Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig

_{William Dembski

December 9, 2009

Atheism, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

William Lane Craig is not only one of the world’s leading Christian apologists but he has actually made outstanding original contributions to philosophy. Yes, Craig publishes popular-level books. Unlike Dawkins, however, who in 20-years plus has been purely a popularizer (of Darwinian evolution, materialist science, and atheism), Craig continues to publish at the highest levels of the academy addressing scholars of the highest caliber (and gaining their respect). Dawkins, by contrast, increasingly appeals to the lowest common denominator. It’s in this light that Dawkins glib dismissal of Craig should be viewed:

Comments

Mr Jerry, Macro evolution requires new genetic information of a highly complex nature. Sez who? I thought macro-evolution included speciation.Nakashima_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Drift and selection are definitely microevolution events. They are certainly not macro evolutionary events. They are part of basic genetics which is micro evolution. Could you tell me how the changing the percentage frequency of an allele in a population by random process (drift) or by environmental pressures (selection) is macro evolutionary in any way? All that is being done is a shuffling of the allele percentages in a population gene pool. Yes, definitely micro evolution. Macro evolution requires new genetic information of a highly complex nature. Drift and selection have nothing to do with that. Your quotation of Mueller was at best irrelevant. Your appeal to duplication is also irrelevant unless you can show how these lead to these novel complex capabilities. So far you haven't introduced anything of consequence. Why not try to do so. We are trying to turn microbes into humans here so provide some proof that it happened by naturalistic means. Show us how any of the steps along the way were accomplished by providing empirical evidence to support your conclusions. Is that unreasonable? You have come into an ID site whose basic premise is that there is not support for 100% naturalistic evolution of any kind let alone Darwinian evolution. Assume we have heard all the arguments before and they have been logically rejected. If you have that understanding then you can ask why such and such is not relevant. I am just telling you that no one has ever done it yet. That is proved us wrong by showing us evidence for naturalistic macro evolution. All we are asking for is scientific evidence.jerry_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

By coming here and saying you will show something is really the arrogant position.
So it's arrogant to attempt to participate in a discussion now?
It assumes that we are stupid or unable to understand what the elite know and that we the unwashed masses cannot understand.
I can't see where I assumed that anyone was stupid insufficiently educated/intellectually endowed to understand anything, nor why you wish to frame my words in this light - other than to dismiss me before I start. If I thought you were unable to understand, it wouldn't be a very fruitful discussion, would it? It is apparent to me that it would be futile to continue when this is your attitude. Tacking a sentence like "But I urge you to continue on and see where it goes" after all that went before it is rather tokenistic. By the way, stating this:
Drift and selection are micro evolutionary processes
indicates to me that you have a poor understanding of the debate, in any case. Drift and selection govern the population-level fate of any genetic change, whether a whole-genome duplication followed by a hundred million years of divergence and change or a single point mutation. If you define drift and selection as being solely microevolutionary processes then you "win" trivially by definition.paulmc_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

"I was looking forward to testing some ideas here because it appeared the tone and standard of discussion was reasonable, but it is plain that any attempt will be futile." I encouraged you to proceed. I only warned you that we have probably seen everything that could possibly present. By coming here and saying you will show something is really the arrogant position. It assumes that we are stupid or unable to understand what the elite know and that we the unwashed masses cannot understand. I have already told you that evolutionary biologists come here and they have not been able to present anything of consequence. Nothing you have said up till now is of any use. For example, we are aware of everything is this paragraph you wrote: "Duplication of genes is common over evolutionary time. Exaptation of features (e.g. human earbones homologies of reptilian jawbones) appears to occur. Vestigial structures (e.g. baleen whales forming embryonic teeth and reabsorbing them) are also not uncommon features of extant species. These indicate the limits and modes of evolution in operation and explain, via common descent, how new can systems arise. These patterns certainly appear to me best explained by processes guided by drift and selection rather than direct intervention of a designer." We certainly know about gene duplication, transposons, retrotransposon, etc and every other process of genetic amplification through transcription of parts of the genome or through some error process in duplication of the DNA but the issue is what has it been shown to do. So far I understand the are a lot of interesting things but not the building of complex novel capabilities which is how we use the term macro evolution here. You allude to new systems but really don't mention any, which of itself is curious, because if you had something , you would mention it in passing in such a paragraph as the one you wrote. Drift and selection are micro evolutionary processes and not something disputed but what has selection or drift ever produced. Not much of consequence in the evolution debate. No the whole debate is in the origin of variation on which selection and drift could work. I already alluded to the Allan MacNeill and his claim to 47+ engines of variation but even Allen, who is an evolutionary biologist hasn't outlined how any has produced macro evolution. No, I think you approach has been arrogant to pre suppose that you have something that no one else, including evolutionary biologists, do not know and wouldn't have discussed here before. But I urge you to continue on and see where it goes. I have to run and will be traveling for most of the day but think about what would be the best illustration of naturalistic evolution and express it. So far you have not done it.jerry_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

