The Australian media is portraying Richard Dawkins during his visit ‘down under’ as taking on the creationists.
Journalist Danika Armytage described it in her video report of 5 March 2010 like this:
“Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is in Sydney this weekend to promote his new book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth‘. It’s an uncompromising assault on creationism, presenting his strongest case for Darwinian evolution.”
But, I have never heard Prof Dawkins actually debate a creationist in person? Have you?
He was offered a marvelous opportunity to make a spectacle of creationists while he is in Australia for the global atheist convention (see Atheists reject debate challenge). You would think that he would jump at the chance. But no, he declined. His long standing policy is that he does not debate creationists.
This reminds me of a football game where only one team is allowed onto the field. And they have a great time kicking dozens of goals in their match. And after the match the star footballer struts around triumphantly bragging about all the goals he kicked.
In his radio interviews Dawkins goes on and on about how mutations and natural selection change tigers and bacteria and viruses. He gives the impression that he has slaughtered the creationists. But what people do not know is that creationists agree with natural selection. It is no big deal. Natural selection removes genetic information from the genome whereas molecules-to-man evolution requires a mechanism that will increase the information. See Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!
If the journalists covering ‘Dawkins vs creationism’ wanted to see a bit of competition they could ask him to give one example of a genetic mutation which actually added some information to the genome.
Or they could ask him about the origin of life. Richard Dawkins has already said publicly that neither he nor anyone else has any idea how a living cell could have originated by natural processes. In fact, he has publicly said that he thinks aliens could have seeded life onto earth and that science may be able to detect a clue to such intelligent design in the DNA itself. That would be interesting if a skeptical journalist would explore with Richard Dawkins what sort of clues he would look for in order to detect intelligent design.
Or they could ask him what he thinks about his ideal fossil, Tiktaalik, now that the tetrapod footprints have been found in Poland that are older and mean that Tik-tik is at best an evolutionary dead end.
Yes, Prof Dawkins is regarded by the media as a hero as he fights against creationism, portraying himself as the upholder of science and rationality. All the same, it would be good to see a contest occasionally where he was obliged to discuss the issue with someone knowledgeable who could ask some insightful questions.
I always find a game more interesting when there is a contest.
Human Ape
He doesn’t debate creationists for the same reason he doesn’t debate flat-earthers. I prefers to talk to sane people.
“Or they could ask him what he thinks about his ideal fossil, Tiktaalik, now that the tetrapod footprints have been found in Poland that are older and mean that Tik-tik is at best an evolutionary dead end.”
Why do you think you’re qualified to say that?
Winston Broad
Thanks for pointing to the evidence again Tas. I see the great unbeliever is on Q&A tonight where he’ll presumably be pretty safe from Creationist questions again.
Human Ape: Prof Dawkins doesn’t want to debate Creationists because he hasn’t forgotten the last time he couldn’t answer the question on camera asking for “one example of a genetic mutation which actually added some information to the genome” – check it out on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/creationclips#p/u/14/YddmGJofbL0
And even when he gets the camera turned off, has a think and then comes back on, he doesn’t answer the question – he can’t give ONE EXAMPLE.
Now, why would he want to face up to that again when there still is no evidence for that simplest and most basic requirement for evolution?
Maybe you could help him out with an answer… otherwise why do you believe in his theory?
FRANK SHERWIN
This is in regard to comment by ‘Human Ape’ [sic]:
In December 2008, Nature published a letter by three European evolutionists stating that Tiktaalik is not a missing link after all and that the situation is a lot more complex (i.e., Panderichthys’ fin may be anatomically closer to tetrapods than Tiktaalik).
Another problem is the discovery in Australia of a supposed 380-million-year-old “ultimate ‘Mother’ of all tetrapods” called Gogonasus. One of the challenges is that darwinists want Gogonasus to represent an earlier candidate for a tetrapod transition, yet it shares some similarities to the later Tiktaalik:
“The conspicuously large spiracular opening (Fig. 1a-c) is proportionally similar to those recently reconstructed for Panderichthys and Tiktaalik. The pectoral fin endoskeleton of Gogonasus is described here for the first time (Fig. 2), the new specimen being the only known Devonian fish that shows a complete acid-prepared pectoral limb. There are some surprising similarities to the recently described pectoral fin in the advanced elpistostegalian Tiktaalik. As such features could indicate homoplasy between Gogonasus and early tetrapods, we present a revised character analysis to determine whether the new anatomical information supports a more crownward position for Gogonasus in the stem-tetrapod phylogeny.”
