Disco. does creationism

The Disco. 'Stute is upset. Not only has disco been overtaken by that rap music, but you can't even hear the good stuff any more. Also, no one returns their phone calls.

Atheist Richard Dawkins dodges Debate Challenge:

Ray Comfort, author of the Amazon.com’s best seller, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think – is offering $20,000 to Richard Dawkins (probably the world’s most famous atheist) simply for Dawkins to appear in a public debate on the issue of the beginnings of the universe with him. However, it seems Prof Dawkins would rather keep his tirades against God to his website and circle of atheist fans. Dawkins first claimed he will not join the debate as it would only give “credibility to the opponents” and again that as far as the origin of the Universe is concerned, “the debate is over”.

Oops, wrong story. I meant…

Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution as The Greatest Show On Earth

Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.

“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer.

The rules are like those for a prize sporting event: winner takes all. The evolutionist contestant puts $10,000 in escrow. This will be matched by a creation scientist for a total of $20,000. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, he wins the $20,000. If the creation scientist proves that creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist collects the $20,000. The standards of evidence will be those of science: objectivity, validity, reliability and calibration. The preponderance of the evidence prevails.

And in fairness to the comparison, as many complex scientific questions have been resolved via debates on stage as have been resolved via prize sporting events.

Never fear, though, Smith/Meyer. You have a way before your list even gets as long as the Priest/Mastropaolo's "Debate Dodgers" (as of 2003):

1. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, Science Professor, Tennessee University.

A nice list to be on.

More like this

In a posting last week, I discussed a challenge that has been made by Joseph Mastrapaolo to pretty much everyone he can find who defends evolution. After sending out this challenge and getting no response from scientists who have better things to do with their time than play JoMo's absurd little…
It seems I can't get away from this amusing little story. Thanks to one of my readers for reminding me that JoMo and Karl Priest's challenge was featured about a year ago in an article by Richard Dawkins about why he doesn't bother to debate with creationists. He even reprints the e-mail he was…
The True.Origins website - a ripoff of the Talk.Origins Archive that I'm involved with - has posted an article about "debate dodgers". This is something that is quite common in creationist circles - make a ridiculous "challenge" to their opponents and then crow about how cowardly those heathen…
Uh-oh. I've disappointed David Klinghoffer. I should probably put that on my CV. You see, the other day he praised a fellow named Tom Gilson for a post in which he provided a succinct summary of Intelligent Design creationism, and I took that summary apart, point by point. You might think, perhaps…

I'm going to spend the rest of my life wondering whether Casey only listens to Snoop's radio edits....

By Anton Mates (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children.
Period.

By Pluto Animus (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

Maybe instead of a debate they could do some science and publish.....oh, um....., Hey, you know that Dawkins won't debate......

I think the agreement between Dawkins and Gould to never debate with creationists was a wise one... it's not as if they're going to be taught anything, science is any more valid for popular approval (which it isn't likely to get with that audience), or creationists have anything of value to bring to the table in the first place. As I don't have to play the political game that NCSE does, I'm inclined to espouse that simply letting die-hard creationists turn themselves into even more of a farce is a useful strategy.
I can't recall who made the statement "That would look great on your CV, not so on mine" (or something close), but it's a solid point.

Alfred Russel Wallace debated a flat-earther named John Hampden (from Wikipedia):

The judge for the wager, the editor of Field magazine, declared Wallace the winner, but Hampden refused to accept the result. He sued Wallace and launched a campaign, which persisted for several years, of writing letters to various publications and to organizations of which Wallace was a member denouncing him as a swindler and a thief. Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager