Should Richard Dawkins Debate a TV 'Creation Scientist'?

For those who haven't seen the original Revelation TV interview between the station founder Howard Conder and Richard Dawkins (link below) I'd like to head off some easy criticisms of Mr. Conder that are bound to make it onto this video, as the original has the comments suspended.
As mentioned at the beginning of the interview, only a few days days prior to it, Mr. Conder's son had been killed in a motoring accident. For that reason it is clear that his heart isn't fully on the task ahead of him. To compound that, the interview was broadcast live, presumably because the schedules of both men made that inescapable.
I have seen Mr. Conder in action on Revelation TV many times and he strikes me as a very warm and genuine human being. I cannot defend his beliefs, obviously, but I don't doubt his compassion and sincerity.
His line of questioning was still depressingly ill-informed, but I believe I know where that comes from...

Dr. Grady McMurtry, unlike Mr. Conder, exemplifies the most troubling kind of evangelical creationist. He is no doubt an intelligent man. That intelligence is very persuasive to the less intellectual and easily led creationists out there. The presence of a man like this allows them to rest easy in their beliefs and make no effort of their own to study the evidence available to us all.

As for the title of this video: Richard Dawkins has said in the past the he would no longer debate such people as to do so offers them a gloss of respectability that they do not deserve. I would agree with him on that. A debate between atheism and religion is a debate about the validity of belief and all voices should be heard there. But a debate between creation and evolution has no common ground. Creationism will never be a science because it is based on only one source which is never open to question by those who follow it.
Compare that to Darwin's The Origin of Species, the book that opened the world to evolution. A little over 150 years since it's publication it may still be required reading for aspiring biologists, but it would not be considered as an infallible textbook full of unquestionable truths. Yet the theory it proposed has stood up to every experiment yet devised by every branch of biology to have developed in it's wake, but so completely unimaginable to it's author. And had they done so, then it would no longer be the theory of evolution in use today. There is nothing sacred in science except the truth, and as creationism's idea of truth is of something revealed instead of earned, there is nothing to be gained in engaging with it.
But of course there is, still, a part of me that would love to see McMurtry get schooled!

I think though, on balance, that even with the most sound defeat possible, it would not change the situation very much. There will always be another creationist trotting out the same tired old arguments. And there will always be people ready to believe anyone who sounds more intelligent than they themselves.

Personally, I think that if the creationists want to be taken seriously and be treated as scientists then they should go about it the same way every other scientist has to do it. Do your research, find your evidence, publish your work and let your peers decide. Gain any ground that way and *then* it would be suitable to hold a debate.


The original Revelation TV interview can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfe4IUB9NTk

For Howard Conder and Revelation TV viewer's thoughts on the interview:
http://www.revelationtv.com/howblog/post/interview_with_richard_dawkins/

For more on Dr. Grady McMurtry's Creation Worldview Ministry:
http://www.creationworldview.org/default.asp

For some interesting background on McMurtry, check out Gordon's Blog. He's done some interesting research on his credentials:
http://www.ecalpemos.org/2008/12/dr-grady-mcmurtry-what-are-his.html

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Revelation
• TV
• interview
• Dr.
• Grady
• McMurtry
• Howard
• Conder
• creation
• creationist
• creationism
• evolution
• evolutionary
• evolutionist
• science
• religion
• theology
• genesis
• Darwin
• vestigal
• whale
• finch
• genetics
• genetic
• code
• genome
• DNA
• bible
• God
• Jesus
• Christ
• divine
• origin
• of
• species
• millions
• geology
• young
• earth
• mutation

[Guitcad1]

5:03 "How does a creature with a skeleton on the outside become a creature with a skeleton on the inside?"

OMFG! Either this guy is being deliberately misleading or he's an utter imbecile! Vertebrates aren't descended from crustaceans, they're descended from fish! Chalk one straw man up for him on that. (I haven't watched the rest of it yet, I assume there'll be more.)

[DaithiDublin]

@Guitcad1 This isn't every stupid thing he said in that 'lecture', but they're the highlights. A full hour of this guy is like a compilation of creationism's greatest hits.

[irishbarrycooper]

@Guitcad1 he's a scientist who has a lot more experience on this subject than you. If he was still an evolution scientist you'd believe every word he said. And when he shows us the truth for example the whale myth you just ignore it because you don't want to be wrong. That's dumb. People just hope evolution is right (using faith just like religion if i may add) because they hope god doesn't exist due to there lifestyle.

[DaithiDublin]

@irishbarrycooper Barry, he is not a scientist. Has has a degree in forestry, that is as close as he gets to science. If you believe that the tiny vestigial leg bones on a modern whale are 'pivot points' then you don't know enough about either biology *or* engineering to make the claim that what this charlatan claims is 'true'. Can I ask you, why do you use faith like an accusation?

[irishbarrycooper]

@DaithiDublin without the bones whales would not be able to reproduce so i'd say they are for reproduction, not leg bones. I love science but when theories without evidence are said to be true then i'm afraid i'm not going to believe them. i don't want to offend. Please look at the other side of evolution and then decide for yourself.

[DaithiDublin]

@irishbarrycooper No offence taken! It's funny, but I'd say the exact same to you about theories without evidence. Notice that McMurtry never supplies any evidence. Not peer reviewed scientific evidence. He quotes an orthodontist he's associated with as an expert on skulls. On the basis that teeth are found in skulls! I'm very familiar with his work. He also talks about Spanish Christian history as though he were a historian. Yet never produces any credible evidence for anything he claims.

[timchilli]

Please tell me this guy's lecturing to an empty auditorium.

[fizk]

This guy is an idiot.

[Blake4014]

9:09 INSTANT PROOF, this IDIOT doesnt have a clue what he's talking about. He clearly doesnt know anything about evolution. Yet he says he was once an evolutionist? I highly doubt that. Must be either lying, or woefully ignorant.

[DoctorWong1979]

I'm sure anyone sitting in that audience had no no idea what he is talking about, just sitting there nodding and agreeing

[1984serpiente]

No, Richard Dawkins should not speak with these people anymore because that´s an infection and i fear the virus could spread through scientists of the world and then we would be totally screwed.

[1984serpiente]

Mr. McMurtry obviously went crazy

[molokozor]

lol.

[villainandfox]

@irishbarrycooper I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about if you agree with this. You only have to do your own research to see that evolution is as true as the earth rotating around the sun. McMurtry does not understand evolution; a simple subject. To make sense of the world he chooses religion - humanities first attempt at science - a primitive and simplistic attempt of understanding our world.

[EinSofQuester]

I am amazed at some of the misinformation uttered by Dr. Mcmurty. He doesn't understand information theory. Histories comment about be genetics only copying information perfectly or less perfectly is misleading. It in an exactly copy or change slightly due to mutation.

[Band0fThieves]

My image of half whale half cow looked like a hippo