Enough with the erudite pretensions already; it is simply time to state that Richard Dawkins simply cannot defend his assertions—period.
Richard Dawkins has brought it upon himself by first claiming that he will not debate “creationists” (a category into which he places everyone from young Earth creationists to Intelligent Design theorists) and then going on to debate “creationists.” As an aside: I wonder if he would consider Francis Crick a creationists because, although an atheist, believes that aliens created life or David Berlinski who, although an agnostic, is also an Intelligent Design proponent.
I will surely miss some but let us quickly review his taking leave from debating creationists, those whom he has specifically refused to debate and those whom he has debated.
Dawkins Begs Leave
Dawkins worded a self-satisfying excuse in, Why I Won’t Debate Creationists. Therein, he breaks one of his very own New Ten Commandments (of which he lists fifteen) as #8 reads, “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent.”
In his excuse making he restricts thought and blocks us from following evidence were it leads by asserting that only science premised on atheism is “real science.” As to his specific reason for not debating creationists, he mockingly states it this way as he plays the part of the creationist, “Look at me, I’m having a debate with one of the big boys. Doesn’t that just prove that creationism is being taken seriously in the universities?” He further states, “we don’t do debates with creationists, and encouraging other scientists to refuse for the same reason.”
It seems ironic that while he initially thought oh, so very highly of himself that he thought that creationists would gain notoriety by debating him we are to the point at which, by now, people are gaining notoriety by not debating him, “Look at me, one of the big boys refuses to debate me”—as it were.
Dawkins Debate Denials
He has refused to debate Stephen Meyer:
I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view. I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put. The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. 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 has refused to debate William Lane Craig:
I've never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!
Logically, if he never heard of Craig how can he know whose resume their debate would enhance? That he has never heard of Craig shows just how far out of the loop Dawkins is as Craig has been studying, teaching, lecturing, publishing and debating in the USA and UK for decades. Craig even debated one of the most famous and influential atheists of the 20th century; Anthony Flew. Ok, ok, why should Dawkins be aware of Craig who is outside of Dawkins’s own field of biology? Exactly, he should remain within his field and debate zoology/biology.
He has refused to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
He did so basically by correlating D'Souza’s cadence to that of Adolf Hitler in a comments that was wrong on various levels. For his part, Dinesh D'Souza nails him for it in stating the following in his article, Richard Dawkins Compares Me to Hitler:
I suspect that Dawkins has come up with this pathetic reductio ad Hitlerum in order to justify his cowardice in not debating me…Isn't the real problem that Dawkins has used his zoologist's credentials in order to wander into fields (physics, astronomy, history, philosophy, anthropology, theology) where his knowledge is embarrassingly limited? I suspect he's worried that in a debate I will exposure his ignorance and make him an international object of ridicule. Why not prove me wrong, Richard? Come out from under your desk and take me up on my invitation to debate.
Terry Eagleton wrote:
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince….
The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster.[1]
Dawkins Debate Acceptances
Well, of course Richard Dawkins can come up with whatever excuse he pleases—no matter how illogical, obviously evasive or maliciously ad hominous—and his adherents will applaud him as they excuse his every deed and word. Yet, why then does he break his own refusal to debate creationists and goes ahead to debates some of those people?
He has debated Francis Collins in a TIME Magazine forum/interview.
He has debated Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whom, along with D'Souza, he compared to Adolf Hitler (a debate which Dawkins denied ever took place).
He has debated John Lennox (Has Science Buried God?) and even had a follow up conversation.
He “debated”/was interviewed by, Ben Stein (whom I believe to be an agnostic yet who’s discussion consisted of question Dawkins about God related issues).
He has also had a public conversation/interview with Alister McGrath who wrote:
…But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut. The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.
This has since become available in video form here and audio here.
Some have attributed the extinguishing of the fire for debate in Dawkins’ belly to the late Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith who was an organic chemist and pharmacologist who also taught Chemotherapy and earned three doctorates (amongst his very many accomplishments). He and Edgar Andrews debated Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith in 1986 at the Oxford Union (the audio of which is found on Dawkins’ web site). Much controversy has resulted from the debate and its mysterious outcome (some background can be found here, here and here). This is another debate that Dawkins claimed never occurred.
Also of note, with regards to his utterly running out of steam in taking on creationists, may be Richard Dawkins utterly pathetic review, critique or whatever it was supposed to be of the Atlas of Creation written by the Muslim creationist Harun Yahya. Here we had the masterful zoologist and biologist, the champion of atheism and Darwinism taking on a creationist book and he failed so very badly that I ran across his review/critique on one website, ran across it on another and finally had to check Dawkins’ own website. I honestly thought that I had only read excerpts since it was so very, very poor. It is no wonder that in his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth (see here, here and here) he is left to stating that if you doubt, even doubt, that humans are related to “bananas and turnips” you are to be likened to a Holocaust denier.
In fact, he has stated that in his new book he is “not trying to do is convert any real, dyed-in-the-wool young Earth creationists” and do you know why? Because, “That's probably a lost cause, because those people don't read much anyway.”[2] In other words; besmirch them and then claim to not be addressing them.
No wonder that most of his career as an activist atheist has consisted of bringing important and complex arguments to the level of a school yard spat with age appropriate taunts in place.
Bruce Chapman notes:
Dawkins doesn't address his real adversaries. He simply ignores Stephen Meyer, whose Signature in the Cell is now leading the science book parade in several Amazon categories. He just dubs opponents creationist reactionaries and assumes that his haughty air will delight his claque and daunt everyone else. He has plenty of ringmaster bluster left, but nothing much to say.
Reviewer Olson, a relentless Darwinist himself, has to complain of Dawkins, “Implying that your audience is stupid does not qualify as a great new angle.[3]
Richard Dawkins: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns? [referring to YECists]
Francis Collins: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.[4]
Steve Paulson: I've heard this from various scientists -- hardcore evolutionists -- who wish you would tone down your rhetoric, quite frankly.
Richard Dawkins:That is absolutely true.
Steve Paulson:They say this hurts the cause of teaching evolution. It just gives fire to the creationists.
Richard Dawkins: Exactly right. And they could be right, in a political sense…So what the scientists you've been talking to are asking me to do is to shut my mouth. Because for the sake of what I see as the war, I'm in danger of losing this particular battle. And that's a worthwhile political point for them to make.[5]
Obviously, likewise statements about Dawkins’ childish belligerence could be multiplied ad infinitum. Luke Savage and Alixandra Gould note, “Yes, to the evolutionary thinker creationists seem ignorant, dogmatic, and small-minded, but calling them so won’t do any good.”[6]
In fact, Richard Dawkins has stated, “I would be glad if you didn't use the word “strident.” I'm getting a little bit tired of it.”[7] Perhaps the lesson is; do not be strident and you will not be referred to as such.
Ultimately, he has dug his own hole and in refusing and then accepting debates with creationists it is becoming clear that he is merely being selective in not wanting to debate those who would challenge him on his own zoological/biological/Darwinian ground.
Add to this that Dawkins believes that science equals atheism and evolution equals atheism and it is no wonder that he all but remains cloistered in his imitation-ivory tower coming down only rare occasion to impress the college crowd or even younger children.
[1] Terry Eagleton, “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunshing,” London Review of Books, Oct 19, 2006
[2] Stuart Laidlaw, “Author pits evolution against creationism - Long-held disdain for Bible-based view surfaces in his new book,” TheStar.com, Sep 22, 2009
[4] Dan Cray, “God vs. Science,” TIME, Nov. 05, 2006
[5] Steve Paulson, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Salon, Oct 13, 2006
[6] Luke Savage and Alixandra Gould, “Oh my Richard Dawkins!,” The Varsity, Sep 28, 2009
[7] Lisa Miller, “Darwin’s Rottweiler - Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God,” Newsweek, Sep 26, 2
