As most of you know, Professor Richard Dawkins refuses to have any debates with creationists. This is because he feels that it will give them the status of a real scientist. He compared it to a geographer having a debate with a flat-earther and a reproductive scientist debating a person who believed in stork theory.

I wanted to know what you guys thought of this stance. I know it has received heavy criticisms from atheists and theists alike.

Personally, I think he is right. Debates should be discussions between two people about real world problems. Arguing whether or not evolution is a better model than creationism is not a topic that would affect the world. That being said, the discussion of what should be taught in our schools is a topic that would and is affecting our world.

Debates are often for entertainment purposes and never do justice to a topic do to time and format limitations. So, I don't see why apologists make a big deal out of them. If someone doesn't want to debate they aren't obligated to.

Yes, he's right. I don't think one should never engage them, but others should do it. Despite Dawkins not even being close to the most important Biologist around, he is perceived as such - so indeed maybe the debatimg should be done by someone with a slightly lower profile. This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. Others like Matt Dillahunty, say, can expose creationists much more skillfully where Dawkins has a rather limited rhetorical arsenal of scoffing, reiterating a point from one of his books, looking baffled and shouting "evidence!!!".

(August 9, 2015 at 4:53 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, he's right. I don't think one should never engage them, but others should do it. Dawkins is not even close to beimg the most important Biologist around, but he is perceived as such - so indeed maybe the debatimg should be done by someone with a slightly lower profile. This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. Others like Matt Dillahunty, say, can expose creationists much more skillfully where Dawkins has a rather limited rhetorical arsenal of scoffing, reiterating a point from one of his books, looking baffled and shouting "evidence!!!".

There is nothing to debate with creationists. They effectively lost the argument decades ago but cling on to their stupid beliefs in the hope that all of science will be proved wrong.

Debating creationists does not serve the purpose of convincing them. It is for the benefit of their audience who might not otherwise hear these arguments.

(August 9, 2015 at 3:38 am)Pizza Wrote: Debates  are often for entertainment purposes and never do justice to a topic do to time and format limitations. So, I don't see why apologists make a big deal out of them. If someone doesn't want to debate they aren't obligated to.

I think it is precisely because they do not do justice to a topic that apologists love them - they don't have a chance in a real scientific discourse. Look at how WLC fans boast about the multitudes he has allegedly defeated in debates, all the while being a dishonest idiot.

"Hey! That Dawkins fella won't mud-wrestle my pig! What is up with that?"

I understand his standpoint. There are some debates not worth having. I think, all these debates are overrated anyway. They don't change anyone's mind and they're the equivalent of preeching to the quire for each participant.

The problem with debating evolution/creation is that biology is a VERY complex subject. Someone like Ken Hamm, for example, could ask, 'If evolution is true, how did woodpeckers evolve?' This isn't a question that can be answered in the one, three, or five minutes usually allowed for responses in a debate. When the biologist in the debate tries to answer, topics like morphology, co-evolution and habitat pressure tend to make audiences glaze over.

Boru

(August 9, 2015 at 5:46 am)Alex K Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 3:38 am)Pizza Wrote: Debates  are often for entertainment purposes and never do justice to a topic do to time and format limitations. So, I don't see why apologists make a big deal out of them. If someone doesn't want to debate they aren't obligated to.

I think it is precisely because they do not do justice to a topic that apologists love them - they don't have a chance in a real scientific discourse. Look at how WLC fans boast about the multitudes he has allegedly defeated in debates, all the while being a dishonest idiot.

Craig is a boring and repetitive debater. He reads from the same script in each debate. All you need to do is get him off script to get him stammering. I've heard a few atheists say Craig wins debates. I don't see how. Most public debates don't have any winning conditions. There are no judges giving points or anything close to that. Craig just declares himself the winner because his opponents don't refute every argument he makes like that is how public debates work. That's silly.