BookTalk.org

I am a bit confused, I have read the Gould letter and comments from Dr. Richard Dawkins about not lending the legitimacy to Creationists which they desire, by engaging them in debate. Frankly, I think that is a copout, but it is a reason. The problem is that Dr. Richard Dawkins interviews some of the very people he refuses to debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs
Wendy Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeDoSFCy ... re=related
Nick Cowan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4IBv043 ... re=related
Steven Rose

Perhaps Steven Rose is a bit of a ringer, but bother Wendy Wright and Nick Cowan are Creationists, doesn't Dr. Richard Dawkins legitimize them by interviewing them?

Seems like he really doesn't care about being associated with them provided that he controls the discussion.

if you read his current book, The Greatest Show On Earth, Dawkins explains that debating against creationists is rather like asking historians to debate against people who claim that the Roman Empire did not exist, or Holocaust Deniers.

Historians of the ancient world do not have to contend with fantasists who say the universe sprang into existence in 1000 AD, and nor do historians of the Second World War debate with denialists who claim the jewish genocide is a myth.

Biologists should not debate against Evolutionary Denialist arguments that have the same moral and intellectual legitimacy as Holocaust Denial.

Stah -

I have watched 4 of the 7 Wendy Wright videos and I'm still a little perplexed as to the point you're trying to make with your post.

As I said about one of your previous Dawkins video posts, if you want to know what his motivation is to debate/not debate, you would have to ask him. I suspect he is not disimilar from many of us on this board. We really do question as to the benefit of carrying on these debates with you, and yet some of us continue to do so. Some days I feel like responding to your unreasoned statements, some days I don't.

As for your comment about him controlling the debate, at least for the 4 videos I've watched I don't see it. They converse back and forth and each let the other finish what they're saying before the other responds. So, if you're saying he controls it by dominating the time he talks or by interupting her, it's not the case.

Of course I would say as far as the legitimacy and substance of the conversation, yes he is dominating in that.

Well Stah my apparitional friend, I've now spent several hours watching Mr. Dawkins conversations.

What was your point in bringing these to our attention?

"The Greatest Show on Earth" explains in detail why Dawkins doesn't find debating with "history deniers" a worthwhile endeavor. It wastes valuable time and energy that could be spent educating people on the facts of evolutionary biology. Thanks for pointing this out, Robert Tulip.

I'm currently reading the book and listening to the audio book of "The Greatest Show on Earth," and look forward to discussing it here on BookTalk.org at some point. I especially love the section where Dawkins and his wife talk about tree growth rings and how they aid dendrochronologists in understanding the history of climate change. Dawkins has such a talent for explaining scientific concepts in simple and understandable terms. We can use dendrochronology to go back about 11,500 years in time (so far) and this alone makes young earth creationism laughable.

That Dr. Richard Dawkins felt it necessary to repeat his anti-creationist debate stance in his most recent book was perhaps only his need to fill pages.

I thought I was pretty clear in explaining my confusion but I will try again. Try reading it more slowly and it might make sense.

Dr. Richard Dawkins does not find debating "history deniers" a worthwhile endeavor as it wastes his valuable time and energy. Hmmm, but he will "waste" his valuable time and energey doing one on one interviews with creationists like Wendy.

A debate would be seen by hudreds of people and potentially millions if posted on the internet.

An interview might be seen by millions if posted on the internet.

A debate is an educational platform.

An interview is an educational platform.

A debate is an open forum where one must respond on the fly (drat those uncomfortable long gaps while trying to get unstumped)

An interview is a controlled forum where the interviewer controls the questions, does not answer and can edit.

Obviously Dr. Richard Dawkins will waste his valuable time with creationists so the only remaining quesiton is why not the debate forum?

The only concusion I can draw is that he's afraid he will be embarrassed with a question he can't answer or answer quickly.

quick answers like "The bible says....." and "God did it" ?

johnson1010 wrote:quick answers like "The bible says....." and "God did it" ?

As opposed to wrong answers like, "genes wanted to survive," and, "the cosmos is all there ever was..."

OMG. I am watching the interview with Wendy. Holy shit. Hats off to Richard Dawkins for his ability to keep his cool and not just call her a total friggin moron.

stahrwe wrote: The only concusion I can draw is that he's afraid he will be embarrassed with a question he can't answer or answer quickly.

OK, let's assume your conclusion is correct. If so, you've proved Dawkins has a human foible.

Keep up the good work Professor Stah.