IMO Dawkins is prone to anger/apoplexy and isn't particularly sophisticated philosophically.

A dishonest debater whose goal is PR and not truth, which I believe Craig is likely to be, could wipe the floor with him. As could someone well versed in philosophy and debating, and Craig certainly is.

Strange that he always focusses on the weakest then.

I think this might be unfair. Do you really think he's choosing the weakest targets because of their belief in god? Or because people like Ted Haggard, Wendy Wright, etc., are all influential people who openly profess the ignorance of science as some sort of virtue?

RD was the professor for the public understanding of science, after all. While I don't like some of his methods either, I do tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his main purpose is to bring out the ridiculousness of some religious beliefs as they pertain to science in an effort to further scientific education. God is just the collateral damage that comes from this.

I'd like to see Craig Debate Hitchens

I know I'm a nit, but in a thread about the idea of Craig debating Dawkins, a discussion about Craig's views on evolution doesn't seem like that big a distraction. And whether he has written/spoken many words doesn't change the fact that he has written and spoken on the topic, and that when specifically asked to clarify his position, on his own website, he has continued with a contradictory claim. From an obviously bright and articulate man, that is puzzling.

Your wish is my command.

I agree with all of that, except your guess about Craig's response - unless by rephrase you mean he will use different words to say essentially the same thing. I say that because the Q&A I quoted was a request to clarify his position (the questioner actually included the phrase "I hope you can clarify your views on this"). It was not about the contradiction between his claim about being agnostic and his claims about the evidence for evolution, but it was about his claims on evolution, and specifically included macroevolution and a common ancestor. So I don't see that side changing. On the other hand, the word agnostic (like most words) leaves some wiggle room to hedge his claim. Since his starting position is that God did it, no amount of evidence can ever really contradict his position.

I like puzzles.

Can you clarify cast-iron here? Certainly as to the process of evolution, I would expect to find new mechanisms (as has happened since Darwin) so I don't think we have a complete answer, but descent with modification is a pretty neat and powerful theory, and finding a better theory would not change its value and usefulness to date. As for the UCA claim, do you believe there is evidence for another claim, or simply accept (as I do) that nothing precludes multiple starting points, and we may find evidence of just that at any time?

If you locate any, let us know. I'd be interested.

Wow, again in that video he makes the claim (at 56:20) that the science of biological evolution is "fantastically improbable", and goes on to make further comments about it, including quoting a book which says that ten steps of human evolution which are so improbable that the possibility of them (and the human genome) arising is 4^-180.

From NotReady earlier:

I meant that he never used it as one of his theistic arguments. In that debate he was dealing with one of the two points of the debate: There is no good argument for atheism. Just before he mentioned the improbability of evolution, which he bases on Barrow and Tipler (and others), he stated he would respond to Hitchens bringing up evolution. So it wasn't his topic, it was Hitchens', and he was properly responding. Furthermore, he clearly stated that Genesis isn't committed to 6 day creationism, and he then brought up Howard Van Til, who is a theistic evolutionist, and referred to him in a favorable light. IOW, he was just repeating the stance he's used elsewhere, which is he's open to both sides of the question of evolution and that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible.

He's open to both sides while quoting absurd figures like 4^-180 for the probability of humans arising by chance? While claiming that various other stages are fantastically improbable? While claiming it is "extrapolation that goes so far beyond the evidence"? While claiming it's a "huge "extrapolation" that "some very good evidence against it", while offering standard worthless creationist arguments that no thinker gives any credence to. Are you serious?

Fair enough on him using not using it as a main argument. His argument is "I don't even need this, and if it was true it doesn't contradict the bible, but by the way, here's how unlikely it is"!

looking forward to watching hitchen's tear craig up

edit: i tuned out for a while but heard him say "That fact strongly dis confirms the multi verse hypothesis" (24:30). This guy seems to just be making stuff to confuse you and to draw his own conclusions. He talked non stop for 25 minutes, isn't a debate supposed to be back and forth?

I would be very interested in what Pilliwinks has to say as well as his exchanges with Sharkey. I don't recall Sharkey at all, I guess he was before my time.

I think the time problem relates specifically to the Darwinian mechanism - natural selection. IIRC, that was what Craig focused on in the Ayala debate and it's what Behe opposes though Behe does admit to common descent. I think that it might be possible for common descent to be true, at least to some extent, but it just seems Darwinism can't be the answer. Some time ago I mentioned that evodevo might have some of the answers - that some kind of saltation might be at work during certain periods, which would explain the various explosions. So that would mean some kind of evolution, even macroevolution, but would leave a lot to be explained concerning the origin of the evodevo capability. I just think there's a whole lot more to the story than Darwinism can account for, but I don't think any natural explanation will exclude God's plan and creation. That's my main pet peeve with atheists - no natural explanation of anything can possibly exclude God, by definition.

