not support the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, as theology held to be true, he was absolutely correct. His scientific conclusions have since superceded theological argument on the subject and most religious groups have now conceded that, in fact, the earth DOES revolve around the sun and not vice versa.
On the other hand, however, theology cannot properly enter into scientific debate, because theology, of necessity, is a matter of faith, and cannot necessarily be proven by science (though sometimes matters of theology can be DISproven by science, as in the previous example). One cannot debate theology as science, because theology depends upon faith for its support, not upon scientific proof.
So, Dawkins might say, "I do not believe in God because science has repeatedly disproven theological concepts which religion taught were necessary dogma, prior to them being disproven." His argument does not disprove the existence of God nor the validity of religious faith, but indicates some reasons why religious dogma may not be trustworthy.
On the other hand, Meyer cannot claim, "Because I have faith in God, I believe that God created all that there is," and call this science. There are no scientific data which definitively prove the existence of God, or which definitively demonstrate the necessity of a divine being's involvement in the process of evolution . That doesn't mean, necessarily, that a divine being does NOT exist, or was NOT involved in the course of evolution, but simply that it is not possible to prove the existence/involvement of God by the use of scientific method.
Therefore, such an exercise is illogical and a waste of breath and time.
- Babaroni
October 7, 2009 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow!
But is there then nothing in all this that would be worth debating?
- mike1948
October 7, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course
(Lost a post, darnit -- trying again...)
Of course, there is always something worth debating or discussing. The problem is, in order to discuss Intelligent Design intelligently (if you will), it is necessary to agree from the outset that the discussion is one of theology, not science . Unfortunately, proponents of ID have set forth their theory as "science," not theology, because it is their express purpose to use it as a means of supplanting the teaching of evolution in school science courses with the teaching of creationism . The term "Intelligent Design" was crafted for this purpose. They do not wish to discuss ID as theology, or even to admit that it is a non-scientific, theological topic.
As their purpose, here, is an illogical attempt to substitute theology for science (perhaps very good theology, but certainly very bad "science," or rather, pseudoscience), there really can be no basis for rational debate.
- Babaroni
October 7, 2009 3:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID
ID is probably more philosophy then theology. Theology is more about cultural artifacts like trinity. Trying to make it into science weakens their argument. Which may be the point. There is money in arguing ID and that money stops if you win.
- mike1948
October 7, 2009 11:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh, but...
Oh, but they DO want to win. They are invested in the outcome. They wish to do away with the separation of Church and State, and have religion taught in schools as scientific fact.
ID IS a theological argument. It is the proposition that the earth could not have become what it is without a guiding divinity to begin the process and keep it on track. It is reformulated creationism . It is the proposition that God exists and is actively involved in the world as we know it. Theology is the study of God, and ID is a facet of theology.
They don't argue this point for money . They argue it because of a deep-seated belief that they must "win souls for God" and must do all within their power to compel the world into believing as they do and worshiping in the manner in which they worship.
You are correct that they weaken their argument when they try to promote it as science , but science is the only reason for having the argument at all, in their view. They are seeking any means they can find to discredit evolution , and to prove creationism. They do not want evolution taught, and so they have come up with a re-branded creationism to attempt to supplant it in the schools, or at least to force creationism to be taught alongside evolution, as if it were science.
- Babaroni
October 7, 2009 11:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm joining the consensus.
Quantifying religion with the tools of science is as impossible as trying to determine the temperature of the moon using a microscope and a ruler.
Religion proves itself to the individual through internal feelings and faith. Science proves itself to the individual though external evidence. They are incompatible.
The debate creates far more heat than light because both sides wholly believe in their own side, and both sides are right. Even in contradiction.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 6:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
0 =/= !0
Point one: Your definition of religion seems in line with the definition of religion as delusional.
Point two: Your definition of science almost side steps the method of science ( testing ideas) in a way that misses one of it's core values: objectivity.
Scientists can certainly be as flawed as the next guy, but Science takes the individual out of the practice. I can agree with your point on religion (even if we disagree that it is delusional, I think), and mostly because it lacks the objectifying components of its claims (till God is demonstrated or whatever).
So I can not see how both sides are right? Especially since science requires agreement across its branches, while Religion is characterized mostly by each branch denying every other one.
Are you just talking about Proof? or Truth in general?
- Submariner October 11, 2009 6:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
If you didn't understand my post, perhaps it wasn't for you to understand. I didn't write it for the narrow-minded.
- SolarSanitizer
October 11, 2009 7:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should I repeat myself?
The fact that something makes no sense is little solace for someone sincerely trying to communicate.
You made an inequality that seems to rely on simplifying two distinct fields to minimal characteristics. It produces a lot of ambiguity that is common in apologists or one wishing, so I would like you to clarify.
Why even post if you are going to opine paradox and then refuse to explain it, and in an insulting fashion at that?
