Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Jason Spaceman Posts: 163 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,06:06    Quote We want a discussion of ideas, say JOHN WEST and BRUCE CHAPMAN 12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Nowhere is the free exchange of ideas supposed to be more robust or uninhibited than on college campuses. Thus, it is disheartening that certain professors and even some journalists are seeking to prevent scientists and philosophers who support the theory of intelligent design from explaining their views at the Darwin v. Design conference on the Southern Methodist University campus Friday and Saturday. At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations. Unfortunately, would-be censors are trying to get the conference banned from campus by ludicrously comparing intelligent design proponents to faith healers or even Holocaust deniers. Faith healers and Holocaust deniers are not on the faculties of reputable universities. Scientists who support intelligent design are. Read it here.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,12:44    I sent a dismissive missive to the paper in turn:   Quote Bruce Chapman and John West of the Discovery Institute ask why busy scientists "are afraid" to come to their prayer-circle and "debate them." This reminds me of the encounter I had last night at a bus stop with a belligerent man who kept bothering me despite the fact that I was trying to read my school assignment. “You just hate Indians!” he finally blared, after pooh-poohing my statement that I was related to some. [True story - what a flipping lunatic!] Keep up the “they’re afraid” whine, fellows. It’s all you have going for you. You certainly haven’t come up with a testable hypothesis or cured any diseases, although you have aligned yourself with the “global warming is a lie, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, women shouldn’t teach Hebrew at Southern Theological Baptist University” crowd. Big tent, small circus. I don’t know how it is down in Texas, but here in Minnesota we have a saying, and I bet sensible Texans would agree with it: talk is like sex. The more you spread it around, the less it’s worth. Get a lab, my dears. Not that I haven't spread any sex-talk around or anything.   -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,15:12    Someone should simply point out that public debate isn't how science is done. Have West submit his research papers, have those he'll talk with submit theirs, both sides will evaluate the research, and THEN the findings can be discussed. If you are interested in science, you aren't intested in people explaining their "views", you are interested in them explaining their results! Be prepared to detail how your hypotheses might be falsified, and why and how your chosen research methodology might do this. If you do NOT have test methods, have performed no experiments, and have no replicable empirical results, you might as well be a faith healer.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,17:48    Alas, for IDers, there already WAS a public debate.  It had international coverage.  The IDers were allowed to present *any* evidence, data or witnesses that they liked, and even had the opportunity to ask all the "evolutionists" all the big tough questions that they wanted to ask (ya know, that whole "vise" thingie). That public debate was called "Kitzmiller v Dover". It, uh, didn't go very well for the IDers . . . . . . The IDers simply have nothing to say NOW that they didn't say in Dover.   They shot their load.   They lost. It's time they got used to it.  (shrug) And as I said before, they should feel entirely free to whine, weep, scream, cry, jump up and down and wave their arms all they want to over the Dover decision.  But if they don't FOLLOW it, we'll sue the crap out of them. Game over. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Jason Spaceman Posts: 163 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,03:43    Quote Freedom of Speech vs. License Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinion It is noted that Aeschylus, in the 5th century B.C., wrote that truth is the first victim of war. As the conflict between science and religion once again heats up, truth is again in danger of being the victim. An academic campus is logically the appropriate setting for the science-religion debate, but it ought not to become a battlefield, lest truth be sacrificed by emotion and freedom become license. It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood. It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design" this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID). Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments." This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship. Read it here.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,09:16    I debated ID advocate and Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Fellow Ray Bohlin at SMU last year. Been *there*, done that. No fear here. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 11 2007,16:09 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,12:19    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/sarkar_lab_deba.html -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,01:41    Are ID Creationism Advocates Afraid to Acknowledge Past Debates? Quote The Discovery Institute’s big guns, John West and Bruce Chapman, had an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, “Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us?” They were complaining about Southern Methodist University faculty who objected to SMU providing facilities for a DI dog-and-pony show promoting “intelligent design” there. The DI’s approach to this was simple: turn it into a media opportunity by inviting one or a few SMU faculty to “debate” ID at the dog-and-pony show. The SMU faculty were, needless to say, less than enthusiastic about doing any such thing. Enter West and Chapman cashing in on the media attention by hyping the “Darwinists are afraid to debate us” angle. Apparently, West and Chapman don’t want to acknowledge what happened when I debated DI CSC Fellow Ray Bohlin at SMU last year. [...] -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:07    Wesley, Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.   SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:12    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:07) Wesley, Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.   SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason? Why are you talking about "open dialogue"? You've heard it all before, haven't you. Why don't you get back on your thread and leave the hypocrisy alone. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:18    Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.  I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space.   If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face. And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now.  But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media. Just, MO. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:19    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:07) Wesley, Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.   SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason? The illusion that there is "something to think about" is all the IDers want. What that thing is is irrelevant. If IDers are stood on stage with scientists then they are perceived to be the same, or nearly so. The "discussion" already happened in Dover. Accept that, and perhaps things can move on! Nobody's "afraid" to debate. It's just why bother? Do you debate Hindus as to who's got the "right" religion? No? Why not? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:26    Was there a "discussion" in Dover?   