History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Are Darwinists really qualified to discuss evolution?

February 12th, 2014 · No Comments

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/bill-nye-proved-richard-dawkins-foundation-wrong/: Bill Nye Proved Richard Dawkins Foundation Wrong?
This article provokes the idiot issue with Darwinists: the claim that Nye was not a biologist and unqualified to debate has to be the biggest galloop of the month,or year. The LAST people qualified to debate are the ‘qualified’ (i.e. brainwahsed) experts who have passed through the academic pedigree review that makes sure that before the expert gets the bacon he has to sing the tune. It is a lucrative racket, so singing the tune is fairly easy to induce.

But the real discussion must then take place outside of the expert zone. It is hard to avoid this conclusion. The whole Darwin spectrum, from the natural selection myth, to the silence or pretense on human evolution, to the junk science of evo-psych, the list goes, is an extraordinary state of affaring, a massive failure of science that is almost beyond correction. It is the Richard Dawkins mentality, or stupidity, turned into a popery. It has gone on enough.

It was back in January when the Richard Dawkins Foundation website published an article, which provided proof on why Bill Nye debating the creationist Ken Ham was the wrong way to go about defending evolution. They made some very powerful and compelling arguments, such as that debating a creationist deems them actually having some credibility in their arguments, ammunition that most scientists know to avoid providing. They explain that evolution is a fact backed by countless amounts of research and creationism is a debunked myth, plain and simple.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation also argued that Nye is not a biologist, does not practice research science and should stick to talking about what he knows best. He is not qualified to defend evolution against common men such as Ken Ham, someone who actually holds a degree in environmental biology.

Lastly, the Richard Dawkins Foundation argued that in a debate, it is absolutely imperative for one candidate to fully understand their opponent. They argued that Nye would attempt to use science, reason and evidence to counter Hams creationist theories and arguments. However, Ham who carries the creationist mindset would not play by the rules and would disregard any facts or evidence and instead, replace logic with nonsense, confusion and essentially what comes down to stubbornness. A reformed creationist, David MacMillian published an article on The Huffington Post backing some of these claims up and explained why Nye should not underestimate Ham. Overall, as the Richard Dawkins Foundation explained, the risk versus reward makes doing the debate not worth the effort.

The aftermath

Did Bill Nye prove the Richard Dawkins Foundation wrong with yesterday’s debate?

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment