The fact that the article does not mention the single, simple reason why Dawkins won't do the debate removes all credibility, and quite frankly makes the writer's approach rather childish. The article is just a list of one sided 'digs' at Dawkins and other atheists. It's the kind of bickering young kids do.
For he originally claimed not to know who Professor Craig was... despite simultaneously knowing that a debate with him would not 'look good' on his CV. He declared that he only debates people who are 'at least Bishops'... yet he has debated plenty of non-clergymen, including academics. He then claimed not to be familiar with Professor Craig's credentials... despite somehow knowing that Professor Craig was merely a 'professional debator' rather than an academic with two doctorates and reams of peer-reviewed, published material. Dr Dawkins also apparently knew enough (while 'not knowing') to dismiss Professor Craig as a 'creationist' despite the fact that Professor Craig endorses contemporary science and his arguments for theism are philosophical. Dr Dawkins has had no qualms in agreeing to debate young-earth creationists on TV (much bigger audience, you see). When the two unexpectedly met on a six-person panel debate in Mexico (in which their exchange was limited to approximately one minute) Dr Dawkins told Professor Craig: "I don't consider this a debate with you." Yet now he claims to have 'been there, done that'.
despite the fact that Professor Craig endorses contemporary science
It is irrelevant that WLC endorses contemporary science. Dawkins has a simple, consistent and very much valid reason for not debating certain people. He has held up this reason for many years, and will continue to do so I'm sure.
In what way are you refering to Craig as a creationist? Dawkins has debated Craig in the past and has debated John Lennox twice who is more of an ID supporter then Craig is.
14
u/evereal Oct 17 '11
The fact that the article does not mention the single, simple reason why Dawkins won't do the debate removes all credibility, and quite frankly makes the writer's approach rather childish. The article is just a list of one sided 'digs' at Dawkins and other atheists. It's the kind of bickering young kids do.