The good professor’s advice notwithstanding, Scott fearlessly volunteers to make it:
Hey, Vox! I will be happy to debate the evidence supporting evolution or creation with you on-line at your blog, or mine, or both. I’m an enthusiastic Darwinian and a serious Christian.
What terms would you like for the debate? Be prepared, I think, to provide citations and evidence from the scientific literature, because that’s what I’ll do while I’m attempting to wipe the floor with you….:)
Cheerfully….Scott Hatfield
Sounds good. I’m curious to see what sort of answers science has for someone who hasn’t paid any more attention to the literature than reading four of Dawkins books, plus “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” by Daniel Dennett. I’ve never read Behe or a single ID/Creationist book, and I don’t watch videos. If Scott can’t obliterate me, both sides should be able to concur that there are some serious problems for the evolution meme’s viability in its current state.
As for terms, I’d suggest that since you’re the one attempting to prove the positive case, that you write a post of 750 words, (not including citations), which I will post in its entirety on my blog as well. I will have three days to respond with a similar post of 1,000 words (including quotations) which you will post on your blog. You will have three days to post a reply of 1,000 words and so on. Let’s see how far we get in five exchanges and take it from there.
Scott replies:
Well, that (proposed terms of debate) sounds just fine to me…. I look forward to our exchange in August.
Unfortunately, we can’t get rolling right away, as I have a certain book to complete first and since I’m on the final stretch, I don’t want to risk any distractions. Since biology is entirely outside my areas of both interest and expertise, I think this should be an interesting experiment as to whether the current state of the science is enough to trump raw intellect. Scott should theoretically be able to wipe up the floor with me as easily as I walk over feminists and socialists; if he can’t, (and I’ve read enough Dawkins that I suspect this could be the case), then we should be able to conclude that evolutionary theory isn’t quite as solid as it is purported to be… or perhaps only that Scott is an incompetent Darwinist champion.