Why won't Dr. Richard Dawkins debate Creationists?

[Chris OConnor]

ROFL Wendy can't deal with how Dawkins keeps repeating that there actually ARE fossilized remains of human ancestors. She keeps trying to change the subject.

[johnson1010]

genes wanted to survive

this is a bit of anthropomorphism that is not accurate.

it may be said, occasionally, that genes want to survive, but genes do not "want" anythying.

Genes are replicated through reproductive processes. If the instructions imbedded in the genes lead to more successful organisms, then those organisms reproduce more efficiently and out-survive their less successful relatives, and thereby the genes survive to reproduce another day.

right here you see how debates can easily be swayed in the favor of idiocy. You tossed off a line like "genes want to survive" which is not a terrible slander, but IS inaccurate. to clarify this point requires going into some detail and it could be broken down quite a bit further before the approximation of "genes want to survive" is clarified to reflect what is really taking place.

This long explanation does not fit well into a sound-bite, or the thin attention span of a television audience. This is how garbage like "drill baby drill" lights up the brain of the un-imaginitive while reasoned, measured arguments against are lost in the shuffle of odious talking heads

People just don't have the attention span to listen to the whole story unless they are invested in the argument. Slogans and graphics are what is needed to turn the head of the cassual information consumer. See the success of "Fair and balanced". You can say any outrageous nonsense you want so long as you bracket it with a re-assuring slogan like this. The casual information consumer does not double check.

[Chris OConnor]

As I watch I can't help but laugh at some of the comments people have posted.

"wtf is she constantly smiling???? To hide her stupidity??????

I have been wondering this same thing all along. She is trying to show her confidence, but it's clear Dawkins is the one with the upper hand here.

I love how he's not letting her condescending attitude get to him.

This is one of the reasons why Dawkins gets my respect.

[stahrwe]

genes wanted to survive

this is a bit of anthropomorphism that is not accurate.

it may be said, occasionally, that genes want to survive, but genes do not "want" anythying.

Genes are replicated through reproductive processes. If the instructions imbedded in the genes lead to more successful organisms, then those organisms reproduce more efficiently and out-survive their less successful relatives, and thereby the genes survive to reproduce another day.

right here you see how debates can easily be swayed in the favor of idiocy. You tossed off a line like "genes want to survive" which is not a terrible slander, but IS inaccurate. to clarify this point requires going into some detail and it could be broken down quite a bit further before the approximation of "genes want to survive" is clarified to reflect what is really taking place.

This long explanation does not fit well into a sound-bite, or the thin attention span of a television audience. This is how garbage like "drill baby drill" lights up the brain of the un-imaginitive while reasoned, measured arguments against are lost in the shuffle of odious talking heads

People just don't have the attention span to listen to the whole story unless they are invested in the argument. Slogans and graphics are what is needed to turn the head of the cassual information consumer. See the success of "Fair and balanced". You can say any outrageous nonsense you want so long as you bracket it with a re-assuring slogan like this. The casual information consumer does not double check.

"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will—merely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. "
Wikipedia

You are a bit off topic though aren't you? This discussion is why Dr. Richard Dawkins won't debate not about Fox News, or evolution mythology and the fact remains that Dr. Ricahrd Dawkins will ineffectively use his valuable time interviewing creationists while using the waste of time excuse for not debating them. An I am the one who is accused of being illogical....

[stahrwe]

As I watch I can't help but laugh at some of the comments people have posted.

"wtf is she constantly smiling???? To hide her stupidity??????

I have been wondering this same thing all along. She is trying to show her confidence, but it's clear Dawkins is the one with the upper hand here.

I love how he's not letting her condescending attitude get to him.

This is one of the reasons why Dawkins gets my respect.

Happy people tend to smile. Christians tend to be happy people.
Perhaps Dr. Richard Dawkins would be willing to allow Wendy to interview him sometime and to film the interview but I suppose he would not want to waste his time.

[Interbane]

Perhaps Dr. Richard Dawkins would be willing to allow Wendy to interview him sometime and to film the interview but I suppose he would not want to waste his time.

I wouldn't debate Alien abductees or YEC's or Yeti assault survivors, but I would interview them out of curiosity. This is most certainly not a cop out. A debate legitimizes the ridiculous position. The problem here is that you're unable to see just how ridiculous your position is, so you cannot accurately assess it as being just as retarded as the belief that we are at war with Martians.

[Chris OConnor]

People that are trying to give the impression they are cool, calm and confident also smile in a similarly unnatural fashion.

[MidnightCoder]

Happy people tend to smile. Christians tend to be happy people.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

[Chris OConnor]

Precisely.

[seespotrun2008]

It seems kind of pointless. I mean when he asked Wendy Wright, what kind of science she had studied, she came back with some ridiculous answer about how scientists have decided that they are the only ones to interpret science accurately. He starts to talk about scientific evidence that prove evolution and she does not like that evidence. So she decides that it is not relevant. At least the 2nd guy was a scientist. And it seemed that his problem with evolution was that he did not believe that it was completely proven, not that creationism was the only way to believe. He wanted to teach children how to think for themselves about these things. I am not really sure why you added the third one, because he was not against evolution. They were just discussing some of the controversies within the science of evolution.