I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:34    Ftk, Did you read the Dover decision? It manifestly was not a biased decision, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Judge Jones' comments. Anyway, debate, dialogue, isn't that what we've been trying to get you to participate in over here to no avail? I still have a couple of science questions for you over on your dedicated thread of joy and flirting! ;-) Join me there and we'll have debate and dialogue. Louis -------------- Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:41    My debate with Bohlin was on the narrow topic, "Intelligent design is a topic suitable for inclusion in public K12 school science curricula". It was a public policy debate. I took the negative. Bohlin led off with saying that ID was not yet ready for inclusion in K12 science classrooms, conceding the point. The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans. What I would suggest to the SMU professors is that, failing to persuade SMU to boot the DI dog-and-pony show off-campus, they should arrange an event for scientists to present cool research into evolutionary science, and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program. I see no reason for the SMU professors to legitimate the DI dog-and-pony snake oil sales pitch with their presence. Quote ID is not a legitimate branch of intellectual inquiry. It began in the deception of “Of Pandas and People” and ended in the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover case. Doctors don’t have to respond to demands from snake-oil salesmen to “debate”. The real issues are that ID represents a narrow sectarian religious viewpoint, not science, and that science classrooms should have the information that is accountable, that is, that has a record of success in the scientific literature. Evolutionary biology has a voluminous record in science, with both experiments and observational studies testing hypotheses, with development of ideas where erroneous ideas have demonstrably been culled, and with application of ideas that improve our lives every day in medicine, agriculture, and even engineering disciplines. Evolutionary biology has convinced the scientific community in the only “debate” that matters. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 12 2007,10:45 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:42    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:18) Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.  I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space.   If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face. And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now.  But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media. Just, MO. You edit comments out that expose your hypocrisy. That's why a thread for you exists here. You can post here without fear of them not making it through - a freedom you wont extend to others. I think the idists / creobots would be better served doing science rather then trying to have a culture war. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:48    Quote Was there a "discussion" in Dover?   I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject. Well yes. The ID folk had the opportunity to present whatever evidence they wanted, and put those mean scientists in "the vice," and had the good fortune to do so before a conservative, Christian judge. The fact that the defense could provide no evidence of ID was telling. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:48    I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors. I think that there is a word for that... Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 12 2007,10:50 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,10:55    Quote and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program. What does this gobbledygook mean?   "critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:01    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:26) Was there a "discussion" in Dover?   I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not. Have you read the trial transcripts? I guess not by your usage of the phrase "I was under the impression". Don't you think that before you offer opinions on "a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject" you should perhaps read the transcripts? Do you need a link? Come back when you've read them. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:03    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,10:55) Quote and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program. What does this gobbledygook mean?   "critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes? Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:07    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,09:26) Was there a "discussion" in Dover?   I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not. You're saying there was no debate in cross-examination? Well, if the trial transcripts lack drama for you (and the truth that came out about the purchase of that gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!] Of Pandas and People was pretty riveting), I guess Dembski should have testified then. Man, if my fav fundertaker is ever put under oath I want it videotaped.   -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:19    Quote I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors. I'm kinda thinkin' that the ID folks aren't going to hurl insults like the ones I find sitting in moderation on my blog.  It also seems to me from what I've read that the SMU professors aren't being denied anything.  Sounds like they can come in a say whatever they want.  It's called *dialogue*.  Conversations *with* each other rather than *at* each other. Btw, Richard, are you saying that Dave, Blipey, and Zach's arguments suck?  Perhaps you could do better?  Doubtful, hon. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:33    Quote gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!] Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term. Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:45    No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about. Back in 1996, I got a "call for papers" for a conference called "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise". There was no mention of "intelligent design" in it. It was, it turned out, fully an IDC conference, funded with DI CRSC money and featuring all of the DI big names with the exception of Michael Behe. Not knowing that, I submitted an abstract and got accepted to present there. During Phillip Johnson's plenary talk, he went on about how the mere attendance of critics of "intelligent design" helped "legitimate the question". Whoa. There had been no mention of "legitimating the question" if I showed up at the party. You probably have no idea how upset that made me. We are far, far past the point of deferring judgment concerning bad behavior of that sort on the part of IDC advocates. Of course IDC advocates manipulate critics and the media and claim that their position is improved thereby, no matter what the content of what the critic said. They've done that consistently at least since 1997. This latest media stunt is no different than the thing at Biola last year: scour around for token critics, give them a minor presence at the event (let them ask a few questions where there's no limit on how long the answers can be or how well IDC advocates respond to the actual question), and forever after use the fact that they were there as a talking point for the legitimacy of IDC. That's not dialogue, that's demagoguery. Fool me once, as the saying goes... -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:56    IDC advocates do hurl insults, some of them quite nasty. Pretending they don't "hurl insults" is going nowhere. They are "hurling insults" even within their "invitations". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:58    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:26) I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Your impressionis wrong,  In particular "J then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling." is a flat-out lie.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:02    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,11:33) Quote gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!] Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term. Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology. Hi FTK, Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:13    I'm not sure what to make of the creationist fixation on  what they perceive as name caling and insults. I wonder if they even read the material that their own side produces, and if so, if they perceive any negativity, incivility, etc. in it.  Most likely not. It is that whole 'framing' thing - when an evilutionist tells a creationist he'she is closed-minded and ignorant, that is incivil, rude, name calling.  When a creationist says the same thing to an evilutionist, it is okey-dokey because it is 'the truth.' The saddest part is, they truly do not seem capable of seeing their hypocrisy.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,12:26    Quote Hi FTK, Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No. No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading. I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*. Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard