Sigh, I think it should be pretty obvious why evolutionists don't bother to debate creationists these days, after decades and decades of trying to explain even basic science to them to see it fall on deaf ears, and rarely get any good arguments and absolutely ZERO evidence out of them:

It would be about the same as debating the earth is round, in a time when the evidence is pretty overwhelming the earth is round, when almost everyone believes the world is round, with a minority of people who insist it's FLAT, despite failing to provide the slightest of proof of their claims for the past few decades- it's just a waste of time.

And of course, most of the debaters are like- no- I won't mention names this time, I've picked on him enough (and never got a response to prove me wrong).

But I'll make it simple:

-What evidence is there, that animals never evolved, but were all individually created in batches by an intelligent creator.

-What makes you think it's the Christian God, and not the Hindu Gods?
How do you know that the sun, earth and riverbeds weren't carved by a race of benevolent snakes?

-Why should intelligent design be taught in schools, but not the proposal that existence is only a dream, a computer program, we're all really dead ghosts, all life on earth delivered by aliens, a spaghetti monster, among many other theories, all presented with as much scrutiny and seriousness as you expect of intelligent design?
In fact, what evidence WOULD you put forward for intelligent design?
Also, will you insist children need to study records to ensure that the loch ness monster and pixies really do exist too?

At some point, overwhelming evidence becomes too convincing to constantly entertain a tiny group of people who have for ages failed to put forward even the slightest argument.

Blue Cross points to the gulf that separates the two views which, I agree, does make dialogue difficult.

Yet Gee Suss says there is debate occurring all the time, 24/7. But he says the world’s atheists shouldn’t allow creationists any undeserved credibility by letting them appear on the same platform as themselves.

Grim,
If there is no possibility of rational debate, how could these questions have been ‘addressed time and time again’? I think you’re trying to have it both ways.

Pericles,
If education is about preparing people to be productive in adult life, then the ability to deal with complex or controversial issues needs to be included in there somewhere. I’d agree that it depends on the abilities of the students to reason intelligently. That is the goal. While I’ll admit it is not easy in this climate, at the appropriate age levels, a mature educator should be enlightening students of life’s more profound issues and giving them tools to deal with them.

I like your picture of unbalance, of Ricky Ponting’s cricketers taking on the Melbourne Storm. Of course, we want to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We want to be fair to the goose and the gander.

Therefore the debate should not be viewed as science versus faith. It’s more the science of one view versus the science of another. Both the creation and the evolution views have their philosophical and religious implications. Dawkins at least thinks so, as per his famous line about evolution allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The implications cut both ways. From Wieland’s email correspondence, he certainly wanted to address the issue with regard to physical evidence, as per Genesis (recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood, etc) compared with evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).

Beefyboy,
Did life arise by purely undirected process, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? Phrased like this, the ideas are mutually exclusive. What other options are there?

Michael Viljoen

Oh dear, Runner.

Read a little will you. Start with the word "if", since you don't understand big words.

Function is not design. get over your little patch of ignorance.

*we* design because we exist. Your fictional "god" does not due to a lack of existing.

You *do* understand that I am *telling* you, since you cannot get there yourself? Stop making christians look bad, I like them normally.

You use the word fantasy a lot, I suspect you live in one. Any time you want to join an adult conversation, you just catch on up.

Rusty.

How is it even possible to even have a debate on these issues?

One side argues on the basis of physical proof and investigation - the other relies on a lack of proof to make its case.

One side is free to adjust its case as new discoveries are made, the other is forever locked in by blind dogma.

To be fair, why not include a Scientologist to convince us all about Xenu or an aboriginal to explain The Dreamtime?

The Flintstones was a fictional cartoon - not a Documentary.

Hey Dan/Michael,
I guess we must have a radically different definition of the word 'debate'. If I were to ask you the time, or the day, I don't believe I am quite so argumentative as to necessarily turn your answers into a debate.
Provided of course, you used a watch or calendar, rather than rely on divine guidance.
Since the first accurate mathematical modelling of the mechanics of the solar system, the God Hypothesis has been demonstrated to simply be unnecessary.
I'll happily admit this is not proof that God doesn't exist, or that we have all the answers, or that we ever will have all the answers. It is conceivable -at least to me- that at some point in the distant future humankind may reach the limits of understanding, and have no choice but to invoke the god hypothesis; but I would suggest before they could irrevocably make that decision, they would logically need to be gods themselves.
Mere mortals can always hope to learn more.

The title is already a misnomer. Truth is irrelevant in a faith based belief system. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

You cannot argue evolution with creationists. Dawkins has already tried and done his fair share. The fact is people will have to come to their own conclusions either way and it is good now that atheists are writing books and being interviewed in the media, rather than just the very one-sided viewpoints which have been fostered previously.

It will always be up to individuals to make up their own minds. Dawkins getting into the debate is really a waste of his time. It is akin to bashing one's head against a brick wall when faced with rigid belief systems that do not question, do not seek 'truth' and avoid exploratory examination or scientific scrutiny.