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

There's one reason, and only one reason why RD won't debate WLC or anyone else of that caliber, and that's because he's smart enough to know he'd get his clock cleaned! Recall that in his poorly argued recent screed he so arrogantly titled The God Delusion, he actually thought he had easily dispatched the main 5 arguments for God from Aquinas...and in only about, oh, 3 pages or so no less. Never mind that brilliant scholars of all theological stripes have debated and written extensively on Aquinas's arguments for centuries: Thank GOD, we have RD to light the way to the real truth...and do so in a mere 3-4 pages. How could WLC stand up to such academic brilliance as that?!? Careful readers of RD's works and argument often note that he tends to present his opponent arguments in their weakest, rather than their strongest forms, thus setting up nice little straw men to knock about. RD knows in his gut that he wouldn't be able to make his case in the face of such a careful and articulate thinker as WLC, and that, and only that, is why he refuses to debate him. He'd say the same about a J.P Moreland or Alvin Plantinga no doubt.DonaldM_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

When Dawkins' followers applaud him for every obtuse statement he makes, they demonstrate that they are even less critical than the religionists they despise.CannuckianYankee_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

And people actually applauded to that answer?
That struck me as odd as well. And they say intelligent design is a threat to science.Mung_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

The real fiasco of this is that the audience applauded loudly like they know what was being said and assumed it was true and an appropriate put down. It says more about the people who support Dawkins that they are so intellectually bankrupt that they would applaud this absurdity. Of course they support Dawkins so that should not be too hard to understand. Also Dawkins in his arrogance only considers maybe popes, archbishops and cardinals as his worthy oponents.jerry_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Richard Dawkins is still wallowing around in the dust bin of out-of-date and discredited "science," and he has no clue about the fact that the real scientific world has left him behind. This is a sad legacy of irrelevance for someone who desperately sought to be relevant.GilDodgen_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

siis, I read the review. All it is saying is that a few things were not covered. It does not offer up any promising alternatives though it would be interesting to see just what the Williams book has to say if really anything. Dave Wisker mentioned some alternative ideas a couple months ago. McFarland suggest that the driving forces might be in the chemical attractions that are a result of the basic laws of physics. Thus, they were designed not only to be friendly to life once it arrived but to possibly drive chemical reactions to produce some of the affinities necessary for life. We might learn that the fine tuning of the physical universe might be even more appropriate than we originally envisioned. I use the term "possibility" only in the sense that future research might show something. Actually there is always the possibility of something showing up in the future. McFarland was anything but gracious. Which lets me know what he really thinks and his predispositions. His comparison of 200 vs 400 pages seemed like a feeble put down. I am sure Meyer could have produced a 1000 page book at which time McFarland might have criticized the over kill no one would have read it but a select few. So this review really says more about McFarland than it does about the book. If this is the best that can be done to discredit the book, then bravo Dr. Meyer.jerry_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

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.EndoplasmicMessenger_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Mr Siis, Yes, I did click through to his review. I thought it was an interesting viewpoint, since it came from a biochemistry professor who also happened to be a practicing Christian and very sympathetic to the ID viewpoint. I also looked up the Chemistry and Evolution book he referenced several times as being very thoughtful, and I'll be asking for someone to get it for me as a present!Nakashima_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

That last link didn't work. Try this: http://arrowthroughthesun.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-signature-in-cell.html or this: http://arrowthroughthesun.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to his Nov 16th entry.siis_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Green #7 Thank you so much the trouble you took. In fact Dawkins, being a master of words, could mumble those words as an excuse rather than to admit that he has close affinity to rabbit.T. lise_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Speaking of debating and dialoguing on ID, has anyone read Benjamin McFarlands critiques of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. McFarland is associate professor of biochemistry at Seattle Pacific University, and I wasn't sure what to make of his critique (because some of it is over my head). http://arrowthroughthesun.blog.....-cell.html I posted this under a different topic yesterday, but it is now off the main page. Any thoughts?siis_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

He won't debate Craig for the same reason he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist's and their objections to evolution in his latest book. He merely takes on critiques of naïve creationists and other amateurs without ever mentioning the ID community because (wait for it) HE'S A FREAKING COWARD, obviously. That's the only explanation, of course. Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose would take on their top notch critiques at the drop of a hat. PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.FtK_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

T. lise, Dawkins said:
“I have always said that when invited to do debates that I will be happy to debate a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Pope, an Archbishop; indeed I have done both. But I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They’ve gotta have something more than that; I’m busy”.
[His emphasis]Green_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Will somebody please write what exactly Dawkins said. Youtube isn't working well in my computer right now and Im dying to know what exactly he said.T. lise_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

I funny post characterizes Dawkins like this: 1. I do not race people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional runners; 2. I do not play chess against people whose only claim to fame is that they are chess masters; 3. I do not play one-on-one with people whose only claim to fame is that they are basketball stars; 4. I do not set my car against people whose only claim to fame is that they have a fast car; and 5. I do not attempt to match the accomplishments of folks whose only claim to fame is that they are in the Guinness Book of World Records ®. link: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3668halo_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

see this link 2:50 thru for WLC's comments of Dawkins previous refusal to debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1pbeXN8qohalo_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Dawkins says he won't debate WLC because his only claim to fame is that he's a professional debater - and he says that people he debates have "got to have something more than that". So is Dawkins completely ignorant of WLC's credentials??!!Green_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

apparently in 2007 when WLC came to the UK and Dawkins refused to debate him, Dawkins claimed that he had not even heard of him! Is he really that ignorant of his most formidable opponents?halo_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Check out William Lane Craig's thoughts on his recent debate on Intelligent Design with Francisco Ayala: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=newsletter_main (it is the November 2009 newsletter - you have to sign in to read it)halo_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply