Changes

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]

As far as [[Christianity vs. atheism debates]], the most well-known debater on the Christian side of the aisle is [[William Lane Craig]]. This is due to the large number of Christian vs. [[atheism]] debates he has engage in and the quality of his debate performances.<ref>[http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)]</ref> Atheist [[Sam Harris]] described William Lane Craig as “the one [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] who has put the fear of [[God]] into many of my fellow atheists”.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates</ref>

As far as [[Christianity vs. atheism debates]], the most well-known debater on the Christian side of the aisle is [[William Lane Craig]]. This is due to the large number of Christian vs. [[atheism]] debates he has engage in and the quality of his debate performances.<ref name="commonsenseatheism.com">[http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)]</ref> Atheist [[Sam Harris]] described William Lane Craig as “the one [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] who has put the fear of [[God]] into many of my fellow atheists”.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates</ref>

The [[Atheism|atheist]] Luke Muehlhauser wrote about Craig:

The [[Atheism|atheist]] Luke Muehlhauser wrote about Craig:

Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear.

Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear.

This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time.<ref>[http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)]</ref>}}

This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time.<ref name="commonsenseatheism.com">[http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)]</ref>}}

'''William Lane Craig debates:'''

'''William Lane Craig debates:'''

== Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate ==

== Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate ==

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|left|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|left|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref name="Bahsen at the Stein debate">[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]

In 1985, the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Greg Bahnsen]] and the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Gordon Stein]] had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. Bahnsen was particularly known for his Christian [[presuppositional apologetics]].  

In 1985, the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Greg Bahnsen]] and the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Gordon Stein]] had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. Bahnsen was particularly known for his Christian [[presuppositional apologetics]].  

In debates with atheists, presuppositional apologists will frequently ask their debate opponents the foundations/rationale of their various assumptions, beliefs and assertions and show logical inconsistencies in the opponents worldview. In the Bahnsen-Stein debate, one of the key moments of the debate was when Stein was asked to account for the existence of the laws of logic in an [[atheist worldview]] (see: [[Atheism and logic]]),<ref>[http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/ "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?"] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZdOGCE5KQ The Great Debate: Does God Exist?] (YouTube video) - Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] versus Dr. Gordon Stein - Audio of a formal debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine.</ref>

In debates with atheists, presuppositional apologists will frequently ask their debate opponents the foundations/rationale of their various assumptions, beliefs and assertions and show logical inconsistencies in the opponents worldview. In the Bahnsen-Stein debate, one of the key moments of the debate was when Stein was asked to account for the existence of the laws of logic in an [[atheist worldview]] (see: [[Atheism and logic]]),<ref>[http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/ "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?"] or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZdOGCE5KQ The Great Debate: Does God Exist?] (YouTube video) - Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] versus Dr. Gordon Stein - Audio of a formal debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine.</ref>

[[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref>  

[[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref name="Bahsen at the Stein debate"/>  

The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>[http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZdOGCE5KQ The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein]</ref>

The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>[http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZdOGCE5KQ The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>Walsh, Ed (2007).  [http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html "Responses to atheist philosopher Michael Martin"].  Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics website.  Retrieved on May 14, 2015.</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>Walsh, Ed (2007).  [http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html "Responses to atheist philosopher Michael Martin"].  Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics website.  Retrieved on May 14, 2015.</ref>

See also: [[Press release after Michael Martin pulled out of Martin-Bahnsen debate|Bahnson-Martin debate press release]]

{{See also|Press release after Michael Martin pulled out of Martin-Bahnsen debate|l1=Bahnson-Martin debate press release}}

== Gary Habermas vs. atheist Antony Flew debate ==

== Gary Habermas vs. atheist Antony Flew debate ==

*[http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Gary Habermas on attempts to explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ]</ref>

*[http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Gary Habermas on attempts to explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ]</ref>

Dr. Habermas had a debate against the atheist philosopher [[Antony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges.  J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>.

