Seversky, fyi I respect Allen MacNeill, for example, far more than I have ever thought of Dawkins. That is because respect, which is earned, comes not from books or title or position or public visibility or other empty markers of “prestige”. Allen engages with others on the issues, and typically does so with exemplary courtesy. But Dawkins…

Perhaps you should suggest to Stephen Meyer that he challenge someone more accommodating to a debate. There must be others who would be more receptive, such as Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins.

My point was that prestige doesn’t come “by appearing on the same stage as” Dawkins.

And my point is that it does. Meyer would not have issued the challenge otherwise.

You concede that Dawkins is interested in opposing those Paleyism ideas. Here is his chance to scrutinize Meyer directly and show what is or isn’t there before people are seduced by the one-sided presentation in Meyer’s book. (But then, Meyer would get the same opportunity to scrutinize the claims of Dawkins. Too bad about that part.)

That sounds like the sort of bluster we heard after the Kansas hearings and before the Kitzmiller case.

I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views. There are ways for this to happen, and the wheels are in motion (e.g., Congressional hearings over the teaching of biology in federally funded high schools for military kids). For such hearings to have the desired effect, however, will require that evolutionists be asked the right questions.

What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them.

Unfortunately, that isn’t quite how it turned out at Dover.

Actually, if Meyer is really interested in an exchange of ideas rather than a public spectacle why not issue a challenge to a written debate. That way each side can set out their cases at the sort of length and in the sort of detail to do them justice. Stripped of rhetorical tricks, crowd-pleasing presentations and rabble-rousing exhortations, it will focus attention exclusively on the arguments and evidence and enable both to be subjected to searching scrutiny. That is, after all, what both sides claim to want.

Seversky:

Besting him [Dawkins] in debate would be a tremendous coup and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Ah, but I didn’t suggest otherwise. In fact, you’ve agreed with the very point I made. My point was that prestige doesn’t come “by appearing on the same stage as” Dawkins. On the other hand, I said “Now if person A cleans the clock of person B in a debate, that is another matter.” Or as you put it “Besting him”.

“Intelligent Design theory amounts to expressing amazement at the complexity of living things, proclaiming that such things could not possibly have come about through natural processes therefore they must have been designed.”

If those who are willing to debate Meyer share that view, it will be all the easier for Meyer, since they won’t be prepared to deal with his actual position. But if you want to keep shooting blanks at straw man targets, go ahead and exercise your freedom.

How do you measure success in such a debate?

One listens to both sides, endeavoring to understand what each is saying. I also recommend noting such things as who is playing games with words (e.g. “creationist”) to try to dodge issues or distinctions rather than deal with differences. Or resorting to vague hand waving (just some more New Paleyism).

Each individual who listens has the opportunity to see who is dodging and obfuscating and who is making a persuasive case. Each person gets the opportunity to be persuaded, if they are willing to listen, learn, and consider.

Meyer is not afraid that they will hear whatever Dawkins could say. Too bad it seems we apparently cannot say the same for Dawkins.

Win or lose, going head-to-head with Richard Dawkins would be great publicity.

Not true. If Dawkins could rip Meyer’s position to shreds, it would be terrible publicity for the book. People would come away realizing it would be a waste of money — if Dawkins could do that. Sales would be hurt most among those who are not already fans and not already committed to buying Meyer’s book anyway. So Meyer has much to lose if Dawkins can demolish his position.

Dawkins, on the other hand, has nothing to gain…

Again clearly not true. This is a prime opportunity to curtail some of those nasty ID memes by showing how empty they are — if Dawkins can do that.

You concede that Dawkins is interested in opposing those Paleyism ideas. Here is his chance to scrutinize Meyer directly and show what is or isn’t there before people are seduced by the one-sided presentation in Meyer’s book. (But then, Meyer would get the same opportunity to scrutinize the claims of Dawkins. Too bad about that part.)

Meyer is not afraid that the audience will hear whatever Dawkins could say. Too bad it seems we apparently cannot say the same for Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins has nothing to gain by debating Stephen Meyer. …

Obviously true. He would lose badly. It would be quite embarrassing for him and his supporters. I suspect he realizes this. He doesn’t have an effective counter case, or else he would have given it in his books that focus instead upon arguments applied to Young Earth Creationism. Why should Dawkins of all people hold back on giving sound anti-Meyer arguments?

Since it sounds as if Meyer has nothing better to offer than New Paleyism, Dawkins has been answering that argument at least as far back as The Blind Watchmaker.

Intelligent Design theory amounts to expressing amazement at the complexity of living things, proclaiming that such things could not possibly have come about through natural processes therefore they must have been designed.

Tests have been proposed by which ID could be detected such as the Explanatory Filter or the measurement of some ill-defined property such as Complex Specified Information but they have yet to be rigorously tested for accuracy and reliability themselves. As far as I am aware, for all the talk about CSI, it has yet to be calculated for any object, not even a banana.

I cannot imagine why you would think any supporter of Meyer would think it enhanced someone’s prestige “by appearing on the same stage as” Dawkins. Really, why would you think such a thing?

Because Meyer – and, quite clearly, his supporters here – are so desperate for such a debate to take place?

Why did Meyer not challenge someone like me to debate? He should be able to beat me quite easily after all. Could it be that there would be no kudos in such a victory, no benefit to himself, his prestige and his book sales?

Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a leading proponent of evolution and one of the world’s most prominent atheists. Besting him in debate would be a tremendous coup and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Now if person A cleans the clock of person B in a debate, that is another matter.

Seversky, does Dawkins believe he is person A or person B?

I have no idea. You should ask him not me.

If A, then he should debate Meyer. Meyer would be discredited, not increased in prestige. This is the clash of ideas.

The best reason for Dawkins not to debate Meyer is if Dawkins doesn’t believe he can convincingly show that Meyer and his ID position are wrong.

As I wrote before, public debates are nothing more than an entertainment, a spectator sport.

How do you measure success in such a debate? How do you decide who cleaned whose clock – or even watch? Do you have a panel of judges who hold up scorecards awarding points for content, presentation and style? Do you have a “clapometer” to measure the volume of audience applause for each debating point scored? Do you poll the audience before and/or after the debate and, if so, how do you ensure the audience is not ‘packed’ with supporters of one side or the other who will vote for their man regardless of the perceived outcome?

The simple answer is that Meyer wants the debate because he has a book to sell. Win or lose, going head-to-head with Richard Dawkins would be great publicity.

Dawkins, on the other hand, has nothing to gain by debating a lightweight like Meyer and why should he want to help promote Meyer’s book?

Richard Dawkins has nothing to gain by debating Stephen Meyer. …

Obviously true. He would lose badly. It would be quite embarrassing for him and his supporters. I suspect he realizes this. He doesn’t have an effective counter case, or else he would have given it in his books that focus instead upon arguments applied to Young Earth Creationism. Why should Dawkins of all people hold back on giving sound anti-Meyer arguments?

Seversky wrote:

… Meyer’s prestige on the other hand, at least among his supporters, would undoubtedly be enhanced by appearing on the same stage as such a figure.

I cannot imagine why you would think any supporter of Meyer would think it enhanced someone’s prestige “by appearing on the same stage as” Dawkins. Really, why would you think such a thing?

Now if person A cleans the clock of person B in a debate, that is another matter.

Seversky, does Dawkins believe he is person A or person B?

If A, then he should debate Meyer. Meyer would be discredited, not increased in prestige. This is the clash of ideas.

The best reason for Dawkins not to debate Meyer is if Dawkins doesn’t believe he can convincingly show that Meyer and his ID position are wrong.

He doesn’t have a case against Meyer’s actual position, or he would already be using it in his books. The best he can do is knock someone else’s position, call them both “creationists” and hope people never learn the difference and that he can’t refute Meyer.

I’m not sure Dr. Lennox’s exact views on origins and evolution, however I know that he is a Christian. Under Dawkins’ criteria, this would make him a “creationist”.

This is an odd assertion to make – do you have a reference?. In all that I have read of Dawkins’ books I have never seen him conflate ‘Christian’ with ‘creationist’. Indeed, he endorses a book by devout Christian Kenneth Miller in The God Delusion (p158, my paperback Black Swan edition), and he even defines himself as a “cultural Christian”.
However, looking at some of the comments above:

As long as Dawkins ducks, Meyers wins. And if he debates, Myers still wins.I predict more pep in Myers’ step: ….’Dawkins ducks, I win. Dawkins debates, I win. Dawkins ducks, I win….

and

I believe the real reason Dawkins won’t debate Meyer or any other ID proponent of note is because he knows he’ll get his clocked cleaned.

also

Dawkins is clearly a coward. He knows that Meyer is his intellectual superior and would mop the floor with him.

Taking these comments at face value – essentially Dawkins is thinking “Heads he wins, tails I lose” – surely he is doing the logical, pragmatic thing in not debating Meyer, no?
Finally, you continue:

Yet he does none of this. Instead he continues spouting out the same proven lie. How anyone can respect, even admire such a dishonest coward is mind-numbing. How someone like Dawkins could cling to a world-view which he’s too insecure to defend is perhaps even more mind-numbing.

I know the man is no friend of ID, but to my mind your cartoonish put downs – “dishonest coward” – and inability to understand how Dawkins has won the respect of mainstream scientists as well as a large portion of the book buying public speaks more of your attitude than his.

In any event, I guess I can acknowledge that ID was right all along. I am detecting design here. Dr. Meyer designed this sad little charade to get his name in the papers and sell his book.

Prove it.

You’re exactly right about Dawkins debating Lennox but not Meyer. By the way, the Lennox debate, I think, is fantastic.

So the idea here is to take someone who, for years now, has stated that they will not take part in these kind of debates, and then challenge them to a debate? The outcome was obvious and Dr. Meyer knew before the question was asked what the answer would be.

In any event, I guess I can acknowledge that ID was right all along. I am detecting design here. Dr. Meyer designed this sad little charade to get his name in the papers and sell his book.

Dawkins has debated Oxford mathematician John Lennox three times*. I’m not sure Dr. Lennox’s exact views on origins and evolution, however I know that he is a Christian. Under Dawkins’ criteria, this would make him a “creationist”.

He’s broken his own policy against debating creationists, therefor his excuse for declining a debate with Stephen Meyer fails.

If he had any integrity he’d give up what’s left of the charade and debate Meyer. He could show the world just how bankrupt I.D. is by taking Meyer apart. He could win over a portion of the (approx.) 85% of America that thinks Darwinism is a complete joke.

Yet he does none of this. Instead he continues spouting out the same proven lie. How anyone can respect, even admire such a dishonest coward is mind-numbing. How someone like Dawkins could cling to a world-view which he’s too insecure to defend is perhaps even more mind-numbing.

*Dawkins vs Lennox Trilogy

In any event, I guess I can acknowledge that ID was right all along. I am detecting design here. Dr. Meyer designed this sad little charade to get his name in the papers and sell his book.

The text was written by “Staff” of the Discovery Institute, and published on their CSC site on Oct 6. That does appear to be the entire text.