Summations Only

This was the first debate between Lennox and Dawkins.

The transcript may be found here

I intend to go through the transcript evaluating the arguments on each side. Rhetoric will be a secondary concern - insofar as the transcript reveals it.

Given the range of topics this probably belongs in the Miscellany.

Thread copied here from the The God Delusion Debate thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

First I should say that I haven’t read The God Delusion, nor do I have any particular desire to. Dawkins is good as a popular science writer but in this arena he’s not on the level of, say, the late J L Mackie.

The debate necessarily cannot provide detailed support for the arguments, so my background knowledge will play an important part of evaluating the arguments.

The debate format favoured Lennox. Dawkins was to make his arguments and then Lennox would answer - with no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox. Dawkins chafed at this restriction and was allowed to reply, but this did cut into the allotted time for other points.

I watched this debate before, as usual Lennox destroys. The transcript severely lacking, you should watch the youtube video Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate for the full effect.

TL;DR: Lennox destroys.

Are you claiming that Lennox wins through rhetoric rather than the force of his arguments or are you accusing the site owner of omitting significant arguments?

Er no?

Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal:

-Something from nothing
-fine tuning everywhere we look for it
-way too many nice to haves, not just the bare minimums needed for life
-evolution is actually just stacking more improbability on the already astounding improbability of the something from nothing "explanation" currently given
-evolution's mechanism is incremental change, but the DNA molecule cannot be improved upon incrementally

The list goes on and on.

Check this out: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Edited by robertleva, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Er no?

---

Then in what way is the transcript lacking ?

quote:

---

Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal

---

If he made them in this debate they should be in the transcript. However, as I have already pointed out Dawkins opportunities to rebut were limited - and he wasn’t supposed to rebut Lennox’ points at all.

I watched the You Tube response video. Keep in mind that in these sorts of debates, each "side" has a different idea of what constitutes winning or losing. I have not yet watched the debate, but I never like to claim a side. I am of course a believer and will thus admit my bias and preconceptions. For the purpose of this topic, I will side with Robert, as he is a new member and thinks the way I traditionally have and do think.

Officially, as is my EvC persona, I claim moderate.

Ok but would you care to rebut any of those above listed points?

Here I will throw on a few others issues I have had rattling around for a while since were at it:

-Entropy runs contrary to naturally organizing lifeforms
-"Primordial soup" that naturally occurring origins of life story we were all taught has been debunked
-sea floor spreading doesn't create any cracks in hard rock that spreads out over thousands of miles
-the earth's mantle is solid and prevents "subduction" of the plates

RL writes: Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal: -Something from nothing -fine tuning everywhere we look for it -way too many nice to haves, not just the bare minimums needed for life -evolution is actually just stacking more improbability on the already astounding improbability of the something from nothing "explanation" currently given -evolution's mechanism is incremental change, but the DNA molecule cannot be improved upon incrementally(added) -Entropy runs contrary to naturally organizing lifeforms -"Primordial soup" that naturally occurring origins of life story we were all taught has been debunked -sea floor spreading doesn't create any cracks in hard rock that spreads out over thousands of miles -the earth's mantle is solid and prevents "subduction" of the plates The list goes on and on.

I can see you are a true Lennox fan. I like him too, though I am open to the claims from the peanut gallery. One key issue brought up by dwise1 is the issue of honesty. I think in this debate that both men are honest. I suspect that each "side" if you will interprets the points being made (as to level of importance and relevance,at least) differently.

Edited by Phat, : added points to form one list for peanuts to address

I'm not familiar with Lennox nor the Lennox/Dawkins debates, but I did read a chapter or two of Dawkin's The God Delusion around twenty years ago before setting it aside.

robertleva writes: Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal: Something from nothing fine tuning everywhere we look for it way too many nice to haves, not just the bare minimums needed for life evolution is actually just stacking more improbability on the already astounding improbability of the something from nothing "explanation" currently given evolution's mechanism is incremental change, but the DNA molecule cannot be improved upon incrementally

I'm familiar with Dawkin's science knowledge and argumentative style, and unless bound and gagged it's not possible he would have no response. PaulK mentions an issue with debate format.

--Percy

I note that you fail to identify any way in which the transcript is lacking. Despite asserting that it was.

quote:

---

Ok but would you care to rebut any of those above listed points?

---

I’ll briefly discuss them if they turn up in the debate. Otherwise they aren’t on topic in this thread. If you want to start a thread to discuss any of them, I’ll deal with them there. Likewise your added points.

Good morning, Percy.

Percy writes: I'm familiar with Dawkin's science knowledge and argumentative style, and unless bound and gagged it's not possible he would have no response. PaulK mentions an issue with debate format.

I've not sat down and watched this debate either. I am not really interested in nor scientifically knowledgeable of the points in Creationism. As I have said before,(likely too many times ) I consider myself a Cosmological Creationist but not a Biblical Creationist. I respect traditional mainstream science in general, and my points of contention are more philosophical than they are material.

Edited by Phat, : spelling

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The debate centres on Dawkins’s book The God Delusion and it’s largely about the existence of God. It’s not about creationism as such, but there really didn’t seem anywhere better to put it.

Lennox makes points (here and in some other amazing debates you should watch vs Hitchens) that get no rebuttal:

Um, you completely forget PaulK's Message 3 posted just a few hours before this your message in this very same topic (my emphasis added):

PaulK writes: The debate format favoured Lennox. Dawkins was to make his arguments and then Lennox would answer - with no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox.

If Lennox' opponent is not allowed to rebut, then there cannot be any rebuttal. That is not because Lennox' points have any merit (he does certain misrepresent evolution, so that demonstrates that his "points" have no merit).

 
It's the same pattern we saw in the infamous creationist debates which were rigged to allow the creationist to win. It is very telling that when creationists are confronted with most honest debate formats, they absolutely refuse to participate.

Such debates are very rarely won on the strength of the arguments, but rather on the participants' performance and showmanship and one side's ability to hamper the opponent's performance.

See my page, Creation / Evolution Debates, for links to articles and for my own discussion.