Dr. Habermas had a debate against the atheist philosopher [[Antony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges.  J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique.".<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>  

Flew later became a [[deism|deist]].  Flew abandonment of atheism after being one of its foremost proponents received a lot of public attention.

Flew later became a [[deism|deist]].  Flew abandonment of atheism after being one of its foremost proponents received a lot of public attention.

''See also:'' [[A.C. Grayling vs. Rabbi Daniel Rowe debate]] and [[Atheism vs. Judaism]]

''See also:'' [[A.C. Grayling vs. Rabbi Daniel Rowe debate]] and [[Atheism vs. Judaism]]

[[File:AC Grayling.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[A.C. Grayling]] ]]

[[File:AC Grayling.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[A.C. Grayling]] ]]

The atheist [[A.C. Grayling|A.C. Grayling]] is a British philosopher. He is commonly called the fifth horseman of the [[New Atheism]] movement.  He debated Rabbi [[Daniel Rowe]] about the existence of God.

The atheist [[A.C. Grayling]] is a British philosopher. He is commonly called the fifth horseman of the [[New Atheism]] movement.  He debated Rabbi [[Daniel Rowe]] about the existence of God.

According to Dr. Michael Egnor, "Rowe devastated Grayling."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/fellow_atheist_102948.html Fellow Atheist Dismayed at A.C. Grayling's Debate Performance Versus Rabbi Rowe]</ref>

According to Dr. Michael Egnor, "Rowe devastated Grayling."<ref name="evolutionnews.org">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/fellow_atheist_102948.html Fellow Atheist Dismayed at A.C. Grayling's Debate Performance Versus Rabbi Rowe]</ref>

Atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] said of the debate:

Atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] said of the debate:

{{Cquote|I have to admit to finding the prospect of an orthodox rabbi holding his own in a debate with Dr. Grayling on God's existence rather disheartening, but I'm afraid that's exactly what went down the other night in London.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/fellow_atheist_102948.html Fellow Atheist Dismayed at A.C. Grayling's Debate Performance Versus Rabbi Rowe]</ref>}}

{{Cquote|I have to admit to finding the prospect of an orthodox rabbi holding his own in a debate with Dr. Grayling on God's existence rather disheartening, but I'm afraid that's exactly what went down the other night in London.<ref name="evolutionnews.org">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/fellow_atheist_102948.html Fellow Atheist Dismayed at A.C. Grayling's Debate Performance Versus Rabbi Rowe]</ref>}}

== Doug Jesseph ==

== Doug Jesseph ==

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism and debate that "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Douglas Jesseph]].<ref>Lowder, Jeffrey Jay (October 1997).  [http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html "How not to debate"].  ''Internet Infidels Newsletter''.  Retrieved from The Secular Web/Infidels/Newsletter/1997 on May 14, 2015.</ref>  

In October 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism and debate that "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Douglas Jesseph]].<ref>Lowder, Jeffrey Jay (October 1997).  [http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html "How not to debate"].  ''Internet Infidels Newsletter''.  Retrieved from The Secular Web/Infidels/Newsletter/1997 on May 14, 2015.</ref>  

Yet, Douglas Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>Jesseph, Douglas (1996). [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html "Opening statement by Doug Jesseph"].  ''The [Douglas] Jesseph-[William Lane] Craig Debate'' transcript.  Transcript retrieved from The Secular Web/Library/Modern/Doug Jesseph/Jesseph Craig on May 14, 2015.</ref> In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as 'nonsense' or 'paper chemistry.'"<ref>Bergman, Jerry, Ph. D. (March 2000).  [http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp "Why abiogenesis is impossible"].  ''Creation Research Science Quarterly'', vol. 36, no. 4.  Retrieved from The True.Origin Archive website on May 14, 2015.</ref>  In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>Horgan, John (1996). [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnlfvltnndwkstlnkevl ''The End of Science:  Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age''] (London:  Little, Brown & Co.), p. 138.  Retrieved from Stephen E. Jones website/Creation/Evolution Quotes/Origin of Life #1 on May 14, 2015.</ref>

