More On Dawkins' and Nye's Cowardice

To be able to present a case before the US Supreme Court, one thing that you need is "standing". Fine, I can see that any Joe on the street is not going to be able to be heard. In like manner, experts in their field are not interested in debating just anyone who has a challenge. Nor do creationists need to "debate" evolutionists whose only notable characteristics are irrationality and rage.

So, why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig? He made all sorts of claims to be willing to debate his topic, then limited himself to high-level religious figures. (Debate a cardinal about science philosophies, sounds legit.) Of course, he debated other people despite the limitations that he set. But he will not debate William Lane Craig. Why not? He certainly does have "standing".  Even if he didn't have the status needed, Craig is such a "rock star" in some theological circles (not to me, I have some serious disagreements with him, but never mind about that now), Dawkins can make an exception to his personal rules, debate and shut him up once and for all. But we know that he cannot win, and that is why he keeps running away and making excuses.

Here is a video that is outdated in one respect, but the other eight minutes are valid:

Perhaps Dawkins is dodging because he (like Bill Nye and many other atheists I have encountered) do not have a basic grasp of elementary logic:

Bill Nye suffers from the same problems. Not only is he lacking in a basic understanding of science, he may be unwilling to debate someone because of their "standing". (For that matter, Dr. Purdom is lowering herself in her willingness to debate Nye the Fascist Humanist Guy. Yes, that's right, I said it! He said parents should not teach creation science to their children. Fascist.) Or perhaps it is because of his own lack of formal training; he is not actually a scientist. But he could win the day for Darwin's Stormtroopers by trouncing a challenger in a debate, yes?
Nah.