Richard Dawkins was invited to debate Dr. Stephen Myer of the Discovery Institute on the evidence for intelligent design but refused.
Dawkins, whose recent publication about evolution being the “greatest show on earth” is one long attack on creationism, does not debate “creationists”, he merely chooses to attack them in book-length pieces of self-important drivel. It seems that our atheist friend took this advice:
“Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”
For him to say that he refuses to debate creationists is just as well. He conveniently refuses, and the proceeds to declare himself the winner of a non-existent debate, and then, knowing that he will be called the coward that he is, establishes an alibi based on the word of Gould.
On the same basis, I refuse to debate Dawkins on anything related to science, theology or philosophy, and so should any other Christian. Because, quite frankly, he made his name “refuting” the existence of God, and any debate with him on the topic actually means that one thinks there is some merit in his arguments. The reality is that his “refutations” are laughable, as has been pointed out numerous times by many people. In fact, his arguments against the existence of God are so incredibly ineffective that he would be laughed off the stage in any debate (like he was in that very demanding debate in his appearance on the Colbert show).
One would think that anyone who spends so much energy and effort to debunk a position, and is so sure of his case, would jump at any opportunity to prove that his arguments stand up to some scrutiny. Isn’t that what science proposes? The hypocrisy is nothing more than what one would expect from an academic snob, and proves the point well, emperor Dawkins is not wearing any clothes.