Impressive list, Greatwood, but I'm certainly not going to look up a copy and pasted huge bunch of links.
I will say however, it was Richard Dawkins who refused to debate certain scientists, especially A. E. Wilder-Smith. He was offered numerous times and refused to debate him. So did the others. His credentials also aren't very impressive which is why I'm sure he was afraid to debate scientists of that caliber.
[A. E. Wilder-Smith is a young earth creationist]
43 comments
His credentials also aren't very impressive
Yeah, they make *anyone* a professor at Oxford these days.
"I will say however, it was Richard Dawkins who refused to debate certain scientists, especially A. E. Wilder-Smith."
I would imagine Dawkins has better things to do than debate creationists and possibly lend credence to their claims.
"His credentials also aren't very impressive which is why I'm sure he was afraid to debate scientists of that caliber."
True, his credentials are likely one of the reasons he wont debate someone of Wilder-Smith's "caliber" but not for the reasons you seem to think.
Scientists like Richard Dawkins usually refuse to debate evolution with cretins like Wilder-Smith because they won't stick to the topic at hand, since they know little to nothing about it, and they'll invariably throw out dozens of straw man arguments instead of actually debate intelligently.
It's a complete waste of their time.
Fundy debate tactic #38: Pile on so much shit and so many strawmen so fast that the scientist runs out of time to properly refute them all. Claim victory.
Yeah, I can see why he wouldn't want anything to do with that.
Yeah, that Oxford University, it makes Arizona State look like Harvard...
Wilder-Smith and his ilk just regurgitate the same old same-old when they "debate" - when are you people going to realize that what they are spruiking is BULLSHIT?
"I will say however, it was Richard Dawkins who refused to debate certain scientists, especially A. E. Wilder-Smith. He was offered numerous times and refused to debate him."
The only problem is that, Dawkins did debate Wilder-Smith (and some others) some time ago. You can listen to them online.
"The 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith (Professor of Pharmacology and consultant) and Edgar Andrews (Materials Scientist & President of the Biblical Creation Society)."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,721,1986-Oxford-Union-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-John-Maynard-Smith
He doesn't debate anymore, likely because he's tired of flogging a patch of ground where a horse died decades ago.
"I was debating someone online (forgive me) who tried to discredit Dawkins by saying he hadn't practiced science in some-odd years. Ugh..."
I ran into one of those bastards a while back, posting on a blog I used to frequent, who claimed that, because he couldn't find any papers written by Dawkins on an obscure, low-rent database, Dawkins was unqualified to speak on the topic.
When the blog's owner pointed out that the database in question was, put politely, garbage, the troll resorted to pottymouthing.
I'm not sure if this was Richard Dawkins or someone else who said this, but the response is appropriate here:
"I won't debate you because that would look very impressive on your CV, but not so much on mine."
A.E.Wilder-Smith not only endorsed many hoaxes that "proved" his theories, but was ACTIVELY INVOLVED in fabricating the evidence.
If someone has a theory about any subject - fine, no problem.
But when someone puts forward a theory on the basis of open fraud, then he does not deserve any recognition.
"Richard Dawkins who refused to debate certain scientists, especially A. E. Wilder-Smith."
Most likely because he is not completely without mercy.
A. E. Wilder-Smith died in 1995
that might make it a bit of a one sided debate
I'd quip "unless we use necromancy", but considering the tendancy of Creationists to demand that scientists provide the evidence to support the fundies' claims...
I wouldn't be all that surprised if Zapem started to whine that it is unfair for us not to reanimate A. E. Wilder-Smith's corpse so it can prove us Evilutionists wrong, since as a Good Xian he isn't allowed to use Satanic Black Magic® himself.
Sure, when it comes to creationism tactics Richard Dawkins credentials arent very impressive compared to, say, an Elder for example. Most Elders I know of (especially the pentacostal ones) have drank their livers and blowed their noses to the point they can no longer get a buzz. So they go to religion and suddenly they have the answer to everything.
Dawkins had to do research and trial/error to get what he knows. And to top it off, he doesnt have all the answers.
Why not just say "god did it" and move on huh?
*head slams desk several times to come back to reality*
"Richard Dawkins who refused to debate certain scientists, especially A. E. Wilder-Smith. "
Being a mental patient doesn't make you a scientist.
Dawkins is probably too busy writing another hardback rant.
...sorry, but I just don't like his style.
You don't debate with Creationists because they're delusional.
You wouldn't debate what constitutes a healthy diet with an anorexic because whatever evidence you produce they won't or can't accept it. You're just part of an evil conspiracy to make them obese. Exactly the same with Creationists.
Incidentally Dawkins did debate Wilder (in the Huxley Memorial Debate, Oxford 1986).
"Richard Dawkins refused to debate with Bubba Smith of the Antioch Baptist Church Creation Institute of Redneckhaven Tennessee. Our Church was gracious in our Lord Christ Jesus to invite Dawkins even though his credentials werent that impressive. Since Dawkins refused to debate, it is solid undeniable proof that everything in evolution is a godless lie!"
I guess you call "Professor, FRS, FRSL, BSc, M.A., D.Phil, Zoological Society Silver Medal, Faraday Award, Kistler Prize" as unimpressive credentials? What, may I ask, are YOUR credentials to so judge him?
"I'd quip "unless we use necromancy", but considering the tendancy of Creationists to demand that scientists provide the evidence to support the fundies' claims...
"I wouldn't be all that surprised if Zapem started to whine that it is unfair for us not to reanimate A. E. Wilder-Smith's corpse so it can prove us Evilutionists wrong, since as a Good Xian he isn't allowed to use Satanic Black Magic® himself. " -- Adrian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
I bet Dawkins is happy to debate scientists , but creationism isn't a science, Mr Wilder-Smith is apparently a known liar, and he's dead.
Sure, Richard Dawkins might not have the most impressive credentials, but they are definitely much more impressive than mine, and probably yours too, Zapem. Dawkins wasn't afraid to debate people of that low caliber, he just thought it was a waste of his time.
Evolution is a science. We settle matters of science with evidence, not debate. Debate is about getting people to agree with you, so we know why preachers and politicians like to debate, but science is that stuff that's true whether or not you believe in it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.