Dear Richard,
We're both scheduled to discuss issues of Darwin and God on the Riz Khan Show on Al-Jazeera on Monday, July 21. Viewers who are interested can watch the show live here. The segments will also be posted on Youtube and I'll link to them.
But a few hours after I mentioned our forthcoming debate on this blog, you posted a comment on your website essentially accusing me of making the whole thing up. So first you accuse me of having a Hitler voice, and now you accuse me of misrepresentation.
Here's what happened. Al-Jazeera contacted me a while ago, asking me to appear in a point-counterpoint format with a leading opponent. I said I was writing about God and atheism, and suggested I appear with a prominent atheist. They chose you. Then the producer Zeresnaey Abraha confirmed that you were ready to do it. Late last week I got a studio notice from Al-Jazeera giving me the time for me to arrive at their rented San Diego studio. The other guest was listed as "Richard Dawkins" and your studio details at Oxford were given.
Apparently when you found out that the two of us were booked on the same show, same segment, you rushed to the producer to insist that we appear separately. Your pretext according to Abraha was that you have a long-standing pledge not to debate "creationists." I can understand that you don't want to give legitimacy to people who flatly deny evolution or who insist that the earth is less than 6,000 years old. The only problem with you invoking this pledge is that I believe in evolution and am not, nor have I ever been, a "creationist."
Apparently the format now is that we will each be interviewed separately. So technically it's no longer a debate, although it is most certainly an exchange of rival ideas on the same topic. It's a pity that we cannot engage each other directly.
To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away.
If we debate on the Riz Khan show, a format comparable to ABC "Nightline," you cannot seriously think I will drown you out with Hitler shouts. And if I tried that in an academic setting I would make a complete fool of myself. I have done several debates with your fellow atheists Michael Shermer and Christopher Hitchens (and have just scheduled my second debate this fall with Peter Singer) because all of them have consistently found me a serious and worthy opponent. Hitchens told me in Las Vegas that each time our debates are different because both of us adjust to what the other guy said the last time around. This is how knowledge is tested, through the process of critical exchange, isn't it?
You are supposed to be the public champion of science and reason and enlightened discourse. This is basically what your title at Oxford says, right? This is why the Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi is paying your salary, isn't it? So are we to believe that despite the seriousness of the issues involved, issues that engage your whole life's work, you won't even stand up and defend your views even in a hospitable setting like Oxford or any other venue of your choice?
Many years ago I read The Selfish Gene and was deeply impressed. What especially struck me was your intellectual audacity, your willingness to jump into a big debate and take on the big questions, and of course your literary eloquence. If you are so confident that your position is right, and that belief in God is an obvious delusion, surely you should be willing to vindicate that position not only against Bible-toting pastors but also against a fellow scholar and informed critic like me!
If not, you are nothing but a showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him. Somehow, I would have thought the author of 'The Selfish Gene would be made of sterner stuff. .
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 26)
91. XC,
Free pope hats for all the peasants! A charity raffle to win an eco-friendly popemobile!
Moke, please be charitable responsibly. If all the peasants had pope hats, think of the severe neck injuries that would be incurred during manual labor. An outbreak of neck strains would make Carpul Tunnel look like a walk in the park.
Your idea of raffling a "pious prius" is a good one, and should be looked at for serious consideration....
Not much to work with today, so might as well have a little fun.
ex-christian at 3:36PM on Jul 21st 2008
92. Richard Dawkins reminds me of Barack Obama. He claims he loves a good debate, but when John McCain suggested a series of townhall meetings, Barack claims he's busy or that the invitation was misread.
In other words, Obama, the Harvard Law graduate, is afraind of being shown up by a non-lawyer who is 25 years his senior.
Dawkins sounds like he doesn't want to go into any debate that he can't win.
But what I don't understand is why he doesn't want to debate creationists. Debunking creation is far easier than debunking the existance of God. I can find a lot of scientists and non-scientists that can make evolution work so well with Chapter 1 of Genesis, rather than the misread Chpater 2.
Kent at 4:09PM on Jul 21st 2008
93. DD....if you believe in evolution as you stated here then you must think evolution is true. If that is the case, then why have you consistently argued in favor of the teaching in schools of non-evolution based theories of creation along side of evolution? Why have you argued in favor of those groups who wish to put qualifying statements, which cast doubt on the accuracy of evolutionary theories, in biology books?
Why? Why? Why?
John Galt
John Galt at 4:04PM on Jul 21st 2008
94. Because he gets attention and reputation for contraversy. Really, it doesn't matter if he believes in it or not. If he stirs us up against each other then he gets people to buy his books, the half that support him. Like Coultier and Savage, infamy is preferable to being unknown.
