Posted: Dec 11, 2011 10:58 pm
Craig has said he has no problem with evolution as a fact, though he has doubts about "gradualism". He says he is somewhere between "progressive creationism" and theistic evolution.
Dawkins is a scientist and Craig is a philosopher. If the debate was on evolution itself, Dawkins would win. If it was on philosophy (e.g. the existence of God), Craig would win. The issue is that Dawkins has written a book that addresses philosophical concepts. It is a terrible book, shockingly naive. But Dawkins has put the book out there, wanting it to be addressed. He should debate Craig, who is one of theism's foremost proponent of a philosophical Christianity.
Craig is not committed to "theistic evolution". He has stated that it is a metaphysical position rather than a scientific one. He appears to be happy with the notion of evolution. However, he is critical of neo-Darwinism, and has made statements around that.
What would be good is to have two debates between Craig and Dawkins: one on neo-Darwinism (science), and one on the existence of God (philosophy).
Dawkins is a scientist and Craig is a philosopher. If the debate was on evolution itself, Dawkins would win. If it was on philosophy (e.g. the existence of God), Craig would win. The issue is that Dawkins has written a book that addresses philosophical concepts. It is a terrible book, shockingly naive. But Dawkins has put the book out there, wanting it to be addressed. He should debate Craig, who is one of theism's foremost proponent of a philosophical Christianity.
Craig is not committed to "theistic evolution". He has stated that it is a metaphysical position rather than a scientific one. He appears to be happy with the notion of evolution. However, he is critical of neo-Darwinism, and has made statements around that.
What would be good is to have two debates between Craig and Dawkins: one on neo-Darwinism (science), and one on the existence of God (philosophy).