Note that the presumptive idea of homoplasy (‘convergent evolution’ – whatever that is) is used to explain why this early fish would have similar structures to a later one.
In early 2010, clear, vertebrate trackways said to be “18 million years” older than Tiktaalik, showing digits and alternating steps, were announced in Nature. The article states, “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.” Two evolutionists commented, “The fish-tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented….Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al lob a grenade into that picture.”
Robere
I am not a biologist, but a psychologist and anthropologist who has worked in the forensic area for many years. I was raised in evangelical fundamentalism by well meaning, but sadly misguided parents. An education in creationism was bread and butter stuff in my formative years and even extended into early adulthood when I was working for an international evangelical missionary organisation. Yes, one of the favourite topics by the esteemed director of the organisation was “How do we get life from non-life”. I won’t get involved in the core scientific debate as I would rather leave that to those who have a thorough education in the biological, archaeological and related sciences. My study of social evolutionary processes in anthropology first triggered a serious look at the validity of the creationist theory. Mr forensic work further prompted me to stand back, drop the old defences honed since childhood and endeavour to objectively consider the possibility of life without god and creator. To be frank, my openness to new ideas has unshackled me from the narrowmindedness of the past and given me the freedom to consider life from a whole new perspective. In my opinion, Dawkins and others like him have a valuable contribution to our acquisition of knowledge as they provide the ‘other’ side to the argument that is so often actively suppressed in the education of individuals from evangelical and pentecostalist backgrounds. Rather than go on the defensive with fellows like Dawkins, we should welcome his contribution to the debate. Yes, I am now an atheist, and a very happy one at that.
Kenneth Acushla
“How do we get life from non life”? Our Creator is NOT non life. We are made in HIS Image. Whereas Theory of Evolution was NOT written by Charles Darwin but by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus, family and friends taught the Tree of Man with the white races at the top and black races at the bottom. This was taught as part of the Theory of Evolution but is not taught today. It is regarded as racist but they never call Darwin family racist even though they taught it. The brain is a mass of electrical circuits so what is the mind, personality in the body.?
Josh
Just to further kenneth’s comment… How do we get non-life in the first place? Evolution will be debated until we eventually have the truth proved, whichever theory that may be. The origin of matter, not to mention that of time and space, remains difficult to prove. Faith, despite preconceptions of the word, is required when considering either option as the truth: either these elements of time, matter and space were designed by something above the constrains of the natural – including time – or they were there all along.
Without sounding naive or cliche, I cringe at the concept of the mere 80 years (approx), that will eventually total my life, not meaning anything at all. Sure, I could help some people, be a good person and all, but what does it do in the scheme of millions of years of no long-term meaning. I know that isn’t talking about apparent evidence as such, but for speculation’s sake…
I really just want to put questions forward. I know what I believe and I don’t think I follow it blindly, but I’m yet to encounter anything more convincing.
John Heininger
It seems that Robete is a real enigma. He is not a biologist and hasn’t the foggiest notion of how life came from non-life, and does not want to get involved in the scientific debate, yet has totally committed himself to atheism, evolution and Dawkins. He is a true man of faith, seemingly a blind faith. He tells us that “My study of social evolutionary processes in anthropology” led him to reject Christianity and creationist views and embrace Darwinism, yet doesn’t provide a single shred of evidence to support his position. So, my challenge to Robete is this: provide us all with a single example of evidence that is solid proof for the evolutionary continuum that leaves no alternative option, especially God. Off you go Robete! Lets see what you come up with that is sufficient to turn us all into atheists. And by the way, just because you once lived in an evangelical garage doesn’t make you a car. There are heaps of people in such organizations who go through all the motions but do not truly know Christ, as He will one day affirm (Matthew 7).
Kenneth Acushla
The teaching is that you cannot make something out of nothing. I agree with it. Yahweh did not create out of nothing. Have you considered the possibility that Yahweh created all things out of HIMSELF. HE has all the Attributes of Divinity, there is nothing HE cannot do. When we speak words come out of ourselves with air. So Yahweh spoke and with HIS words created all things. HE has always lived in Eternity, past, present, future, all part of Eternity.
sam drucker
Tas, in response to your question concerning whether Prof. Dawkins has debated a Creationist I advise that I have, amid my old records, an audio tape of a series of talks given by the late Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith given at a conference in Brisbane in circa 1987 wherein Dr Wilder-Smith indicated he had once debated Prof. Dawkins. Dr. Wilder-Smith said Prof. Dawkins, losing the debate, at one point got up and urged the audience not to accept the Creationist argument because the university’s reputation was at stake.