"You think you may have something but we have seen everything before" "We have evolutionary biologists try and all they end up doing is asserting something and not providing empirical evidence to support it. It does not exist" "You are new to this and don’t realize you probably have nothing. You probably assume it exists." "Nothing you have said so far is relevant"
That is the just arrogant, Jerry. And patronising. You know nothing about me, and yet you write this? You didn't bother to acknowledge anything I have written e.g. trying to establish a definition of macro-evolution for a starting point. Before I present an argument there is already nothing I can say that could be interesting? I was looking forward to testing some ideas here because it appeared the tone and standard of discussion was reasonable, but it is plain that any attempt will be futile. If you are the measure, this is yet another place where close-minded people write responses that don't consider their opponent's thoughts only to conclude they were absolutely right all along. With such close-mindedness and willingness to pre-judge, there is little chance that you love science like you say.paulmc_{December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

:What I would propose would be looking at natural phenomena and determining which theory has greater predictive power – naturalistic evolution or ID? After all, a theory is only as good as its explanatory power.: I think ID wins that hands down. But you do not understand what ID is about. The reason ID is getting more viable is because any theory of naturalistic evolution, including Darwinian processes, has a miserable track record at predicting anything but the trivial. Micro evolution has a very good track record at producing changes but they are trivial in the evolution debate and ID has no problem with micro evolution. I even argue that micro evolution is great design as it allows organisms to adapt to changing environments but it does not explain the origin of the gene pool of the population. There is no theory of naturalistic macro evolution out there that has been shown to produce anything. The only one people try to defend is that over deep time, anything can happen through gradual changes. But such a process leaves a trail and there are no trails ever found. Only the sudden appearance of something. You think you may have something but we have seen everything before and the current set of anti-ID people here are probably aware of anything you could come up with and they are not able to dent the macro evolution conundrum. We have evolutionary biologists try and all they end up doing is asserting something and not providing empirical evidence to support it. It does not exist or else you have to explain why every book and article ever written has never presented it. You are new to this and don't realize you probably have nothing. You probably assume it exists. As I said we are aware of every natural process that modifies the genome and the result is that there is almost nothing of consequence that has resulted from these processes. I do not say absolutely nothing but there is no consistent set of results that shows how complex novel capabilities arose. Believe me when I say nothing has ever been written to support it because if it was, it would have been presented long ago and constantly shoved down our throats. I do not know what you are personally like, but every anti ID person here leaves frustrated or they stay around and present trivia. They never acknowledge they can not add anything to the debate or that the ID position has some merit and they continue to live with the contradictions they espouse without having any empirical data to support it while berating those who support ID. Occasionally some find fascinating studies which show some interesting results but never anything to support any theory of naturalistic macro evolution. Give it a shot. Nothing you have said so far is relevant but continue on and we will learn what you are about.jerry_{December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Don’t tell us micro evolution over time leads to macro evolution because that is just an assertion
With all due respect, I believe I was careful in my post to avoid doing that. I gave the example of DNA duplication that not only occurs on different timescales than that of point mutations, but also is frequently non-adaptive and retained by drift in small populations rather than in large populations. Michael Lynch has undertaken a number of interesting studies around this topic. Regarding the separation of micro- and macro-evolution, I believe that this is both an open question and also fully contingent on how you define the two. You define macroevolution as the "origin of complex novel capabilities". Is this your full definition? What bar is set for "complex"? One more thing: it is critical to remember here about the balance of evidence. We are working with incomplete information, hence why we must think critically, draw inferences, make theories etc. While I must demonstrate the feasibility and evidence supporting evolutionary theory, it remains your responsibility to demonstrate why ID is reasonable and has better explanatory power as a theory. In other words, a lack of evidence for an aspect of evolutionary theory does not constitute proof of ID. What I would propose would be looking at natural phenomena and determining which theory has greater predictive power - naturalistic evolution or ID? After all, a theory is only as good as its explanatory power.paulmc_{December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

