For those who haven't seen the original Revelation TV interview between the station founder Howard Conder and Richard Dawkins (link below) I'd like to head off some easy criticisms of Mr. Conder that are bound to make it onto this video, as the original has the comments suspended.
As mentioned at the beginning of the interview, only a few days days prior to it, Mr. Conder's son had been killed in a motoring accident. For that reason it is clear that his heart isn't fully on the task ahead of him. To compound that, the interview was broadcast live, presumably because the schedules of both men made that inescapable.
I have seen Mr. Conder in action on Revelation TV many times and he strikes me as a very warm and genuine human being. I cannot defend his beliefs, obviously, but I don't doubt his compassion and sincerity.
His line of questioning was still depressingly ill-informed, but I believe I know where that comes from...
Dr. Grady McMurtry, unlike Mr. Conder, exemplifies the most troubling kind of evangelical creationist. He is no doubt an intelligent man. That intelligence is very persuasive to the less intellectual and easily led creationists out there. The presence of a man like this allows them to rest easy in their beliefs and make no effort of their own to study the evidence available to us all.
As for the title of this video: Richard Dawkins has said in the past the he would no longer debate such people as to do so offers them a gloss of respectability that they do not deserve. I would agree with him on that. A debate between atheism and religion is a debate about the validity of belief and all voices should be heard there. But a debate between creation and evolution has no common ground. Creationism will never be a science because it is based on only one source which is never open to question by those who follow it.
Compare that to Darwin's The Origin of Species, the book that opened the world to evolution. A little over 150 years since it's publication it may still be required reading for aspiring biologists, but it would not be considered as an infallible textbook full of unquestionable truths. Yet the theory it proposed has stood up to every experiment yet devised by every branch of biology to have developed in it's wake, but so completely unimaginable to it's author. And had they done so, then it would no longer be the theory of evolution in use today. There is nothing sacred in science except the truth, and as creationism's idea of truth is of something revealed instead of earned, there is nothing to be gained in engaging with it.
But of course there is, still, a part of me that would love to see McMurtry get schooled!
I think though, on balance, that even with the most sound defeat possible, it would not change the situation very much. There will always be another creationist trotting out the same tired old arguments. And there will always be people ready to believe anyone who sounds more intelligent than they themselves.
Personally, I think that if the creationists want to be taken seriously and be treated as scientists then they should go about it the same way every other scientist has to do it. Do your research, find your evidence, publish your work and let your peers decide. Gain any ground that way and *then* it would be suitable to hold a debate.
The original Revelation TV interview can be viewed here:
For Howard Conder and Revelation TV viewer's thoughts on the interview:
For more on Dr. Grady McMurtry's Creation Worldview Ministry:
For some interesting background on McMurtry, check out Gordon's Blog. He's done some interesting research on his credentials: