Atheism Culture Darwinism News

A contrarian view of Dawkins not debating Craig

Spread the love

From Tom Bethell of The Spectator:

There’s something unsatisfactory about the Tim Stanley article. I don’t blame Dawkins for not debating Craig. Dawkins must have huge demands on his time, and he and Craig would simply end up talking past each other. The people I would like to see RD debate would be those who want to have it both ways — people like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. I think Dawkins has called them appeasers. (Who would qualify for admission into Top Ten list in this category? Any suggestions?)

Dawkins and the fundamentalist Darwinians believe that all life was brought into existence by the random collision of particles. (Dawkins would immediately say “don’t forget natural selection!” but to get that you first have to self replicating organisms and I don’t think trial and error could ever produce such complex structures.) Anyway, if you do believe in the ability of chance to produce self-replicating life — and that really is a belief system — then a debate with someone who responds with a very different faith: (“Well, I don’t believe in that; I believe in God, in the Bible, in Allah,”) etc. is just not going to get us very far.

No, the evolutionist dogma needs to be challenged at source — as bad science, fake science, something that masquerades as a science with few or no facts to back it up. It’s no good saying, “you have your science and I have my faith.” We need to say, “Your science is non-existent.”

Miller, Collins and many others have swallowed the evolutionist mumbo-jumbo, mainly I suspect because they don’t want to be excommunicated by their academic peers. And that is why I would like to see Dawkins or some other funda-materialists debate them. (Maybe such debates have already occurred?)

In many cases, to be sure, many people in the “bit of both” camp just don’t realize how weak the scientific case for evolution is. They hear over and over that it “is a fact” and they assume that it must have been demonstrated. Otherwise the evolutionists wouldn’t be so confident and insistent about it.So they keep their mouths shut. They dare not oppose those who seem to be so knowledgeable and intelligent and went to the best schools — lest they be exposed as country bumpkins. I think this deference was particularly strong in the latter part of the 19th century, when even well educated people were often disposed to believe almost any “scientific” claim. That’s less true today, I suspect, despite the ever more clamorous and insistent public propaganda for evolution.

In my view,  Dawkins is totally wrong about evolution but he does have a certain integrity. I like to think that one could have an argument with him that actually might get somewhere. But I don’t feel that would be true of Miller, Collins et al. I might be wrong. If anyone has an alternative view that he feels strongly about, I would like to hear it.

[Who would qualify in the Top Ten Appeasers? And otherwise, thoughts? – UD News]

9 Replies to “A contrarian view of Dawkins not debating Craig

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Interestingly such a debate between a Theistic Evolutionist, such as Miller or Collins, and a dogmatic Atheistic Evolutionist, such as Dawkins or even PZ Myers, should (although it probably wouldn’t) focus as to exact causation of the Randomness in the universe. Atheists hold that randomness is exactly what it appears to be (completely unintelligent gibberish), and Theistic Evolutionists hold, I believe, that ‘God is so big’ we just can’t detect his guiding hand in the randomness. And even though both camps are completely off base, since NO ONE has ever seen purely random processes generate any non-trivial functional information, such as a functional protein, much less a genetic code, the lesson to be learned from searching for the ultimate source of ‘randomness’ in the universe is a enlightening one.

    notes:

    Being the helpful guy I am, always trying to help atheists out when I get a chance, 🙂 I’ve been trying to piece together a experiment that would prove once and for all, for everyone to see, that RANDOM variation plus undirected natural selection can produce functional proteins, just as atheists adamantly claim (even though no one has ever seen RANDOM processes do this). Now I just about got the RANDOM part of the experiment down for the atheists! I’ve searched for the maximum source of RANDOMNESS that I could find in the universe, (since the ‘god of randomness’ is who atheists, and even Theistic evolutionists, claim for their creator), and I think I’ve found it for them;

    First we find:

    Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy
    Excerpt:
    Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness
    or disorder in a system.
    http://www.saskschools.ca/curr.....rgy3_1.htm

    Thus, the more entropy a system has the more randomness it will generate for our experiment to find a RANDOM functional protein. And if we ask, ‘what is the maximum source of entropy, i.e. RANDOMNESS, in the universe?’, we find this:

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

    “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
    Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang?

