Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties (even though he is so very, very wrong at least the same cannot be said of Christopher Hitchens).
I suppose that if evolution had not done away with it, PZ Myers could have absconded from another debate with his tail between his legs. In his post, So, how about that debate, PZ? Vox Day reiterates his challenge to debate:
Directly contra his past excuse-making, PZ Myers has reversed himself and decided that he is willing to engage in public debates with Unworthy Opponents again. Debates sponsored by Christian radio stations, no less! So, how about that public radio debate on the evidence for gods that Northern Alliance Radio is willing to host, PZ? Or even one on the scientific evidence for evolution? Or, in light of the very public unmasking of the AGW/CC charade, we could debate your manifestly unscientific belief in “global warming” aka “climate change”.
After all, an internationally known skeptic who appears regularly on radio shows around the world thanks to a series of correct economic and financial forecasts can’t possibly be less of a Worthy Opponent than an erstwhile Jehovah’s Witness and Intelligent Design enthusiast, right?
Let us see, thus far, as I can recall from the top of my noggin; Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Eugene Scott and PZ Myers flatly refused to debate “creationists” which is a category into which they fallaciously place Intelligent Design theorists and probably atheists such as Francis Crick and agnostics such as David Berlinski. They have provided quaint excuses for, at the same time, being alleged champions of reason and science whilst not debating their views against the superstitious and ignorant.
Initially, (via his post Sorry, Vox, I Don’t Debate Crazy Pipsqueaks Any More) PZ Myers refused to debate the issue of the existence of god(s) by claiming that he only tackles weak arguments for the existence of god(s) because there are no strong arguments. Vox Day invited him to debate the issue on the Northern Alliance Radio Show but Myers turned down the debate by referring to Day by various ad hominems, stating that he actually read more than a couple of chapters of Day’s book The Irrational Atheist and putting down conservative radio in general (apparently referring to Vox Day as odious, christofascist misogynist, beneficiary of wingnut welfare, prominent freakshow participant, insane babbler is some form of refutation in PZ Myer’s mind).1
Yet, since Myers has gone on to “engage in public debates with Unworthy Opponents…sponsored by Christian radio stations” the challenge is again presented.
It is no wonder that the New (and Old) atheist are so shockingly wrong so stunningly often. They have their fans that follow behind cleaning up their messes and excusing any and everything. Such was the case with Myers and his screechy monkeys who congratulate him to no end for cowering away from a debate again someone whom they consider easier to topple than a straw man.
Lastly, there is, at least, one topic that Vox Day will not debate and this is an interesting point:
Unfortunately, I can’t offer him a debate on teaching intelligent design in science classes because I don’t believe it should be taught there either. Nor, for that matter should evolution by natural selection. In fact, I believe the very notion of science classes for the great majority of students is eminently absurd. We know the American schools cannot teach reading, writing, logic, and personal finance to the great majority of their students, so it is easy to demonstrate that there is neither reason nor evidence to support the notion that the schools are capable of effectively teaching science of any kind.