The Moderator apparently said Prof. Dawkins comments were special pleading and would not be accepted. According to Dr Wilder-Smith the result was Prof. Dawkins sitting down with an expression as having been hit with a pole-axe.
Subsequently, exposure of the weakness of Prof. Dawkins’ argument for his cause in the DVD “From a Frog to a Prince” and also in “Expelled” demonstrate cause for Creationists to be eager for further debates with Prof. Dawkins, if only he was game.
Gary
One of the my favourite things about being adult is that no one forces me to go church and listen to a pile of deranged and dangerous nonsense like the the Earth being created in six days etc and then God taking a rest on the seventh day (???).
Why would an all-powerful God need a rest?
A rest from what?
Money earns interest 24/7 as it sits there in the bank and doesn’t take a day off. Why would God need one?
Prof. Dawkins doesn’t engage creationists in debate for the same reason he doesn’t engage children in debate about whether Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy exist. It would all end in tears and with nothing resolved.
Tas Walker
Hi Gary,
Of course God did not need a rest. But He made you and me in such a way that we need to rest each week to recharge. His method of creation was a pattern for us.
Times Online reported last year that Dawkins is supporting atheist camps for children so presumably he’s not above answering questions that children ask. Or does he just expect them to accept what he says without question? No, I suspect there is another reason why he won’t debate.
Jean-Sebastien
My question is : Why don’t Creationists debate Evolutionists outside of their echo chambers?
Find me a single YouTube Creationists that make sense, and we’ll talk. (I’m only picking YouTube because it’s open to all and fairly unmoderated, which is the kind of forum I want to see a debate on)
I read that you wrote a letter to the Christian politician who looked like an imbecile on ABC, saying that he did a great disservice to Christians, but he didn’t do anything worse than most “creation debaters” on *every* unmoderated forums on the net.
Give me a break
Dawkins has simply come to terms with the fact that creationists are dishonest and irrational and there is simply no point arguing with them. I feel like I am pretty much there myself.
Creationists will say black is white and vice versa just ot have something to say. The view seems to be to say anything and because you made an utterance it must therefore hold weight.
He can easily run mental rings around any creationist. You want a single mutation that results in an increase in information? Look no further than Lenski’s E.coli bacteria experiment. Documented in full. … now watch this post get deleted.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
The Lenski claim is that E.coli bacteria evolved the capacity to metabolize citrate as an energy source. However, this is not an example of new information for new machinery in the cell. There was no new machinery. The bacteria already had the machinery to utilize citrate under anaerobic conditions. It was a trivial change to allow the same complex machinery to be used under aerobic conditions. See Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
Gary
@Tas Walker
God made me?
Where’s the evidence? I thought I was made because my dear Mum and Dad had a wild night of passion. Something as important as an individual’s world view (which is what a religion is) absolutely requires evidence in order to be valid.
Evidence, fact, objective truth is what we as humans absolutely require in order to think, act and arrive at sound judgments.
Where are these atheist camps that he runs? I want to send my children to one.
Tas Walker
Hi Gary,
Yes, I prefer the term “worldview” to religion. A worldview is not determined from the evidence but picked up form our culture and upbringing. Our worldview is used to interpret the evidence.
God mad the first man and woman and instructed them to be fruitful and multiply, which is how you came about.
The atheist has no plausible explanation for how the first self-replicating living cell could have come into existence all by itself by natural processes. Dawkins said that on the video “Expelled” (toward the end of it). In other words, the atheistic worldview (or religion, if you like) is based on faith. The biblical worldview, unlike the atheistic one, has a plausible, adequate cause.
greggy
dawkins has been alive for less than 100 years. he going to tell people what happened billions of years ago? do the math. everyone here needs to clear their mind from high school, college, church, whatever. I believe that almost every scientific study has been skewed by money and pride. so much we really dont know truth because of nonsense. dawkins is listened to because he is confident, and arrogant. if thats your thing- follow him. if you like loud mouthed preachers with a need for followers- listeners to him.the whole world is in disarray – and the truth exists. in fact the truth exists whether we find it or not- the truth exists whether we believe it or not.