ORIGINAL INVITATION/CHALLENGE WAS SENT ON 27 NOVEMBER AS FOLLOWS:

To the Organiser, Global Atheist Convention 2010

Att. Mr David Nicholls

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
PMB 6 Maitland SA 5573
Phone 08 8835 2269
Email info@atheistfoundation.org.au

Copy sent by email and hard copy followup by mail.

27 November 2009

Dear Mr Nicholls

Open Invitation to public debate – atheists vs creationists

I refer to the Global Atheist Convention, “The Rise of Atheism”, due to take place March 12-14 next year in Melbourne, Australia.

From your website, all the speakers appear to have been chosen but not all details are yet set in stone.

I note that the public utterances of several of the planned speakers, particular Professor Dawkins, project a supreme confidence that the evidence most certainly does not support creation as per Genesis (recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood, etc) but that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).

We find that a frankly bizarre proposition, and issue this invitation/challenge to a formal public debate in Melbourne on this matter (i.e. which position on origins, yours or ours, is better supported by the available evidence?). The exact wording can be finetuned between us, but the above should adequately clarify the nature of the subject matter with little room for misunderstanding.

We propose three speakers nominated from your array of atheist champions brought in for the purpose of this convention, vs three nominated from among our small group of CMI scientists and speakers. Since Dr Dawkins is by far the most vocal, this challenge should include him on your side, to “put up or shut up” in a sense. (Since it is a “panel debate”, i.e. “Atheists vs Creationists”, not “Dawkins vs X”, this will hopefully be able to outweigh his normal stated reasons for not participating.)

Our proposed conditions would be as follows:

• That it be public (if a modest fee is charged by mutual agreement, it can be shared among the participants less hire costs).
• That permission be granted for either side to professionally videotape (or we can share the costs of doing it jointly) with each side free to use or not use the final raw footage.
• That a mutually agreed-upon “neutral” chairperson, of good personal and public reputation, be selected and required to keep the parties, on the day, strictly to the conditions and times set.
• That the timing and structure be such that there is opportunity for proper rebuttal by both sides ( /-counterrebuttal and/or a series of audience questions). If a question time, the questions and answers should be strictly regulated in length, be alternately addressed to atheists and creationists, and that the opposing group to the answering group be permitted a (shorter) response time in each case.

Given that you have some of the world’s leading lights of atheism in one place, and that we are prepared to come down there (at a date and time of your/their convenience around the time of the conference), I would have thought that this would be an opportunity to relish. You have the chance (if your arguments really do stand up, as they are continually promoted) to be able to finally demolish some of the world’s most prominent proponents of scientific creationism in one sitting, and in public. Plus you could forever have the rights to market or otherwise distribute this “demolition” on DVD anywhere in the world.

Of course, it is possible that those are right who say that while Dr Dawkins and others have no difficulty countering “strawman” arguments of their own making, encountering the actual arguments of informed and scientifically trained creationists is something they would have no stomach for.

I hope that this turns out to be wrong, and if accepting, I would welcome being able to move forward on discussing the few remaining details. I look forward to your reply at your early convenience.

Sincerely,

Dr Carl Wieland

Managing Director
Creation Ministries International (Australia)

THE SAME DAY A RESPONSE CAME FROM DAVID NICHOLLS BY EMAIL:

Hello Carl,

Thanks for your email. We expect Richard Dawkins and other credible scientists would consider debating a position that is supported by an equal amount of evidence in accredited scientific literature as supports evolution. However, at present, that is not even close to being the case for creationism. In any event, it is the Convention’s policy to not arrange interviews or debate with any of the presenters, as the FAQ page of the Convention website states. If you wish to contact Professor Dawkins or other presenters directly, of course you may do so.

Kindest regards,

David

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

CARL WIELAND REPLIED THE SAME DAY:

Hi, David.

Thanks very much for the superquick response.

I note, however, that there is no mention of debates in the FAQ section you mentioned, reproduced below.

Item 8 comes the closest to being relevant, where it states:

“Any requests for interviews should be sent directly to the presenter or their agent.”

I would have thought that our invitation/challenge, being a group affair, was in a different category altogether. Especially since point 1 in the FAQ section states: "The program has not yet been finalised".