Yet, Douglas Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>Jesseph, Douglas (1996). [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html "Opening statement by Doug Jesseph"].  ''The [Douglas] Jesseph-[William Lane] Craig Debate'' transcript.  Transcript retrieved from The Secular Web/Library/Modern/Doug Jesseph/Jesseph Craig on May 14, 2015.</ref> In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as 'nonsense' or 'paper chemistry.'"<ref>Bergman, Jerry, Ph. D. (March 2000).  [http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp "Why abiogenesis is impossible"].  ''Creation Research Science Quarterly'', vol. 36, no. 4.  Retrieved from The True.Origin Archive website on May 14, 2015.</ref>  In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>Horgan, John (1996). [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnlfvltnndwkstlnkevl ''The End of Science:  Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age''] (London:  Little, Brown & Co.), p. 138.  Retrieved from Stephen E. Jones website/Creation/Evolution Quotes/Origin of Life #1 on May 14, 2015.</ref>

In 2010, the worldwide atheist community was challenged to a debate by [[Creation Ministries International]] as prominent atheists were speaking at a 2010 global atheist convention in [[Australia]].<ref name="truefree">Ammi, Ken (May 2010). [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown "Richard Dawkins the cowardly clown"].  True Freethinker.  Retrieved on July 30, 2014.</ref> [[Richard Dawkins]], [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International.<ref name="truefree"/>   

In 2010, the worldwide atheist community was challenged to a debate by [[Creation Ministries International]] as prominent atheists were speaking at a 2010 global atheist convention in [[Australia]].<ref name="truefree">Ammi, Ken (May 2010). [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown "Richard Dawkins the cowardly clown"].  True Freethinker.  Retrieved on July 30, 2014.</ref> [[Richard Dawkins]], [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International.<ref name="truefree"/>   

A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic [[evolution|evolutionary]] position since [[World War II]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Multiple references:

A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic [[evolution]]ary position since [[World War II]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Multiple references:

*Batten, Don (December 1997).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ "A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists"]. ''Creation'', vol 20, no. 1, p. 32.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Don Batten]]

*Batten, Don (December 1997).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ "A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists"]. ''Creation'', vol 20, no. 1, p. 32.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Don Batten]]

*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph. D. (1999).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 "Chapter 1: Facts and bias"].  ''Refuting Evolution''.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Jonathan Sarfati]]</ref> Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]].<ref name="AnkerFraser">Multiple references:

*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph. D. (1999).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 "Chapter 1: Facts and bias"].  ''Refuting Evolution''.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Jonathan Sarfati]]</ref> Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]].<ref name="AnkerFraser">Multiple references:

*Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  

*Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  

In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref>Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm "Voices for evolution"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from the John Ankerberg show website on May 15, 2015.</ref>

In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref>Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm "Voices for evolution"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from the John Ankerberg show website on May 15, 2015.</ref>

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>Morris, Henry, Ph. D. (1996). [http://www.icr.org/article/811/ "Reason or rhetoric"].  ''Acts and Facts'', vol. 25, no. 11. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website on May 15, 2015.</ref> In addition, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist, [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  In an article entitled "Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate?" the [[Discovery Institute]] states the following:

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>Morris, Henry, Ph. D. (1996). [http://www.icr.org/article/811/ "Reason or rhetoric"].  ''Acts and Facts'', vol. 25, no. 11. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website on May 15, 2015.</ref> In addition, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist, [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  In an article entitled "Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate?" the [[Discovery Institute]] states the following:

{{cquote|Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.<ref>West, John G. (February 23, 2005).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html "Are Kansas evolutionists afraid of a fair debate?"]  Evolution News and Views.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

{{cquote|Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.<ref>West, John G. (February 23, 2005).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html "Are Kansas evolutionists afraid of a fair debate?"]  Evolution News and Views.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