"Perhaps you could explain in what sense there is no evidence for the evolution of complex systems? Also, just to reiterate, what would you consider evidence?" This thread is dying out so this should be continued some place else. You assert a lot of things but no one has ever presented a coherent history that validates such assertions. If gradualism works and by the way many evolutionary biologist have given up on it since there is no evidence for it building anything of consequence, it would leave a trail in the genomes or the fossil record. Such trails do not exist. Just go to any book supporting naturalistic evolution and bring back the examples. Pick Dawkins, Coyne, Carroll or anyone you choose and bring the examples here. We also have an evolutionary biologist from Cornell named Alan MacNeill who has provided us with his 47+ engines of variation for changes in the genome but has of yet to be able to delineate any significant changes for these variation generators. They include all that you mention so we are not unfamiliar with anything you said. This challenge to present a coherent defense of naturalistic evolution has been offered for five years now and no one has been able to do so. So let's see if you can do it. We are pretty sure it doesn't exist or someone somewhere would have presented it. So when you come and make some assertions we can not take it seriously. Assume we are capable of evaluating anything you bring honestly and it is not for experts only to understand. We have seen hundreds of people fail and no one succeed. Most leave when they realize they cannot do it. What remains are the die hards who keep trying and presenting the irrelevant and who seem to thrive on taking pot shots at the periphery of an argument. They never get anywhere. Give it a shot and we will be polite and maybe you will learn something and often we learn something too but nothing yet that undermines ID. By the way we believe there are actually two theories of evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution is well supported and no one objects to it but macro evolution or the origin of complex novel capabilities has never been supported by any coherent science. Don't tell us micro evolution over time leads to macro evolution because that is just an assertion and has not empirical evidence supporting it when there should be millions of examples. This morphing of micro into macro is really a faith belief. And there are evolutionary biologists who actually admit it. And I would be convinced by simple evidence that supports your proposition. I am a science junkie and love all areas of science. It would not be hard to convince me if there was anything real.jerry_{December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Moderation has been lifted, so thanks Moderator.
I am not sure what you are getting at. So maybe you should be more explicit.
I believe what I am saying is straightforward. One of the claims of ID, as proposed by Behe, is that irreducible complexity is a feature of life that cannot be explained by natural evolutionary processes. This is the basis for it being evidence for ID. If natural processes could explain it, it cannot provide evidence for ID. In fact, this very thing was predicted well before the conception of ID, under classical Darwinism. However you state:
Mueller was wrong in that there was small changes over time that built up a complicated machine. There is no evidence that this has ever happened.
What would you consider evidence? I feel this is likely to be the crux of any disagreement here. Also, I wonder which evolutionary processes you accept and which you do not. Evolution of complex systems would clearly be the result of many millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years in some cases. A theoretical framework exists explaining how this can happen, but clearly we are not going to observe it directly over periods of decades. That is not possible; we are able to observe short-term (and occasionally slightly longer-term) evolutionary processes. These are well-documented and even well-read fundamentalist YEC Christians are wholly accepting of these (e.g. local adaptation, morphological evolution, speciation, even bacteria evolving to utilise a new energy source). Duplication of genes is common over evolutionary time. Exaptation of features (e.g. human earbones homologies of reptilian jawbones) appears to occur. Vestigial structures (e.g. baleen whales forming embryonic teeth and reabsorbing them) are also not uncommon features of extant species. These indicate the limits and modes of evolution in operation and explain, via common descent, how new can systems arise. These patterns certainly appear to me best explained by processes guided by drift and selection rather than direct intervention of a designer.
There may be evidence of devolution but not evolution. Mueller was sort of talking about devolution with all his mutations.
Muller is talking about systems losing what become unneeded features - streamlining, following the evolution of complex, 'interlocking' features. Evidence for evolution (vs "devolution") is abundant. We know information content of genomes increases from time to time (indels, gene duplications, chromosome duplications, genome duplications). We know that following any of these, barring indels, there are multiple copies of genes on which selection and drift can act, resulting in specialisation. Complex gene families certainly appear to have arisen by such processes, and such relatively simple things can have substantial impacts on relative survival (e.g. in the case of phytochromes in angiosperms). Such events infrequently become adaptive, explaining the rarity of new forms and the high level of conservation of complex systems over evolutionary time. Perhaps you could explain in what sense there is no evidence for the evolution of complex systems? Also, just to reiterate, what would you consider evidence?paulmc_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

"Behe certainly works with more complex systems than what Muller originally discussed, however I don’t see any important, qualitative difference between what Muller stated should be expected under classical Darwinian theory and what Behe claims is impossible under the same." I am not sure what you are getting at. So maybe you should be more explicit. Mueller was wrong in that there was small changes over time that built up a complicated machine. There is no evidence that this has ever happened. If there was, this site would not exist and ID would have never got off the ground. There may be evidence of devolution but not evolution. Mueller was sort of talking about devolution with all his mutations. Maybe we can get Clive to take you off of moderation os you can respond more quickly.jerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

"that in order to discuss any matter in detail with people here, a series of posts over time would be necessary, with delays only on the posts from the person that might disagree with an ID viewpoint." I thought I answered you very clearly. We are often outnumbered here by anti ID people here who are not under moderation. And some of these people have been here for extended periods of time. And none have been able to defend naturalistic macro evolution. Given that, your point is not valid.jerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

#35 - I think many of the unkind words directed at Behe are because he is a smart chap and many neoDarwinists don't believe he could hold his position on irreducible complexity honestly. A partial explanation for why this is a common position: as I expect many of you will be aware, Hermann Muller predicted irreducible complexity under standard evolutionary theory long before ID was proposed. In 1918, Muller predicted that "irreducible complexity" should be expected under gradual Darwinian evolution. His point was to explain the relatively high rate of lethal mutations. In Muller's (1918, pp 463-4) words:
Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life.
Behe certainly works with more complex systems than what Muller originally discussed, however I don't see any important, qualitative difference between what Muller stated should be expected under classical Darwinian theory and what Behe claims is impossible under the same. Note: this is classical pre-modern-synthesis Darwinism; contemporary theory would have a few quibbles with Muller's description.paulmc_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Re moderation: To various ppl above, I was simply commenting that it is difficult to hold a ongoing debate when each comment requires moderation. Note that I did originally say the necessity of this was unfortunate and no doubt justified by past bad behaviour. I don't think it is "pathetic" to say this - such a response certainly does not address the problem at hand: that in order to discuss any matter in detail with people here, a series of posts over time would be necessary, with delays only on the posts from the person that might disagree with an ID viewpoint. As such, a person is likely going to have to answer responses from a number of different contributors here. That makes for quite a burden. I expect the policy could easily help to explain why many capable commentators would not start an extended argument/discussion here. I don't believe that the issue is one of the strengths of arguments. For whatever it may be worth, I agree that the tone of many of the most vocal people on the other side of the fence is wholly unacceptable and unconstructive. I have occasionally read Pharyngula, but don't really have the stomach for that mob.paulmc_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Upright,
I simply find it outrageous,
As do I.Clive Hayden_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Clive, You are of course correct. My apologies to all. When I wrote that post I had just finished reading some recent comments about Mike Behe. The amount of garbage heaped on that man is truly incredible. Anyone who has interacted with Mr Behe in the slightest knows he is not the person whom they make him to be. He is about as modest and unassuming as any person could be. I simply find it outrageous, but would have done better to keep my mouth shut.Upright BiPed_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed,
Otheriwise, STFU about moderation,
Don't talk to people this way Upright. I agree with you that moderation discussion is a side show, but there are better ways to say it without being inflammatory. This sort of thing isn't necessary.Clive Hayden_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