Given the importance of the issue, and the amount of time and effort spent by atheist groups worldwide on "countering" creationism, including the recent publication of Dr Dawkins’ book on the evidence for evolution, it seems somewhat strange for you as organiser to sidestep the opportunity without even giving the presenters a chance to consider the request. If you would be so kind as to either

a) Provide the email contact details for each so we might forward the invitation to each simultaneously, or

b) Undertake to do so on our behalf forthwith, so that they might make a group decision on this group invitation, we would be grateful.

Incidentally, concerning your comment about the lack of scientific evidence for creation (as opposed to the question of whether such evidence is permitted an airing in secular scientific journals)–that is surely the very point at issue. If there is this paucity of evidence, then such a debate would enable you to successfully highlight and reinforce that. And you would be doing so in front of large numbers of onlookers, as there would be huge interest in creationist circles in the US, for instance, in this age of the internet.

Polls consistently suggest that perhaps over 100 million individuals in the US, for instance, reject goo-to-you evolution in favour of divine creation. Unless one chooses to accept the convenient caricature that these are all semi-retarded rednecks, a major reason is surely that their perception about the evidence influences that view, at least to some extent. I would have thought that this would be a priority for your group, given that atheist-allied groups continually raise alarmist calls about these sorts of figures.

In short, if the evidence really does line up behind your macroevolutionary view (as is so often claimed when there is no one there to point out the contrary), here’s an amazing, unique opportunity. You would be bringing some of the best atheist minds in the world to bear on the topic, and your opponents would be folk belonging to an organisation which has

a) Had more people read its magazines on creation over the last 3 decades, over a greater number of countries, than any other worldwide.

b) Includes the author of the world’s top-selling book on the evidence that counters evolution and supports biblical creation (well over 500,000 in print).

By discrediting publicly this group’s claim that the evidence supports biblical creation, you would have a chance to finally convince huge numbers of those who currently doubt your claim to the reverse. In fact, we would be pleased to have our Australian Broadcasting Corporation agree to film and televise the entire session live.

I look forward to your reply, once again.

Yours sincerely,

Carl

Dr Carl Wieland

(SCROLL PAST THIS TEXT AS DESIRED, ONLY PROVIDED FOR COMPLETENESS)

DAVID’S RESPONSE SAME DAY:

Hello Carl,

The Global Atheist Convention has increased our workload manyfold. If we leave emails for too long they build up in their hundreds, therefore I will respond quickly when there is a reason to do so.

I thought I made it very clear that if you wish to debate any of our guests, then you will have to organise it yourself. We do not impart private information about speakers or performers. Our exact program is not finalised but we have a full compliment of speakers and performers.

If you skirt the question about accredited articles, then it is no wonder you are having trouble finding people to debate. Debate is not science, it is playing upon the prejudices of the audience. Scientific conclusion is about peer reviewing work from accredited scientific journals. I really can’t see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism.

Kindest regards,

David

David Nicholls

President AFA

CARL’S SAME DAY:

Hi again, David.

Thanks once again for your response.

Organising the debate is not a problem, we’re happy to be of whatever assistance you need for that.

I can understand why you would want to skirt around any appearance of declining a debate, but I gently suggest that it’s not a "good look" for you to be acting as "gatekeeper" so as to either

a) prevent the presenters from finding out about the invitation

or (perish the thought)

b) seeming to do so, in order to provide a way for presenters to be able to position themselves as if they knew nothing of it, or at least not in time (when asked the inevitable question as to why they would refuse such a golden opportunity).

These delegates, positioned as representing the cream of global atheism, always have the prerogative of refusal. And I can understand not providing contact addresses. That’s why I gave the other option, of you forwarding my email to them.

May I therefore ask for a response to that part of my request, please, to undertake to forward that email to them?

I’m sure they would find it of at least passing interest, even if unwilling to take the risk of a public debate loss. And in their shoes, I would probably appreciate the right to make the decision myself, in any case.

Sincerely,

Carl

Dr Carl Wieland

DAVID’S SAME DAY:

Hello Carl,

You seem to have purposely missed the point. The people we have speaking at the Global Atheist Convention would not debate with those promoting the idea of alien abduction as there is no accredited credible evidence for it. The same is true of creationism. We therefore would not send an invitation from either group to our honoured guests for a debate because of that.

You must realise, Carl, that both Professor Dawkins and PZ Myers have web sites where you can contact them directly. We will not facilitate an invitation we consider to have no legitimate basis in rational thought.

If you cannot understand what I am saying, I will use simpler language next time.

Kindest regards,

David

David Nicholls

President AFA

• World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge