Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Complexity]

No.

 

[Acleron]

Dawkins explained this episode in The Devil's Chaplain. He had been asked to give an interview on Evolution. At this point in the interview he realised that the film crew were creationist/IDs. The reason for the pause was that he was considering terminating the interview. They eventually persuaded him to continue when he answered the very complex question on development of information.

The Creationist/ID's case is so weak they have to resort to these cheap tricks.

Because of this and other situations, Dawkins decided to avoid debating with these people and constructed a memorandum with Stephen Gould explaining why, unfortunately Gould died before he could sign it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

 

[Hawk one]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?

 

[Acleron]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

One of the reasons for not publicly debating them is that a cool considered reply to a difficult question scores less than a quick sound bite. The general public is more likely to respond to a charismatic speaker than the cold facts.

I see that Dawkins is quite prepared to take on religious figures such as John Lennox. The concepts are easier to put across. The interview with Lennox also shows the difficulties that can be found from the format of these events.

Hawk One's comment is also true, why give them the publicity.

Stephen Novella is one of the most articulate skeptics I'm aware of but even he says such discussion often comes down to who has the better rhetoric.

 

[fls]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I suspect that the world-renowned Darwinist would relish debate.

I think the point is that 'debate' is not a reasonable descriptor for the aforementioned activities.

Linda

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

 

[Acleron]

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

There are plenty of examples of this, see ERV.

The debate always seems to follow this scenario.

ID/Creationist makes silly scientific style comment.
Scientist corrects it.
ID/Creationist makes silly gratuitous insults, calls the scientist unscientific and close minded.

BTW, the ID/Creationist always responds on his own website so the deconstruction of his idiocy is not seen by his own followers.

Any debate can only succeed when both sides are constrained to follow rules of logic and truth, when this happened in the Dover trial, the ID/Creationists lost.

The Skepticality podcast labelled 'Flock of Dodos' has a good discussion with Randy Olsen on this topic.

 

[Mashuna]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I thought you were an advocate for 'proper scientific methods', T'ai. I mean, isn't that usually your criticism of the $1m challenge, that it doesn't follow proper scientific channels? Why would you expect a debate in front of a live audience to be a more useful method?

 

[This Guy]

I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."

Problem is that your side (I assume you back the views of these charlatans) have to cheat and distort the facts. You should try to look at the issue from multiple angles.

Of course, if your comfortable without considering all the facts, that's cool too, just don't expect us to join you there

 

[T'ai Chi]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

 

[Acleron]

One of the problems is the breadth of knowledge required. In a live debate id/creationist could easily ambush you on some obscure piece of biology e.g. a particular sequence in DNA and leaving you look foolish when you have to admit your ignorance. Whereas scientists spend most of their time trying to get the science right, id/creationists spend their time practising debating points like this.

When debating specific points, they will always lose if the TofE is correct. ERV regularly excoriates Behe whenever he ventures on to her turf.

 

[hgc]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats. Makes you wonder if there isn't something fishy about this whole Darwinism enterprise afterall.

 

[Lonewulf]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

 

[CFLarsen]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

 

[This Guy]

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?



Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

Obviously it's OK for creationist/ID'ers to mislead, lie and tell half truths. We should still respect them, and welcome them to the debate table.

After all, debating them wouldn't add any credibility to their stance would it?

And just because they have to mislead and take things out of context to be convincing, that doesn't mean their arguments can't stand on their own merit!


I know if I ran across a sales person that used the same tactics these folks use I'd not buy anything they were selling.

I guess some people have different standards for honesty and truthfulness.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats.

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').

 

[sol invictus]

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

 

[hgc]

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').

Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be? Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is. If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism," then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.

As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home. Then they sprang their trap in the form of woo gibberish about information gained from mutations.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be?

I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.

Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is.

Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.

If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism,"

Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.

then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.

That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?

As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home.

But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?