(August 9, 2015 at 2:56 am)Shuffle Wrote: 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.
Yeah, I've thought so for quite a while. Look what happened with that last Hamm vs Science Guy 'debate'. The debate is supposedly based on science, but the pseudo-science guy (Hamm) just picks and chooses the science that serves him while redefining or ignoring what doesn't. That isn't really a science based debate.
