Right. Let’s not even discuss it in public. Let’s not let the public know that there is disagreement, because the public is just a spectator, and they aren’t important. Sarcasm, I hope, is obvious.

Who is being prevented from discussing it in public?

As has been pointed out several times before. Intelligent Design proponents have published and – as in this case – are publishing books, blog, newspaper and magazine articles. They are appearing on radio and TV shows and even in movies.

What more do they want?

Right. Let’s not even discuss it in public. Let’s not let the public know that there is disagreement, because the public is just a spectator, and they aren’t important. Sarcasm, I hope, is obvious

Obvious, but misquided. The publishing of their respective books places the discussion squarely before the public. The advantage over “debates” is, each side can take the time required to properly lay out their positions. The public can then decide who makes the better case.

I just wish papers germane to the debate were better available to the interested layman. But that is an issue with the journal publishing industry, not the debate itself.

Issues in science are decided in the laboratory or in the field not in the debating hall.

Right. Let’s not even discuss it in public. Let’s not let the public know that there is disagreement, because the public is just a spectator, and they aren’t important. Sarcasm, I hope, is obvious.

There have already been many public debates about evolution going at least as far back as the famous heavyweight match between Thomas “The Bulldog” Huxley and Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce. They may be good knockabout fun for an audience but they solve nothing. Issues in science are decided in the laboratory or in the field not in the debating hall.

Richard Dawkins has nothing to gain by debating Stephen Meyer. His reputation as one of the world’s most prominent atheists and champions of evolution is well-established. 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. It would do no harm to his book sales either.

Dawkins has put out his views in his book and if anybody has an disagreements they can challenege him in print or on the internet.

If one is going to condemn ID repeatedly in as public a manner as Dawkins, he has an ethical obligation to meet them in fair debate.

Debates are poor places for discussing and arguing for the different scientific ideas: they may provide good entertainment, but they also as much about rhetorical skill as the substance of the debate.

A lot of the substance that would have to be discussed is rather technical, and would bore the pants off most onlookers. A better place to discuss these matters would be through the written word, e.g. scientific articles and books. These give one the space to set out an argument, with the necessary details, in a way that can be absorbed at more leisure.

Perhaps Dawkins has decided not to debate because he feels it is unlikely to be productive, with no chance of a genuine exchange of views.

Indeed, refusal to debate with a particular person at a particular time is all right. However, the invitation to debate was declined because he “does not debate creationists”.

Now in his latest book Dawkins called creationists “history deniers”, similar to those who deny the holocaust. That is a very serious charge and also an insult. To deny the possibility to challenge such a charge indefinitely and inconsiderately to all involved is unethical from a scientist. Especially if he considers himself a champion of truth. Yes, he is obliged to face those he accuses.

I’ll debate anyone as long as they’re civil. There is no double standard. Folks like you don’t see the moderated comments, so you have no basis to judge whether a person merits banning. I don’t hold this against you, but I do hold the willingness of assuming otherwise against you.

He doesn’t, but he is ethically obliged not to distort the views of others.

To imply that ID argument is based on religious revelation is false.