…and this is a 
Change of plans
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 4, 2008 4:56 PM, by PZ Myers
I know many of you had your hearts set on a debate between me and Ray Comfort, but there has been a slight change of plans, for the better, I think. Instead of a debate, Comfort will be on tomorrow morning, Tuesday, at 10am Central time, and will express himself without fear of snorts of derision from me. I will then be on Wednesday, same time of day, to address the same topics. It's a better plan, since we all know Comfort is going to gallop through a scattershot collection of nonsense, and I'll be able to say something coherent in contrast the next day.
You can listen to WDAY radio live. I'll open a thread Tuesday morning for anyone to state their opinions here as it plays out on the radio.
Comments
Posted by: Zak | August 4, 2008 5:07 PM
Dammit! While this may be the best for educating people, I was really looking forward to PZ destroying Comfort, and exposing his unacceptable ignorance of evolution.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | August 4, 2008 5:11 PM
Professor Myers:
Whose idea was it to change the format?
Posted by: pcarini | August 4, 2008 5:12 PM
Sounds like a good idea to me. It will be much more difficult for Mr. Comfort to get away with ignoring your rebuttals and claiming victory. Or at least he won't be able to do it in real time. It also ensures that no one can monopolize the time and that their own presentations suffer if they harp on any one point for too long.
Posted by: McLir | August 4, 2008 5:13 PM
That's a better setup. Ray Comfort has a real talent for insulting the intelligence of his audience. You'll have better ears on a separate show.
Posted by: Hoonser | August 4, 2008 5:18 PM
I'm somewhat dubious of this method. Fans of the ID franchise might just tune in to listen to hoozits speak, but then not bother listening to your responses because you're the devil's messenger.
At least if you get a head to head debate, fans of that guy would be forced to listen to the rebuttals.
Posted by: pcarini | August 4, 2008 5:20 PM
Any word on whether they'll have mp3s available after the fact? I would love to hear this exchange, but I doubt I'll be able to at work.
Also, going up second seems like quite an advantage to me. You can be much more focused in your destruction of Comfort's talking points. An advantage unless... are you sure they're not going to put Ben Stein on the air Thursday morning to compare scientists to nazis?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 4, 2008 5:21 PM
It was the radio station's idea. I like it. It's better to have a block of time to talk about substance, rather than having to chase Comfort's ludicrous contortions.
Posted by: techskeptic | August 4, 2008 5:24 PM
I agree with #5 and would reiterate the question of #2. Sure going up second is good, but the creos will simply not listen to your show. Or they will whine that Comfort was not given a chance to rebut your remarks, just like you (rightly) did when that radio show had your opponent on again the next day without you.
I too was looking for can o' whoopass being opened.
Posted by: GBruno | August 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Congratulations on going second...this is one scenario when being second wins.
Posted by: Bryn | August 4, 2008 5:35 PM
I dunno, I think that a disdainful sniff (or snort) is, at most, all that Ray's arguments deserve.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 5:39 PM
the creos will simply not listen to your show
It doesn't matter, since they can't hear anything that contradicts their beliefs anyway. The target should always be those who are capable of listening, not those who refuse to. And the latter will be able to hear PZ a lot better this way.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 4, 2008 5:41 PM
Instead of Ray Comfort, PZ, maybe you should think about debating someone like Brother Guy Consolmagno, a Vatican astronomer with a PhD from MIT. He's got academic creds Ray doesn't have and it'll look better on your resume.
I found Consolmagno when I was trying to track a lie told by one of your godbot posters through its various plagiarized sources.
Posted by: hje | August 4, 2008 5:44 PM
The original format was a "Kobayashi Maru" exercise. It's very hard to have a rational debate with the irrational. Comfort would likely shift the focus of the debate away from science at the beginning. Anyone who has posted at his blog knows what's that like.
Who cares if creos listen to PZ's segment? As if they would end up saying, "Gee. I never thought of that before. Maybe I should question some of my strongly held beliefs."
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 4, 2008 5:46 PM
Ah, it's much better for reason, much worse for entertainment.
I'm not proud of it, but I did want to hear the grunts and squeals of Ray's evisceration.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: beano | August 4, 2008 5:46 PM
You coward.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 4, 2008 5:50 PM
Perhaps the producers will provide a recording, or at least a transcript of Comfort's points...might be a bit easier for you as there will be no interruptions, blathering, etc.
Of course, this scenario might create a cascade of rebuttal after rebuttal, creating a game of Who Gives Up First.
Posted by: Sean Wills | August 4, 2008 5:51 PM
Am I correct in thinking that this will be on at 4pm GMT?
Posted by: anthropicOne | August 4, 2008 5:53 PM
As much as I would have enjoyed Comfort being reduced to a quivering blob of protoplasm, I agree this new format is superior.
The only interruptions, if any, would be from the host.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 6:02 PM
This definitely seems like a better way to actually discuss the issues. Too many "debates" seem to be structured with the ulterior motive of getting the participants shouting at one another. Having time to actually discuss the issues at some length is, I think, considerably to your advantage: science doesn't distill into pithy fifteen-second soundbytes.
Posted by: Thethyme | August 4, 2008 6:27 PM
Here's the problem, it the people who won't listen to PZ's side the next day... Comfort will just expouse his nonsense with impunity I am sure he will have new gems like god made poop brown so we know if helps to fertilize the earth or some silliness
Posted by: Fatboy | August 4, 2008 6:28 PM
I agree with others in that many people that are only interested in Comfort's side simply won't tune in the next day. I'd also imagine there will be a fair number of people who are out running an errand or something similar, and will only happen onto the radio show by luck of timing. They probably won't tune in the following day, either, so will only hear Comfort's inanity (though there will probably be an equally sized group of people who only catch PZ's part).
Going second is a huge advantage, though it seems a bit unfair to Comfort (not that I have much sympathy for him).
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | August 4, 2008 6:32 PM
Maybe the radio station was worried that PZ would get his butt kicked. It seems they have given him an unfair advantage.
Posted by: pcarini | August 4, 2008 6:34 PM
Stimpy, you eediot!
Posted by: Archaneus | August 4, 2008 6:37 PM
Oooh... now I'm sad. I was very much looking forward to listening to you rip him apart on everything he tried to say. while this format may be more effective as far as you being able to respond rationally without him try to banter back and forth about pointless crap, it same drawbacks. The first one being Ray Comfort will be able to complain that he wasn't able to respond to your comments like you will be able to with his and therefore the whole thing will be biased in your favor. The second being it will be far less entertaining than listening to him splutter out ineffectual counters to your responses.
Posted by: Physicalist | August 4, 2008 6:39 PM
Well, I have to say that it was precisely the snorts of derision that I was most looking forward to.
Posted by: Archaneus | August 4, 2008 6:41 PM
Wow, um, I don't know what happened to my message but it's plagued with typos that weren't there when I proofed it before posting. Oh well, I think the substance of the message is still present.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | August 4, 2008 6:41 PM
I think the "debate" would have been a better format, since our Tentacled Overlord could have, in real time, pointed out such techniques as the "Gish Gallop" and the "Argument from Incredulity". It would be nice to provide our trusty B.S. destroying toolkit for people who are new to the reason-based community.
Posted by: Phineas | August 4, 2008 6:45 PM
@ Phentari, #19: Or structured so that the moderators force one side (generally those promoting evolution) to skip past some deeply flawed and ridiculous creationist arguments.
While having more time to present your argument is a good thing, have you considered the downside, PZ? Now there's going to be a solid hour or so of Ray Comfort on his own that you'll have to listen to in order to refute. The horror.
Posted by: mothwentbad | August 4, 2008 6:48 PM
Ah, cool, PZ. You could post a link to Comfort's crap, and have us write your rebuttal for you, if you wanted. Though at 12 lpm (lies per minute), it would take several hours to refute every last distortion. :(
Posted by: rufustfirefly | August 4, 2008 6:48 PM
Number 14:
How true. There's no little entertainment value now.
Posted by: Polyester Mather D.D. | August 4, 2008 6:49 PM
Meanwhile,back in Dallas , here's a spittle flecked bit of Tom Dreher's column t from the day before the spouted at AZ:
"my own heart was broken by the systematic protection of sexual criminals by the Roman Catholic Church, I thrashed around, pinned by rage and panic over what pervert priests had done to children and what bishops who knew better allowed to go unpunished. I left my church to escape the pain like a wild animal chews off its leg to get out of a trap."
