Why I refuse to debate with Richard Dawkins
This evolutionary “biologist” is an apologist for natural evil. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.
For some years now, Richard Dawkins has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into debating myself. I have consistently refused
He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. He attributes horrific mass extinctions to nature red in tooth and claw. He’s on record asserting that thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. Natural selection has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.
And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for carnivory, parasitism, and mass extinction, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Dawkins’ words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.