Why do I say this?  Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between.  Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution—and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.<ref>Scott, Eugenie C. (1994). [http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/credebec.htm "Debates and the Globetrotters"].  Skeptic Tank Text Archive File website/Evolution.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

Why do I say this?  Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between.  Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution—and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.<ref>Scott, Eugenie C. (1994). [http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/credebec.htm "Debates and the Globetrotters"].  Skeptic Tank Text Archive File website/Evolution.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material regarding their correspondence with [[Richard Dawkins]] regarding a creation-evolution debate in which Richard Dawkins participated in as a debater.<ref name="creatmat">Humber, Paul G., M. S. (July/August 2003).  [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF "Debating Dawkins"].  ''Creation Matters'', vol. 8, no. 4.  Retrieved from April 15, 2014 Creation Research Society website archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref> The Creation Research Society stated regarding the debate the following:

In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material regarding their correspondence with [[Richard Dawkins]] regarding a creation-evolution debate in which Richard Dawkins participated in as a debater.<ref name="creatmat">Humber, Paul G., M. S. (July/August 2003).  [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF "Debating Dawkins"].  ''Creation Matters'', vol. 8, no. 4.  Retrieved from April 15, 2014 Creation Research Society website archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref> The Creation Research Society stated regarding the debate the following:

{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="creatmat"/>}}

{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="creatmat"/>}}

*Porter, Dan (July 21, 2008).  [http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins on the run: 'I find your behavior extremely bizarre...you duck and dodge and run away,' says Dinesh D'Souza"].  God, Christ:  Questions & Faith website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.

*Porter, Dan (July 21, 2008).  [http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins on the run: 'I find your behavior extremely bizarre...you duck and dodge and run away,' says Dinesh D'Souza"].  God, Christ:  Questions & Faith website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.

*D'Souza, Dinesh (July 28, 2008).  [http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera "Countering Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera"].  Townhall.com.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.

*D'Souza, Dinesh (July 28, 2008).  [http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera "Countering Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera"].  Townhall.com.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.

*D'Souza, Dinesh (November 15, 2007). [http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm "To debate or not to debate:  That is the question"].  To the Source website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Dinesh D'Souza also accused Dawkins of chasing down weak opponents to debate him in situations where Dawkins controls the editing. <ref name="nodebate"/>

*D'Souza, Dinesh (November 15, 2007). [http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm "To debate or not to debate:  That is the question"].  To the Source website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Dinesh D'Souza also accused Dawkins of chasing down weak opponents to debate him in situations where Dawkins controls the editing.<ref name="nodebate"/>

=== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is reported to have called Dawkins a coward  ===

=== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is reported to have called Dawkins a coward  ===

<br />

<br />

<small>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en  license agreement])</small> ]]

<small>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en  license agreement])</small> ]]

On September 4, 2011, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the [[evolution|evolutionist]] and atheist [[PZ Myers]]:

On September 4, 2011, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the [[evolution]]ist and atheist [[PZ Myers]]:

{{cquote|I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

{{cquote|I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

''See also:'' [[Atheism and morality]] and [[William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and morality]] and [[William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate]]

In 2011, Sam Harris debated the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] and philosopher [[William Lane Craig]] at the [[University of Notre Dame]] on the topic of morality and the debate was the proposition "Is Good From God?".<ref>[The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig], Notre Dame University YouTube channel, Uploaded on Apr 12, 2011</ref><ref>[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>

In 2011, Sam Harris debated the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] and philosopher [[William Lane Craig]] at the [[University of Notre Dame]] on the topic of morality and the debate was the proposition "Is Good From God?".<ref>[The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig], Notre Dame University YouTube channel, Uploaded on Apr 12, 2011</ref><ref name="thinkingmatters.org.nz">[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>

=== Reviews of the debate ===

=== Reviews of the debate ===

...Craig brought down the hammer and completely crushed Harris for the rest of the debate, by not only showing that Harris wasn’t engaging with the topic (he was equivocating between moral [[epistemology]] and ontology) but that his entire ethical system was necessarily false, by his own admission...