All claims to about the moderation policy on this website are a (rather pathetic) side show. Tell us what the ubiquitous physico-chemical connecton between cAMP and gluose and quit BS-ing about the rest. ID proponents (in general) have grown tired of the crap. If you have an explanation for symbol (context-specific) transcommincation based on the atomic physical properties of the of the constituent chemicals involeved in the building and regulation of living tissue... then state it. Otheriwise, STFU about moderation.Upright BiPed_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

paulmc at #27 With regard to the moderation rules at this site, you would think that, as adults, no one would have to be told that in order to have a useful discussion, personal attacks, abusive language and threats are off limits; but, that is exactly why this site is heavily moderated, because *some* people actually don't understand the difference (I am not referring to you). When I taught 8th grade social studies, there were always some who couldn't or wouldn't understand why shouting and name-calling was forbidden. What I do not understand about anti-ID sites like, for example, PZ's blog, is that they make a claim to be rational and a vault of knowledge. But, someone with opposite views has absolutely no chancc of engaging in a useful conversation because it is purposely designed to be the opposite. When the very Dr. himself not only sanctions but often leads the mob in a frenzy of F-bombs, it makes Charlton Heston's plight in Planet of the Apes look quite mild by comparison.gleaner63_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

#30 Perhaps we can expect PZ to print out the front page of WLC's website, drive a rusty nail through it and cover it with coffee grounds in his trash can...then take the time to take a picture of it and post it on his science website dedicated to empirical observation. No, he would'nt stoop to that would he? After all, he is a professor of scientific investigation and wouldn't ignore his obligations to the non-ideologial-based truth of empirical realities.Upright BiPed_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Jerry Coyne has weighed in with comments on Dr. Craig's recent debate with Ayala, detailed over at Dr. Craig's website. Now that WLC has begun to get a little more invovlved in the issues of evolution and ID, look for the attacks of Coyne and his merry men to get really ugly. PZ has already called WLC "stupid" over on his blog.gleaner63_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Steve-Fuller: "My guess is that if Craig confined himself to biology-based arguments, Dawkins would debate him." But the problem is that Dawkins does not confine himself to biology-based arguments, and this is what gets him in trouble - and he probably knows it. Craig in my estimation would never confine himself to biology-based arguments, because as a philosopher, he knows that science is limited. He also knows that a good scientist must also be a good philosopher.CannuckianYankee_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

"It is certainly difficult to do so with the moderation system on this website. According to the moderation policy, anyone who is noted as a critic of ID will typically be moderated for every post. The delay makes debate far more difficult, and perhaps more trouble than it is worth for those who would offer an alternative viewpoint. It is a shame that this is apparently necessary – no doubt it is a response to problems in the past." A couple points - there are a host of anti ID people here who are are not on moderation including evolutionary biologists. So the moderation policy is at best an excuse and definitely not a reason for your proposition that moderation is why we do not see an effective defense of naturalistic evolution. There is ample opportunity by anyone wanting to present their case for evolution. When people such as Ayala and Provine and even Dawkins cannot make the case in their worlds, what are we to think. Why don't you take up the challenge if you think I am mistaken. Many here love science and are always open to good data and logical arguments. This site has changed in attitudes in the last few years in response to good arguments and consistent findings in research. There is another form of moderation and that is how one responds to the genuineness of another's responses. If one comes here and immediately or very quickly get critical without using substance, then they get treated accordingly even though they are not being moderated. Honest responses are appreciated but they are rare for the anti ID people. Sometimes you get exceptions but the pattern is one of deflection, diversion and derision and often just plain obstinacy. There mostly seems to be an agenda. Rarely do you get "that is an interesting argument and I have to think about it." What you get when you make a point that they cannot refute is to move on to some other thing they can object to. So we have a constant pattern of trying to find something new to trip us up on, never admitting that their previous objection was baseless. I will give them credit though for persistence. Some hang around here for years without being able to make a point but most move on as they get frustrated when they cannot show the rubes up as being stupid. If moderation was not implemented we would have all sorts of anti social commenters here. This topic attracts really ill behavior even amongst the academics who comment on it. Go to a site where they are not moderated to find out what they really think of us. Apparently the moderation logs are full of extremely negative comments with abusive language and someone has to sort through them to pick out non offensive ones. So there is a form of natural selection here as commenters have to adapt to social norms but not necessarily to any intellectual ones.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

