Truth is the first casualty of war

He squarely draws battle lines in front of his adversaries such as intelligent design proponent Philip Johnson, who says, “God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is known only by faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence.”

So maybe it’s here, at the extremities of the philosophical spectrum that we’ll find some straight talking, spade identifying bluntness.

Both are brash, as prize fighters at a weigh in. Let’s imagine their comments before stepping on the scales. Dawkins goes first. “Evolution is a fact. It’s a fact which is established as securely as essentially any other fact we have in science. Since the evidence for evolution is so absolutely and totally overwhelming, no one who looks at the evidence could possibly doubt it if they were sane and not stupid. So the only remaining possibility is that they’re ignorant. And most people who don’t agree with evolution are in fact ignorant.”

Carl Wieland, representing Australia’s creationists, is just as plainspoken. “Non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years. We find that a frankly bizarre proposition.”

Now the two can afford a shadow box, as they won’t actually meet in the ring. Any contemplated confrontation between the world’s leading atheists and their natural counterparts residing in Australia will not now take place.

The reason it won’t is explained in email correspondence between Carl Wieland and David Nicholls from the Atheist Foundation of Australia, one of the organisers of the March convention. Wieland requests a public debate on the topic of which viewpoint, creation or evolution, is best represented by the empirical evidence. Nicholls is quick to dismiss the request. He’s not interested. And so, the two positions, being philosophically poles apart, will also remain rooms apart during Melbourne’s leafy autumn.

Why must this be? What might either side lose? For sure, after thousands of years of philosophical battle, it would be difficult for one side to conquer the other in an afternoon. But would there be no public interest in such a debate, enough for both camps to gain a little publicity?

As in chess, tactics are vital. But this battle has not the cleanliness of chess. It is less cerebral and more primal. It’s war. The gloves are off.

If the atheist team chose to defend evolution in public debate, they know that they’d be playing away from home. In recent times public debates have been the refuge of creationists. The evolution team would need to prepare and familiarise itself with the terrain of the home team. But Darwin’s theory already holds dominion in intellectual circles; the faculties of all mainstream universities speak as one in its support. As they already hold the title, they stand to gain little. What they would lose is their standing assertion that the issue is beyond discussion.

Nicholls gives his reasons for rejecting the offer. Debates do not attend to real science but to audience prejudice. Real science is found in peer reviewed papers in “accredited scientific journals”, which don’t include odd proposals such as creationism. Nicholls puts it back onto Wieland, accusing him of avoidance. “If you skirt the question about accredited articles, then it is no wonder you are having trouble finding people to debate.”

The shadow boxers dodge, both accusing the other of not being willing to face what is plainly evident. So the atheists and the creationists, the two philosophical straight shooters, have avoided the showdown at sunset.

Notice Nicholls’ reference to “accredited” journals. The editors of these journals, the signals of progress and guardians of scientific tenets, have declared what is correct. If your view isn’t published in these journals, your view must not be scientific. And since your view is not scientific, it won’t be published in these journals. If only real battles were won so easily.