Atheist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins Refuses Evolution Debate
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.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Just to tell you that my life was gloriously change by my Lord JESUS
Ask the Lord to fill yourheart with His divine holiness
Be transform by the power of the resurrection
Tell the world that JESUS loves you
Be a man in Christ
Evolution is not possible
Can you observe, measure, prove and predict evolution?
Millions and Millions and Millions of years
Millions and Millions and Millions of species
Where are the Millions of transitional species?
Oooops!
My favorite evolutionary dish =
How do you call a chicken in hot sauce? ... buffalo wings!
He's afraid of Intelligent Design, just like Dr. Zaius was afraid of the Forbidden Zone. He has even acknowledged the possibility of design in an interview with Ben Stein.
He knows what's in the Forbidden Zone, he just doesn't want YOU to know what's in the Forbidden Zone.
The truth you fear is there.
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?
Dawkins is a chickenshit.
Intelligent design isn't science , it's faith. The theory of evolution is science.
Apples and oranges. Nothing to debate.
You're just scared. Like Dawkins
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.
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...