We constantly challenge anyone here to present the case for naturalistic evolution, Darwinian models or otherwise and get nothing. Yet all of Dawkins, Ayala, Coyne and several internet sites, etc are available in print or online to help them. What we get is silence.
It is certainly difficult to do so with the moderation system on this website. According to the moderation policy, anyone who is noted as a critic of ID will typically be moderated for every post. The delay makes debate far more difficult, and perhaps more trouble than it is worth for those who would offer an alternative viewpoint. It is a shame that this is apparently necessary - no doubt it is a response to problems in the past.paulmc_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

As Steve notes, Dawkins is primarily a biologist, while Craig is a philosopher whose arguments relate to cosmology and theology. I doubt this would be an enormously productive debate. It would be a compromise on subject matter for one or both of them. Yes, Craig debated biological issues the one time, advocating ID. Ayala did a poor job; a better debater would have addressed Craig's weak points directly and demolished him. Craig is a hugely persuasive orator with an authoritative style; I expect the prosepect of debating him is quite intimidating, regardless of the quality of his arguments.paulmc_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Craig's performance at Indiana a month ago was good but not great. This is the first time he ever debated biology and did a god job but he is not yet as facile with this area as he is with cosmology and obviously theology. I felt it was a little stretched when he talked theodicy.jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Can we make William Lane Craig "pope for a day" so that Dawkins can debate him?Mung_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller, I would think that a good debater on origin of life and evolution could rip Dawkins apart. We constantly challenge anyone here to present the case for naturalistic evolution, Darwinian models or otherwise and get nothing. Yet all of Dawkins, Ayala, Coyne and several internet sites, etc are available in print or online to help them. What we get is silence. They can not use the creationist arguments here which seems to be a term Dawkins likes. When I first viewed the Johnson Provine debate I was astonished. Here was the so called religious zealot using nothing but science and the atheistic evolutionary biologist using only religious arguments. Tell me where we are wrong here in this assessment. If Dawkins got called every time he made a non scientific argument, he might end up tongue tied. Where is his argument from biology?jerry_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

I actually think there may be more to Dawkins’ comment than people are crediting here. Yes, it’s a cheap ad hominem, but it draws attention to the fact that debates about the existence of God are carried on quite independently of any particular views about evolution, or biology more generally. In fact, one reason why Dawkins might have never bothered to find out about Craig is that, until quite recently, Craig’s arguments have been pushing the physics-based arguments for God’s existence. Dawkins really wants to argue about whether God is needed to explain life, including humans. He doesn’t want to argue about whether God is needed to create the universe as such. He wants take the universe, and its primitive materials and forces, as given and then argue from there. He’s got a much better chance of winning that way. My guess is that if Craig confined himself to biology-based arguments, Dawkins would debate him.Steve Fuller_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

13 EndoplasmicMessenger 12/09/2009 12:40 pm Siis, I also looked at BLM’s review of Signature in the Cell. It sounds like he is stuck in the notion of Biochemical Predestination. He should talk to Dean Kenyon, who wrote a book on the topic in 1969, but later repudiated it because he came to realize that chemical forces cannot create the information needed for life. Apparently, BLM believes it can. The onus is on him to show how chemical forces can create not only any small amount of Complex Specified Information, but the total CSI necessary to create the entire infrastructure needed for DNA replication.
DI's own Casey Luskin always referred to Christian Schwabe's relaxin work as an example how chemistry could generate CSI.osteonectin_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, EM and jerry, Appreciate the feedback about the McFarland review!siis_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply