Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Rhondazvous]

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

I wish I could give you 5 or 6 kudos. They should have a super kudos. This is the whole truth. The format of a formal debate just isn't suitable for real understanding of what someone like Dawkins has to say. Christians would feel the Christian apologist won simply because he was always able to come up with little clever quips and come-backs, while Dawkins would be tongue-tied by the sheer stupidity of a question like how did woodpeckers evolve.

Religious beliefs are not best on intellectual argument. Asking Dawkins to debate the matter is like asking someone to play an AM radio program on an FM radio.

When I was a Christian, no argument that Dawkins or anyone else might devise could have disabused me. I may have walked away shaken, but I would not have walked away feeling that my beliefs were wrong. Nor would I have been caught dead in the same room with one of Dawkins’ books. Anybody whose mind is not open enough to read what he has already written will not benefit from a debate with him