...Craig brought down the hammer and completely crushed Harris for the rest of the debate, by not only showing that Harris wasn’t engaging with the topic (he was equivocating between moral [[epistemology]] and ontology) but that his entire ethical system was necessarily false, by his own admission...

“A less moral framework is atheism,” started Craig with an exasperated laugh, and then went on to point out that Harris had said nothing to defend an atheistic foundation for morality, nor to refute Craig’s own arguments. To demonstrate how poorly Harris understood Christianity, and how irrelevant his “arguments” were, Craig quipped, in regards to Harris’s claim that the goal on theism is to avoid hell, “Belief in God isn’t some kind of fire insurance.” He then went on to list a number of other ways in which the red herrings that Harris had laid across the path were irrelevant—which was fair enough since there wasn’t much else to say.<ref>[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>}}

“A less moral framework is atheism,” started Craig with an exasperated laugh, and then went on to point out that Harris had said nothing to defend an atheistic foundation for morality, nor to refute Craig’s own arguments. To demonstrate how poorly Harris understood Christianity, and how irrelevant his “arguments” were, Craig quipped, in regards to Harris’s claim that the goal on theism is to avoid hell, “Belief in God isn’t some kind of fire insurance.” He then went on to list a number of other ways in which the red herrings that Harris had laid across the path were irrelevant—which was fair enough since there wasn’t much else to say.<ref name="thinkingmatters.org.nz">[http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/ How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy], Thinking Matters (New Zealand Christian Apologetics Ministry), April 9, 2011</ref>}}

Other reviews by Christians:  

Other reviews by Christians:  

==Madalyn Murray O'Hair debate with Dr. Walter Martin ==

==Madalyn Murray O'Hair debate with Dr. Walter Martin ==

[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], founder of [[American Atheists]], did poorly in her debate with Dr. [[Walter Martin]]<ref name="Martin">Martin, Walter and O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1968). [http://defendingcontending.com/2011/12/11/debate-walter-martin-vs-madalyn-murray-ohair-2/ "Debate: Walter Martin vs Madalyn Murray O’Hair."] MP3 audio. Retrieved from Defending Contending on July 30, 2014.</ref>  For example, when she claimed [[Atheism and the Bible|there were supposedly were contradictions in the Bible]], Dr. Martin asked her to provide an example of one and Ms. O'Hair did not and could not offer even an alleged example of a Bible contradiction.<ref name="Martin"/> In addition, Ms. O'Hair was ill prepared in terms of defending against the issue of [[Atheism and mass murder|atheism and mass murder]].<ref name="Martin"/>

[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], founder of [[American Atheists]], did poorly in her debate with Dr. [[Walter Martin]]<ref name="Martin">Martin, Walter and O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1968). [http://defendingcontending.com/2011/12/11/debate-walter-martin-vs-madalyn-murray-ohair-2/ "Debate: Walter Martin vs Madalyn Murray O’Hair."] MP3 audio. Retrieved from Defending Contending on July 30, 2014.</ref>  For example, when she claimed [[Atheism and the Bible|there were supposedly were contradictions in the Bible]], Dr. Martin asked her to provide an example of one and Ms. O'Hair did not and could not offer even an alleged example of a Bible contradiction.<ref name="Martin"/> In addition, Ms. O'Hair was ill prepared in terms of defending against the issue of [[atheism and mass murder]].<ref name="Martin"/>

== 2009 origin of life debate ==

== 2009 origin of life debate ==

{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "[[creationism|creationists]]" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "[[creationism|creationists]]" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[Junk DNA|junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.<ref>Crowther, Robert (December 1, 2009). [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html "Ouch.  Intelligent design guys put the sleeperhold on Darwin's defenders"].  Evolution News and Views website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.<ref>Crowther, Robert (December 1, 2009). [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html "Ouch.  Intelligent design guys put the sleeperhold on Darwin's defenders"].  Evolution News and Views website.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.<ref name="meyer"/>

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.<ref name="meyer"/>