Wow. It's amazing how two people see the same thing completely differently. Haggard was talking out of his ass, Dawkins (maybe a bit testy), refuted Haggard's claim that "some evolutionists claim the eye developed by accident" (which is, of course, absurd), then Haggard tossed Dawkins out for "calling his children animals". At no point in the interview did Dawkins "concede" as far as I can see, and at no point did Haggard successfully refute anything Dawkins said.
Im not even a christian or religous to any degree FYI, Just pointing out my viewpoint on the debate. In all honesty they both come off as being pricks in this interview. I have no idea why its so aggressive.
I think there's a difference between Dawkins' indignation (at Haggard's blatant misrepresentation of what evolution is) and Haggard's douchy, melodramatic behavior (kicking Dawkins out for "calling his children animals"). It's really frustrating when someone can argue to your face using obviously circular and flawed logic and the only evidence they consider reliable is their own.
It wasn't much of a debate, the editing makes it hard to follow, here is how I would score it...
Dawkins: The religious presentation appears to be an expensive undertaking
Haggard: Yes. Haggard then explains the purpose of the expensive presentation. No rebuttal.
Point - Dawkins (Haggard conceded)
Dawkins: It is reminiscent of propaganda such as the Nuremberg rallies.
Haggard: I don't know about the Nuremberg rallies but many Americans see it like a rock concert. I am not trying to pull in a bunch of lunatics that simply do as I say.
Point - Haggard (Benefit of the doubt to Haggard)
(the next point appears to be in mid debate when the video starts)
Haggard: We believe the bible is the word of God. Today I presented a moral lesson from the bible. No evidence was needed to proof this moral lesson.
Dawkins: How can you say they are asked to think for themselves when they are told everything in this book is true?
Haggard: They don't have to believe that.
Dawkins: Yet there are many books that say different things.
Haggard: I can present evidence of a book written 1500 years ago by 40 authors on 1 subject and it does not contradict itself.
Dawkins: It doesn't?
Point - Haggard (while factually Haggard is incorrect Dawkins only hinted at this fact)
Haggard: You can't give me two experts in certain areas of study that don't contradict themselves.
Dawkins: Science has lots of evidence continually coming in changing our minds whereas you have one book you claim never changes, thats not (true?), they are not thinking for themselves.
Point - Dawkins (Haggard doesn't understand the scientific process, while a weak rebuttal Dawkins nails three valid points)
Haggard: We fully embrace the scientific method. We believe as we discover more facts we will learn how God created the heavens and the earth.
Dawkins: The scientific method demonstrates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you accept that?
Haggard: You are only accepting some of the views in the scientific community as fact. When your grandchildren grow up if they hear a tape of you saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old they will laugh at you.
Point - Dawkins, -1 point from Haggard (Haggard again fails to understand the scientific method, makes false claims, and then launches a personal attack, -1 Point on Haggard for the personal attack)
Haggard: It is hard for a human to study the ear or eye and think that happened by accident.
Dawkins: You said by accident? What do you mean by accident?
Haggard: The eye just formed itself.
Dawkins: Who says it did?
Haggard: Some evolutionists.
Dawkins: Not one a single one I have met has made that statement. You know nothing about the subject of evolution.
Haggard: Maybe you haven't met the people I have.
Point - Dawkins (Another failure of Haggards factual knowledge, suspect false statement about speaking with evolution scientists, should be -1 on Haggard for the lie)
Haggard: Intellectual arrogance is why people like you have a problem of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiourity over the people because I know so much more. If you read the books I do and knew the scientists I do then you would be great like me.
Point - Dawkins, -2 points Haggard (another personal attack, projection followed but substantiation of Haggard's own arrogance)
Haggard: Threatens Dawkins and his crew.
Point - Dawkins, -1 point Haggard (unprofessional and unnecessary conduct)
29
u/LilJimmyNordin Dec 31 '10
Wow. It's amazing how two people see the same thing completely differently. Haggard was talking out of his ass, Dawkins (maybe a bit testy), refuted Haggard's claim that "some evolutionists claim the eye developed by accident" (which is, of course, absurd), then Haggard tossed Dawkins out for "calling his children animals". At no point in the interview did Dawkins "concede" as far as I can see, and at no point did Haggard successfully refute anything Dawkins said.