Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and is intensely critical of creationist and intelligent design religious beliefs surrounding the origins of life.
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. Not only did Nye annihilate Ham in the debate as many expected him to do, but he helped expose Ham, and in turn, his creationist model as being completely fraudulent.
He did this by simply employing an unlimited supply of logic and reason in his arguments. One user, theGolgiApparatus writes: So far it seems Ken Ham is proving that creationists can be scientists, not that creationism is a viable scientific explanation.
What can you prove? Back to the Richard Dawkins Foundation, here are some alternative counter-arguments as to why the debate was a good idea after all. The credibility issue Before the debate, only creationists were the ones calling themselves credible and now that the debate is over, still only creationists are calling themselves credible.
It would be incredibly difficult to find anyone who knows that the world is not 6, years old and actually believes the creationist theory has any amount of credibility.
Even if people were not debating creationists on the big stage, it has nevertheless been a hot topic of discussion all over the internet for years.
Bringing the issue in front of a worldwide audience blew any notion of credibility that creationists had to offer completely out of the water. The Nye is not a biologist issue It is a fact and not one that can be debated but that does not mean that Nye was unprepared in any manner of speaking.
After all, Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world did not receive an honorary degree until While Nye may not have a Ph.
He explained how there would need to be fossil evidence of kangaroos travelling between the Middle East and Australia within the last 4, years. He explained how humanity would need to have discovered 11 new species every day if life really did start from just 7, as Ham claimed.
Did Bill Nye win the debate? And did Bill Nye further prove the Richard Dawkins Foundations wrong in their assertion that he should not debate a creationist?
It would certainly seem that way.For many biology students, Richard Dawkins was very influential when deciding which science to study. In one of my first lectures at university, the professor referenced Dawkin’s pioneering work.
Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins Darwin made it possible for us to give a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this chapter.
Richard Dawkins, opponent of creationism, intelligent design, and theology is one of the key figures of modern atheism.
Already in he attracted much attention . 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.
|Brief introduction:||Thoughts on theology, science, and culture Friday, July 23, The scientific track record of Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins has done much to popularise science and is widely acclaimed as a gifted scientific writer. He is sometimes introduced as a distinguished scientist.|
|soli deo gloria: The scientific track record of Richard Dawkins||His views are not the same as mine but he is a very well respected speaker and scientist. In this paper, I will explain the worldview that Richard Dawkins lived out in his life.|
|Science latest||Richard Dawkins, pressed to affirm the explanatory power of Darwinian reasoning for human life, backed off, expressing great caution. Dawkins, come to discover, turns out to be a rather reluctant Darwinian, at least where human institutions such as religion are concerned.|
|Scope and Content||A Talk with Richard Dawkins [1. That is the lesson to be learned from recent advances in evolutionary theory; the emergence of order has colored biology since Darwin and twentieth-century cosmology alike.|
|richard dawkins | eBay||The Magic of Reality:|
*Richard I - LionHeartOne of the most prominent figures of the Third Crusade was Richard I, nicknamed Lionhearted. He was born on September 8th, and he later died on April 6, (Britannica, Vol 10, p).
He was the third son of Henry II and Ele /5(6). The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. 6 Pages Words November Saved essays Save your essays here so you can locate them quickly!