- Submariner October 11, 2009 7:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To each their own.
In your head, your thoughts are your truth.
In my head, my thoughts are my truth.
Both are right.
Now that I have explained my other post in monosyllabic fashion, can you understand it... Or do I have to draw you a picture also?
- SolarSanitizer
October 11, 2009 8:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It still does not make sense
This definition of truth is pitiful.
Idea, belief, and truth are far from one.
Just liking an idea, or being scared into it, does not make it truth, not even subjective truth. See: Epistemology.
A stronger command of English should allow us to make more sense, but use of polysyllables might be necessary. What ever the case, a paradox is either wrong, or a riddle that just needs abstraction.
I suggest yours is possibly the latter, but you refuse to put the least effort into making sense of it.
- Submariner October 11, 2009 8:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are right.
I do refuse to explain it to you as if I am your tutor. You have spent every little bit of respect I may have had for you by being an insufferable douchenozzle. I do not like how you treat myself and others on here, you cause my blood pressure to raise. When you disagree with someone, you go out of your way to treat that person as a drudge. God help anyone who got the gumption to disagree with you!
You act as if you are The Smartest Person on Earth, and as if you have the right, as The Smartest Person on Earth, to ensure everyone knows how much smarter you are than they.
It will get to the point, I assure you, that nobody will respond to you any more. For me, that time starts immediately.
Don't waste your time testing my resolve.
- SolarSanitizer
October 11, 2009 8:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dawkins is correct
Please!
This is so silly. It has all been fought and won already OVERWHELMINGLY for Darwin.
Be religious if you want but on this point science diverges from religion toward reality and there's just nothing to be done about it. If the conclusion doesn't fit the data, you don't throw away the data, you toss the conclusion. Sorry.
And, unlike the creationists who follow their faith agenda, Dawkins has no agenda. He's a scientist that follows the data. If the data were for god, he'd be religious too.
- onefossilrabbit
October 7, 2009 1:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dawkin's Agenda
"It has all been fought and won already OVERWHELMINGLY for Darwin."
Darwin nor Dawkins can explain origins.
"Dawkins has no agenda"
If Dawkins has no agenda, then why does he write books titled 'The God Delusion'? Dawkins agenda is quite obvious as an 'evangelical atheist' - to eradicate religion . I would also like to point out that he makes quite alot of money from doing so.
"If the data were for god, he'd be religious too."
Not if he chooses to ignore it by refusing debates.
If Dawkins is as rational as he claims to be, shouldn't this be an easy win? Doesn't everybody want to see Dawkins annihlate ID's pinup boy? Bring it on I say.
- Samus3
November 2, 2009 8:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Discovery Institute agenda
The poorly named Discovery Institute is responsible for the slanted article above. They have a purely religious agenda.
- onefossilrabbit
October 7, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why give credibility when none is earned
debate among peers should be vigorous and spirited, but to assume id vs evolution is somehow two equal players on a level playing field raises the perception that id is worthy and therefore an idea of substance...
if id is indeed a valid proposition, it will rise on the merits not on the perception of what appears to be nothing more than a clever marketing campaign...participation by dawkins would only feed into their marketing strategy, ie..."a person of reputable status debated us, therefore we must have something reputable to debate"...this is not a movie review where a few words taken out of context can make a turkey appear to be the shoe-in for the next best picture award...the id proponents want this fight to create credibility where there is none...legitimate scientists should resist these sorts of "rational sounding" taunts at every opportunity, and proudly proclaim they have done so...
- paintboy
October 7, 2009 1:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Faith vs. Science
Intelligent design isn't science , it's faith. The theory of evolution is science.
Apples and oranges. Nothing to debate.
- agadorspartacus
October 9, 2009 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can debate a lot about
the differences between Apple and Oranges - not so many differences in the grand scheme of things.
But as far as making truth claims based on facts, there is certainly a need for clarification here.
Of what value is faith at all if it's claims cannot be tested? I mean, religion is frequently involved in life and death scenarios, raging conflicts across the globe, borders, and aisles. We can not afford to suffer fools gladly for the sake of political correctness.
I don't blame Dick for not wanting to waste his time, but as someone else said, a philosophical debate is appropriate.
- Submariner October 11, 2009 6:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Meyer wants publicity, not a debate
Prof. Dawkins' policy of not debating creationists / ID advocates of any stripe is well-known so this is a low-risk ruse using the Professor's good name to try to drum up interest in Dr. Meyer's book tour.
In a debate about DNA - the supposed 'evidence' for design - Dawkins, a biologist would surely murder Meyer - a geologist and philosopher of science . Meyer doesn't really want this debate, he just wants the publicity that comes with having laid down the challenge .
If Dr. Meyer's case for ID is 'based on scientific evidence' as he claims, then why not submit his research for peer-review, like everyone else?
- The Celestial Teapot
October 14, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.