    Plus for a added bonus for atheists, and Theistic Evolutionists, being the helpful guy that I am, I found that if we find a really supermassive blackhole we might just start to overcome the homochirality problem, which is a huge problem against finding any functional proteins, as well:

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page3

    But of course there is the huge problem with actually getting the atheists, or theistic evolutionists, to the super-massive blackholes to actually do the experiments, so that they may try to RANDOMLY generate a functional protein. Not to mention the problem of someone trying to survive being stretched into as a piece of spaghetti, by the extreme warping of space-time, near the blackhole. But what the hey, it is just a little sacrifice for ‘science’ right!?! At least atheists will have a maximum source of randomness to work with in their experiments!!! But there is another problem I probably need to tell atheists, or theistic evolutionists, about before they pack up and go off to the super-massive black holes in order to prove to the world that their ‘god of randomness’ can create all things,

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist

    “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
    Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-lawsScience.htm

    But what the hey, atheists haven’t needed any stinking equations to prove their theory so far have they!?!

    Oxford University Admits Darwinism’s Shaky Math Foundation – May 2011
    Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46351.html

    I even have a inspirational quote for their future experiment;

    GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946)
    “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’”(1) Gilbert Newton Lewis
    http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/ci/1992/Lewis.html

    further notes:

    Time dilation
    Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity:
    In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized:
    1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop).
    2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower.

    i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them.

    Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

    And a song for their experiment;

    Creed – Six Feet
    http://www.youtube.com/v/aQ9Gr.....autoplay=1

  2. 2
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    Bethell’s original foray into evolution in the 1980s claimed that cladistics was a problem for evolution. He didn’t know what he was talking about then, and I haven’t seen any evidence that he knows what he is talking about now.

  3. 3

    Nick,

    You mean you wouldn’t want to debate Miller or Collins? Or did Bethell get that part right? I know you’re not Dawkins, but there are some similarities. Don’t you recognize a compliment (on Bethell’s part) when you see one?

  4. 4
    Bantay says:

    Introducing (as substitutes) Collins or Miller won’t change the fact that Dawkins needs to find a backbone and face Craig. It’s time for proponents of the so-called new atheism and its characteristic unscholarly, mocking tone to put up or shut up.

  5. 5
    Joseph says:

    Well cladistics can be used to support a common design as cladistics is based on similarities.

  6. 6
    Collin says:

    I’m not sure I like this idea because I think that Miller would lose. His position is self-contradictory. I think the choice is between someone who believes in the Christian god and that he had some influence over the development of life and someone who does not believe in the Christian god. Miller is neither. He believes in the Christian god but gives everything away when it comes to life’s development.

  7. 7
    Collin says:

    I agree. Craig has a lot of good arguments for God’s existence beyond creationism or ID-ism. He could directly contradict many of Dawkin’s arguments in his books.

  8. 8
    Alan says:

    BTW There is an article in the Independent (Sunday, 23) October 2011 about Dawkins avoidance of William Lane Craig by Paul Vallely:

    “God knows why Dawkins won’t show

    Our leading atheists prefer abuse to argument when faced with a tough-talking Christian opponent”

    Did I miss it on UD? It’s the best one yet.

  9. 9
    Dov Henis says:

    There cannot be randomness in an evolving universe!!!

    Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics?
    YOK!
    Update Concepts-Comprehension…
    http://universe-life.com/2011/.....d-whither/

    Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
    The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.
    Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.

    =================
    Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
    http://universe-life.com/2012/.....mpilation/

    A. The Universe

    From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
    The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
    Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
    All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.

    B. Earth Life

    Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
    The genesis of RNAs genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the “naturally-selected” RNA nucleotides. Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.

    C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told

    The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
    As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.

    Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.

    Life’s evolution, self-replication:

    Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:

    Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cells communities, “cultures”.
    Mono-cells cultures to neural systems, then to nerved multicellular organisms.

    Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
    It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
    An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
    http://universe-life.com/2011/.....verything/

Leave a Reply