Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sad story: Death of a scientist in small doses

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates,

Refuses to Defend Evolution as The Greatest Show On Earth

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 (Harper One, 2009) 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 (Harper One, 2009) 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.

Gosh, I really must find that feather I knock myself over with, defying the law of gravity – to the amazement of my neighbours – whenever I hear stuff like this.

Basically, after he stopped doing serious science and unwisely became a “professor of the public understanding of science”, due to the unwise beneficence of a Microsoft billionaire, Dawkins committed himself to more and more completely ridiculous positions: The selfish gene and the meme are part of the story.

Stuff for the popular press, not for science.

Dawkins won’t debate because he can’t, any more. Microsoft billionaires can’t help him either.

Note: You can win a free copy of Signature by entering Uncommon Descent Contest 11.

Comments
Mrs O'Leary, I think you are reversing part of Dr Dawkins' resume. He became a popularizer of science long before getting the position endowed by Simonyi. The Selfish Gene is from the late 70s.Nakashima
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Basically, after he stopped doing serious science and unwisely became a “professor of the public understanding of science”, due to the unwise beneficence of a Microsoft billionaire, Dawkins committed himself to more and more to completely ridiculous positions: The selfish gene and the meme are part of the story.
Um, Denyse? Dawkins coined the term meme back in 1976 in the book The Selfish Gene. In other words, about twenty years before he got the Simonyi chair. That book, by the way, was not considered to be for the "popular press". It was, to be sure, written so a layperson could jump right in, but it was also aimed at experts and students in the biological sciencesand was in fact written with a scientific audience in mind (says so right in the 1st Edition's Preface). Maybe you're also not aware that nothing in it is considered all that "ridiculous" or radical and hasn't been for a long time. None of it was really all that out there even when it was first published, despite persistent myths and misunderstandings to the contrary. The only arguable exception would be memes, but as that brief chapter was quite obviously speculative (as Dawkins has noted many times) and quite separable from the rest of the book, I don't see what the problem is. Especially since he's spent very little time pursuing the idea since then. Certainly not to the extent that he could be considered "committed" to it. Out of curiosity, Denyse, have you ever actually read The Selfish Gene? I get the impression that you haven't, as, from reading your writings here over the past couple of years, you appear to have acquired at some point the common misconception (or a copy of the meme, if you will) that it advocates for a form of genetic hyper-determinism and imputes some sort of agency to DNA itself. Despite some of the language used in the text (including the title itself), it's nowhere near doing anything of the sort. In the briefest possible terms, it simply argues that selection operates at the level of the gene most if not all of the time. That doesn't sound so "ridiculous" now, does it?Doomsday Smith
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
toc, npUpright BiPed
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Sorry, Upright BiPed,I meant this for Heinrichtoc
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Personally, I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I have read in earnest, Hugh Ross and Fazalle Rana. They are both qualified scientists and don't consider themselves "cheap shot" types of characters. Further, I am reading Meyer's book and find it, like Behe's books, factual and intellectually honest. But to dismiss Heinrich's comment as a cheap shot is incorrect. Like any theory of origins, the data simply don't give themselves a happy home, which is why there is such controversy; it demands some kind of metaphysical explanation. Dr.s Ross and Rana appear to be dismissed at UD, but they both bear reading. As I said, I am not personally convinced either way, but one thing seems blatantly true to me. Neo-Darwinism is a dogmatically dead dogma. Engagement with all points of view however, is not only wise, but essential.toc
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Heinrich, Is it merely a personal issue that you must put words into others people's mouths? Or is the opportunity to shoot for a cheap shot simply irresistable? Dr Meyer simply recognizes the real-world context of the comment. Perhaps you should have as well, or maybe for you context doesn't matter.Upright BiPed
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Exactly whom is Meyer's book acclaimed by?Anthony09
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Interesting that Meyer thinks that Old Earth Creationists aren't creationists.Heinrich
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Where's that article from?JamesBond
October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply