Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists
Why doesn't Dawkins debate creationists? Dawkins gives his own reasons. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that it might at least also include what happened at the 1986 Oxford Union Debate. Dawkins was debating A.E. Wilder-Smith. Also on Dawkin's side was John Maynard-Smith, and likewise Wilder-Smith had Edgar Andrews on his side.
So what were the results?
Since scientists repeatedly say that creation is as debunked as a flat earth, you'd think that there would be noone voting that Wilder-Smith had won the debate. You'd be quite wrong. The result?
198 to 150 in favor of the evolutionists.
This is not sometime in the 1800's or in the early 1900's, this is 1986. Since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creationists. Also note that it was Dawkins and Maynard Smith who brought up religion, which seems to validate Hunter's conclusion that the ultimate reasoning behind evolutionary theory is not science, but religion.
If you want a copy of the debate, see this site to order.
At the end, Dawkins made an impassioned plea for a "0" vote for the creation side. I would guess that the fact that the creationists made such an impression on their audience has been in part responsible for his unwillingness to do it again. Dawkins claims that he doesn't do it because the creationists get respect by the debate even happening at all. I don't believe that he is so confident in winning, based on the results of the Oxford Union debate.
So what were the results?
Since scientists repeatedly say that creation is as debunked as a flat earth, you'd think that there would be noone voting that Wilder-Smith had won the debate. You'd be quite wrong. The result?
198 to 150 in favor of the evolutionists.
This is not sometime in the 1800's or in the early 1900's, this is 1986. Since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creationists. Also note that it was Dawkins and Maynard Smith who brought up religion, which seems to validate Hunter's conclusion that the ultimate reasoning behind evolutionary theory is not science, but religion.
If you want a copy of the debate, see this site to order.
At the end, Dawkins made an impassioned plea for a "0" vote for the creation side. I would guess that the fact that the creationists made such an impression on their audience has been in part responsible for his unwillingness to do it again. Dawkins claims that he doesn't do it because the creationists get respect by the debate even happening at all. I don't believe that he is so confident in winning, based on the results of the Oxford Union debate.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 4:27 PM 
