Answer, “No.”
You may recall the post Will Richard Dawkins Debate Stephen Meyer? Well, the question has been asked directly, again, and the answer elucidated by Dawkins himself.
While Richard Dawkins appeared as a guest on the Michael Medved radio show, Bruce Chapman (President of the Discovery Institute) asked him about debating Stephen Meyer. What can be stated about Dawkins’ answer is that at least he is consistent as this has been his reason, or excuse, for decades: he is so far superior than any “creationist” of any sort whatsoever—Christian, Jew, Muslim, YEC, OEC, or even Intelligent Design theorist, etc.—that debating them would only boost their resume and do nothing for his.
The fact that, on ever rare occasion, he breaks this rule and debates one of those people such as John Lennox or Shmuley Boteach notwithstanding. He is clearly breaking one of his very own new ten commandments (of which there are fifteen) which states, “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent.” You will note that whenever Richard Dawkins deals with Creationist or Intelligent Design arguments they are generally within the safety of his books and in such cases they are the very bottom of the barrel arguments many via anecdotes; these are the only ones he knows about since he refuses to accept challenges from reputable representatives of such positions.
Consider the conversation between Bruce Chapman and Richard Dawkins, with Medved refereeing:
Bruce Chapman: Dr. Dawkins, this is Bruce Chapman from Discovery Institute calling. I was frustrated with this conversation because most of the time I hear straw man arguments about intelligent design. Your new book apparently doesn’t really deal with intelligent design.
But it seems to me, that in your previous book, you said that it’s a question of science, that it is a scientific argument – I congratulate you for that — But if it is, how about having a debate with Stephen Meyer, who is the author of another new book, Signature in the Cell, which deals with this question, and have this in a respectful, civilized, scholarly fashion where you look at the scientific arguments, pro and con?
Richard Dawkins: Now, when you say that I don’t deal with intelligent design, I do, because I deal with creationism and, of course, intelligent design is simply another name for creationism invented for political reasons.
Bruce Chapman: Well, if it’s another name for creationism, why did you distinguish between intelligent design and creationism very early in this program?
Richard Dawkins: I don’t.
Michael Medved: You did, earlier on, when we were talking about the Holocaust denier analogy, you said you applied that analogy to old earth creationists. Intelligent design advocates are not old earth creationists.
Richard Dawkins: Sorry, um, I applied the history-deniers to young earth creationists.
Michael Medved: I’m sorry, young earth creationists, yes, but you know intelligent design advocates are not young earth creationists.
Richard Dawkins: I do, and that was precisely the distinction I was making. That’s why I said that I was not accusing intelligent design people of being history deniers, in that sense.
Michael Medved: But you just said intelligent design is another name for creationism.
Richard Dawkins: It is another name for creationism, but not young earth creationism.
Michael Medved: Bruce Chapman?
Bruce Chapman: In that case, you’ve got an argument with your previous caller also, because that would be a theistic evolutionist proposition, which is also, by your definition, if it’s not Darwinian evolution, it’s creationism in some fashion. There isn’t any other kind of evolution, as far as you’re concerned.
Richard Dawkins: Where do you guys think – do you think that God did it?
Bruce Chapman: I don’t know, I don’t think that the intelligent design people—
Richard Dawkins: That’s what you say, you always pretend, you always pretend that an alien in outer space or something, but you know very well that what you mean is God.
Bruce Chapman: No, I think that was your line in Expelled. But I think that the thing that you really ought to consider, in all seriousness, is that by your own definition there is a scientific argument. Put that scientific argument to the test, not with somebody who’s a straw man that you bring up, but have somebody like Meyer, who has written a very scholarly book, to actually debate this topic with you…
Michael Medved: All right, the proposal’s on the table, response from Professor Dawkins, thank you, Bruce.
Richard Dawkins: I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view. I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put. The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.
The only way to equate “creationism” with “intelligent design” is ONLY by stating that both hold that someone/something did the creating. Yet, one main reason that it is fallacious to equate “creationism” (which, of course, carries with it theistic implications) with “Intelligent Design” is that there are intelligent design proponents of various sorts such as: atheist (think of Francis Crick) and agnostics (think of David Berlinski).
Yet, when Dawkins plays mind reader and claims that ID theorists are pretending he is committing a category mistake. For example, let us imagine an Intelligent Design theorist believe in a specific God. They would state that they believe in God for reasons _____________ (fill in the blank) but would also admit that Intelligent Design theory does not lead directly to the existence of a specific God. In this sense Intelligent Design theory may imply the existence of specific God—but the theory only goes so far and no further: this is that ID theorists keep begging people such as Dawkins to hear, understand and be honest enough to repeat.
Let us end with my paraphrase which illustrates Dawkins’ vicious circular logic:
Dawkins: Creationists have not earned the right to debate a real scientist because they have not put forth a serious scientific case.
Chapman: Stephen Meyer has put forth a scientific case.
Dawkins: No, he has not, because I do not know about it.
Chapman: Then read Stephen Meyer’s book and find out about it.
Dawkins: Creationists have not earned the right to debate a real scientist because they have not put forth a serious scientific case.
Chapman: Stephen Meyer has put forth a scientific case.
Dawkins: No he has not because I do not know about it.
Chapman: Then debate Stephen Meyer and find out about it.
Dawkins: Creationists have not earned the right to debate a real scientist because they have not put forth a serious scientific case.
Chapman: Have you considered the arguments and evidence?
Dawkins: Yes, creationists tell me that they will believe in evolution when they see a monkey give birth to a human.
Chapman: That concept does not exist within Intelligent Design theory and Meyer does not make any such argument.
Dawkins: Still, he has not put forth a serious scientific case.
Chapman: How do you know since you are unaware of his arguments?
Dawkins: Because he is a creationist and creationists have not put forth a serious scientific case.
Etc., etc., etc.
Sadly, personages such as Richard Dawkins will continue arguing against straw-men and a straw-God, their adherents will continue to praise and enrich them and they will all continue justifying their arguments from outrage based on how good it makes them feel to be superior.
‹ Will Richard Dawkins Debate Stephen Meyer?, part 1 up