My suspictious is that Dinesh, if he believes in anything at all, is that he's an ID advocate. He realizes that the evidence in favor of evolution, ranging from baterial adaptation, palentological fossil records, and insect studies show that it is the mechanism for changing life. What Dinesh seems to object to is the materialist viewpoint that this arrangement is wholy by happenstance and a product of chance. He's not specifically advocating christianity, but there's a hint-hint nudge-nudge that that is where he places the association.
Somber at 4:22PM on Jul 21st 2008
95. John McCain suggested a series of townhall meetings, Barack claims he's busy or that the invitation was misread.
xxx
Let's get something straight about that. You posted hogwash and here's why:
No excuses offered nor were necessary so the complaint wasn't taken seriously.
The mcbush isn't in Obama's league and has done nothing to earn a place on any of Obama's venues, either here in the US or abroad.
The mcbush is simply not big enough as his draw shows clearly.
If it weren't for corporate media distortion, there'd be no mcbush coverage at all. He's lucky he mavericked his way into that.
The mcbush was trying to ride on Obama's coattails and no way in hell did he earn a place on the ticket!
His party is on probation anyway with only about 27% national registration. They aren't needed on the Obama tour.
Same thing for Iraq. The mcbush is always trying to amplify his numbers some way and cannot do it, so he tries to wedge his way onto the Obama bandwagon.
If I were promoting a concert, I would not let a Mcsame sized draw even OPEN for an Obama sized draw, much less share the stage!
Do you think ANY promoter in his right mind would do that? Why? You get the crowd without the mcbush and no hassles, no security issues.
You'd need an international act or it would not be profitable, and as you right wingers always say, Profit über alles.
Ask Paul McCartney, maybe. He's probably more of an expert on the American Economy than the mcbush anyway.
The mcbush hasn't earned the right to ride on Obama's coattails. Sorry, but that's just the numbers, nothing personal. Jesus H. Huckabee would be out of the loop for the same reason.
It's just sound business. I'm sure any right winger would understand that.
Clif Kuplen at 4:28PM on Jul 21st 2008
96. Why? Why? Why?
John Galt
How, how, how, how.
John Lee Hooker
Clif Kuplen at 4:30PM on Jul 21st 2008
97. As for the anti-D'Sousaites on this board I see mostly a masterful matrix of mendacity. Why are so many of you Richard Dawkins fans so antagonistic? Are you so afraid your "hero" might be shot down? Attacking D'Sousa in such a vitriolic manner dose not lend credibility to you arguments. I would also suggest that a few of you look up the definition of "scholar or scholarly," you're seeing only your definition. D'Sousa qualifies under any reasonable definition as a "scholar."
Dennis Bowen at 4:36PM on Jul 21st 2008
98. How, how, how, how.
John Lee Hooker
*******
Quando, Quando, Quando?
Engelbert Humperdinck
torquemada at 4:39PM on Jul 21st 2008
99. Heidy heidy heidy ho!
-Cab Calloway
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:47PM on Jul 21st 2008
100.
Dennis, under your definition Velikovsky (Worlds In Collision) is also an erudite scholar.
JefFlyingV at 4:49PM on Jul 21st 2008
101. Why are so many of you Richard Dawkins fans so antagonistic? Are you so afraid your "hero" might be shot down?
I would like to hear from one person that see's Dawkins as their hero.
I now this is tough for people that need something or someone to worship and guide them to understand but some of us don't need heros to tell us what to think.
tmo at 5:01PM on Jul 21st 2008
102. 96. As for the anti-D'Sousaites on this board I see mostly a masterful matrix of mendacity.
----------------
And on the pro-D'snoozalite side, I see a mix of melodramatic moronic mouthings, mostly madmen making meaningless mental meanderings, a mishmash of miscreant monkeys mooning over myths.
Godless Heathen Brian at 5:02PM on Jul 21st 2008
103. It seems to me DD is a scholar, in self promotion.
Jerry Brown at 5:14PM on Jul 21st 2008
104. Quando, Quando, Quando?
Engelbert Humperdinck
torquemada at 4:39PM on Jul 21st 2008
xxxxx
Now's the Time
Charlie Parker
Torkey, that was five stars! Best laugh I've had in a week, really. It put me back in one of the pukiest bands in creation on the shores of sunny Tahoe - that part was cool, but the band sucked sand, scorpions and cigarette butts included.
Clif Kuplen at 5:14PM on Jul 21st 2008
105. 98. Heidy heidy heidy ho!
-Cab Calloway
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:47PM on Jul 21st 2008
Heideeee hooooo, boys 'n girls!
Mr. Hanky
Clif Kuplen at 5:15PM on Jul 21st 2008