I don’t follow Christian or ID advocate debates unless it is with one of the atheists that I mentioned. Couldn’t care less about Christian or ID advocates debating among themselves.
“You haven’t even explained why you posted the video” Oh yes I have multiple times - it is an interesting exchange that I think Meyer got the best off. You could speed watch like Patrick and watch it is less time than the video length. Please don’t watch as I have to desire to violate your safe space.
Meyer got the best of no one.
i didn’t speed watch it . I watched it in 61 minutes. Meyer’s SiTC is total non sense.
You said you didn’t find anything in the video compelling. How would Meyer “get the best of” the exchange when you can’t find anything compelling in the entire video?
Are you going to explain your unwarranted hostility? Or are you just irritated with all biologists as a rule?
1 Like
Patrick you are contradicting yourself again. You claim that you have never seen Hitch, Dawkins, Krauss etc. never lose a debate despite the fact they usually debate Christians/ID’ers. You claim that Dinesh D’Souza did not get the better of Dan Dennett at Tufts. You also claimed that you watched the video I posted above. Then you say “I don’t follow Christian or ID advocate debates. Couldn’t care less about them”. You are one strange dude.
I don’t follow WLC, or Lennox or ID advocates. However I do follow Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Carroll, Krause, and Barker.
I posted this video well over an hour ago. You could have watched it in that time. Yawn.
“Or are you just irritated with all biologists as a rule?” Nope just silly ones who what a detailed pithy compelling reason to watch a posted video.
“I don’t follow WLC, or Lennox or ID advocates. However I do follow Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Carroll, Krause, and Barker.” So you have never seen them debate Christians? Now that is very odd.
Much less now. Of course, now there are “Greatest Hits” videos out there of Dawkins and Hitchens.
You really think Christianity and ID is flourishing now? And science, and secular reasoning is not? Where do you live and work?
““Greatest Hits” videos out there of Dawkins and Hitchens” You mean the ones in which their debate opponents are edited out? Oh dear what a sad, fearful life you must lead.
btw, I live a happy, fearless to your ID God, life.
1 Like
Just seeing this now. I do not get the point of this thread. Is it not clear that:
-
Scientific truth is not adjudicated by public debate. Period.
-
Rhetorically strength and prowess in debate is negatively correlated with scientific competence.
-
We are strongly biased to interprete a debate as “our side winning” no matter what happens.
So why would any intelligent person care who won the debate between @art and Meyer?
4 Likes
My recap of this interesting experience may be found here. As I explain, Meyer made some significant concessions regarding information and the machine metaphor for living things.
About the postscript: If, by some wild chance, any of the Bioloa students who were there are reading this, maybe you could comment about my lecture. Even today, IMO, some of the ideas I discussed are timely.
3 Likes
I don’t know about the debate, but IMO Steve Mathewson and I made a much better connection with the audience.
1 Like
Thank you for your link. But I think you really should be encouraging people to watch the exchange rather than refer to you own comments. Although using terms like “filibuster”, “philosophical rhetoric”, “canned answer” in regards to Meyer reflects your own insecurity and does nothing to colour Meyer.
Matheson was decimated by Meyer at 46:24 but I give Meyer credit here. Meyer was quick to say that this was not a “got ya” moment but instead a difference of philosophy of science. Hunt continuously claimed some self-replication ruled out any possible CSI structures and was digging the same hole that Matheson found himself in.
Ummm. I post a genuine video of a dialogue between a evolutionary biologist and an ID advocate and ‘Peaceful Science’ goes crazy. Some of my posts are hidden; Patrick watches a 65 minute video in a little over 40 minutes; Curtis demands what is so ‘compelling’ as to why he should watch it when I care less if he watches it or not; Hunt links to his recollections (with plenty of ad homs) of the event and not to the video itself.
As for Josh “So why would any intelligent person care who won the debate between @art and Meyer?” Well, clearly a lot of unintelligent people do seen to care.
Very interesting bit on the “The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran” with all links to the science and replies. Although this article mostly home in on Matheson and Moran, Hunt joins the melee as well. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes.html
One post was flagged as inappropriate for incivility and was hidden.
The only communication from me has been to say this is a silly argument. And right now I am the only one who comminicates on behalf of “Peaceful Science”. So in what sense did Peaceful Science “go crazy”?
Politics drives a lot of people to absurd priorities. This is just another example of this. I do not care who won the debate. @art’s post confirmed that Meyer is much stronger rhetorically. He is arguing archane (and important) technical details that went over the heads of the audience entirely. It is hard to imagine these arguments “winning” a debate, whether or not they are correct or important.
You’ve linked to a video and he has linked to his take on the video. So what?
It is clear that your priorities are merely on scoring points…
I would agree with this entirely. The reason why is that this encounter was at Biola University (home turf for Meyers), and it was not a fairly organized debate, but a followup Q&A. This was designed to put the questioners at a disadvantage. Meyers also is making a populist appeal to a sympathetic audience. It is a performance in a public space designed to accomplish a purpose. @Art and Matheson are props in that public theatre. Of he got the best of them. It has nothing to do with evidence, and that for which the event was defined. They were the “heels”.
In the same way, Ken Ham go the best of Bill Nye, and Nathaniel Jeanson got the best of Dennis Venema. Ken Hovind, in his day, ran circles around most the people he debated too. This is one reason I write…
This is why most scientists will not publicly engage with YEC advocates. It is the same reason they usually do not engage with ID advocates. They are much better at populist appeals, sometimes entirely abandoning scientific coherence and evidence as they do so.
So seriously @theman8469, what is this about really? Fine, in an imbalanced exchange, Meyer got the better of @Art on rhetoric in a crowd already convinced of ID. The crowd had no ability or desire to follow his scientific point. Neither do you @theman8469. I’d like to see a fair exchange.
2 Likes