SERIOUSLY!!

I don't know why bunny is wanting to "give him the benefit of the doubt" when he's consistently trotted out these same comments.

If someone said:

"I'm agnostic towards the Christian God (macroevolution), but I find the possibility that it all went down the way the bible (scientists) claims it did to be fantastically improbably, and there is very good evidence against it."

Combine that comment with the fact that that same person has never made a positive argument for why the Christian God (macroevolution) is real (they've had plenty of opportunities to do so, mind you) and you've got yourself someone who either doesn't know what agnostic means, or someone who's lying.

No I dont mean he focusses on the weakest theists. I dont think he does that. I mean he focusses on the weakest formulation of the arguments he attacks (or at least that he doesnt focus on the strongest, which he should) - it was my main beef with The God Delusion.

I was responding to:

"...i think he's seen every argument a religious person has"

Craig might be a superior debater, and maybe even the most intelligent of the two (I have no opinion either way)...but I must honestly admit I have never understood what believers see in the Craig statements they have tended to link here...Basically it seems to be just your typical gap argument, spiced up with "we can't really ever really know you know" and sprinkled with the most basic of logic statements that are really more about the assumptions than the conclusions.

I find it dubious it could even serve as a rational platform for Christianity...maybe some "deism light" version with no properties attributed to God, but that is about it. I'd take your commentary on "why Christianity" as superior over his anyday.

Maybe he does better work that hasn't been linked here. What do I know.

As I mentioned before, I was basing my comments on one seemingly throwaway line plus NotReady's interpretation of Craig's likely meaning (since he is the most knowledgeable poster about Craig we have). The more comments he makes espousing this view, the less likely I will continue to think it's an oversight or a blindspot and the more likely it is I'll ascribe some ulterior motive or tactic.

The latter - multiple starting points is possible, though I think there's mild evidence in that all DNA is left-handed (or right-handed, I forget which) and there doesnt seem any reason to prefer one direction to the other.
My technical skills are woeful, but I will dig it out. I think I might also arrange to have lunch with him - havent seen him in ages and he's one of those people with a fascinating perspective on just about everything. I'll ask him to refresh my memory on where the issue was he agreed was mysterious.

The more consistenly he says it, the less likely I am to think it's an oversight. I was really responding to what I thought was a passing comment in a discussion not directly related to evolution.

This is along the lines of my geneticist friend's view (though he doesn't like the term 'darwinism' as I recall). He thinks that some of the creationist objections, whilst not successful in undermining evolution, do point out some gaps in our understanding of the process involved. I have a feeling (though this could well be wrong) that he'd put his money on epigenetics as being a significant part of the solution to 'there isn't enough time'.

I've never watched a Craig debate and only read bits and pieces (I've got one of his technical books on time set aside for an upcoming flight to the US which will be my first serious foray).

Most of my knowledge of him comes from NotReady's comments/interpretations. It seems to me that NotReady basically acknowledges this point of yours frequently - his common claim is that Craig argues for a position of plausibility and just asks his listeners to judge whether his assumptions are more plausible than their negations.

What's the purpose of debating someone who is convinced by cosmological arguments?

You can't ever get anywhere with people like this.

Random youtubing led me to a Daniel Dennett commentary where he calls him out on that, claiming it's very smart b/c cosmology is so complex to nonspecialists. Though he went on to claim that his cosmologist friends would rape Craig in a debate but the nature of the subject would make it very difficult to get a random's head around their argumentation.

Exactly... Craig wants to extrapolate from our personal experiences and understanding of the world to answer questions such as "Can something infinite exist?" or "Does the universe have a cause?"

Anyone reasonable would say that they cannot possibly know the answer to these questions, but Craig has no problems giving an answer and using it as a foundational axiom for his arguments. At best he's horribly arrogant and bad at critical thinking.

Well, if you can't convince some 50% of Americans that the earth is 6.4 billion years old, and that Adam & Eve didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, why move on? Sophisticated Christians aren't the problem. It's the people who subvert obvious scientific facts (and if they had their way), would prevent a proper high school scientific education that he's trying to fight. At least I think this may be the case.

I don't really see the point then...just do "God exists" as an axiomatic assumption and be done with it and move on.

"Fantastically improbable". It is in one of Dawkins' films where he pointed out the limitations of the human mind, I think it was due to our senses but not sure. This is how he explains that some people can't wrap their minds around a 13 bln years old universe. Same goes for the fourth dimension, infinity, etc. Though if you learn infinity in math problems at school, I don't understand what's so difficult about grasping the notion. Guess I'm ignorant to the counterargument.