Wholething at :
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.4d7ef8f.html
The anger that wrecked my faith didn't start with news stories of clerical sex abuse I read. It started the summer before eighth grade, on a hotel room floor."
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 6:50 PM
Seriously, what's with all the lickspittles who post here?
Atheism in-and-of-itself is nothing to be so proud of: it's the absence of certain beliefs, after all. The noise in here is a deafening me-tooism. You cheer on your hero, but do you have any guts yourselves?
Prof Meyers--do you read all this stuff? Does it go to your head, or does it make you vaguely nauseous? (Maybe both?)
(PS: Y'all can call me a troll, if that's easiest.)
Posted by: Quamous | August 4, 2008 6:51 PM
I think its better this way. Debating wackos looks good on their resumes, not so good on yours.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 6:52 PM
Oh, before I get called an ignoramus: yes, I realize I spelled his name wrong.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 6:59 PM
Ben, #32
In a way I agree with you, Ben; atheism shouldn't be anything to be proud of - like aracism or amisogyny it should be the default. But until religious believers grow up and stop believing in fairy tales then it will remain the intellectually-honest high ground.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 7:01 PM
No, the spittle-flecked thread is yonder (←), 6 posts previous or so.
That's why we're also pro-science, pro-skepticism, pro-rationalism, pro-secular-humanism, and pro-freethinking.
Oh, and we're also anti-idiocy, so feel free to move along any time now.
Calling you a troll, while accurate, does not even begin to approach the full and proper description of your character. So, yes, it's easier: You're a troll. Shoo.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 7:08 PM
Atheism in-and-of-itself is nothing to be so proud of: it's the absence of certain beliefs, after all.
Certain wrong beliefs that are widely held. Not falling for common mistakes seems like something people can reasonably be proud of.
Beyond that, your post is a series of non sequiturs and falsehoods.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 7:10 PM
@36: If you were more honest, you would have inferred my exclusion of posters who express any of the qualities you enumerate.
My point was that, after a good week reading this blog and its comments, I've concluded a Toady-to-Sage ratio of roughly 8:1.
And, since you set yourself up for this one, maybe you could tell me just what a "full and proper description of my character" would entail?
Finally: "Shoo"? -- how prim.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 7:12 PM
Ben appears to consider credulity is a virtue.
Say, Ben - I have some friends in Nigeria who'd like to speak to you about some money...
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 7:14 PM
@37: When the entire village jumps off the cliff on a whim, it's nothing to be proud of that you happened to be in the crapper at the time.
As for my post: I was making an observation, not an argument--so you should be very proud to have found a non-sequitur.
Posted by: Christopher | August 4, 2008 7:16 PM
Schlafly _STILL_ at it!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS
He has no credentials to argue the study was flawed, his accusations have been pointed out, both on his site and elsewhere, to be ignorant or inaccurate, and yet he persists.
What a tool.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 7:19 PM
@39: Credulity implies a transaction involving vulnerability. But no: I meant simply that the argument would progress more quickly without lame diversions.
(Come, sit down! I'm free all afternoon.)
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 7:22 PM
Thethyme @ 20:
The people who simply refuse to listen to Dr. Myers' segment are the ones who weren't going to listen to his points anyway--the ones who would've declared Comfort the winner of the debate no matter what. The point to discussing the issues isn't to sway such folks: it's to sway the folks who aren't sure.
Posted by: Allytude | August 4, 2008 7:22 PM
And that is why fellow fleckers of spit one should not desecrate bananas with communion wafers.
Oh and do we lick spittle besides flecking it? Now this could be quite a feat- atheists only.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 7:22 PM
Ben, #40
Again, Ben, I agree with you; I'm not as much proud of being an atheist as I am embarrassed for those who aren't.
But that's me. I never believed. I didn't break free after years of cultural and social indoctrination or having to face the likelihood of being shunned as outcast by my family and former friends.
For some people it's actually a struggle, a decision they've spent countless hours agonising over before finally making the break and accepting that nearly everything they once believed in is false.
There are a lot of atheists who fall into that category, Ben - and that is something to be proud of.
You should try reading some deconversion stories.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 7:27 PM
Actually, Ben, believe it or not, I'm not an atheist. However, I also don't embrace the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, and I dislike the dishonesty and sophistry employed by some anti-evolutionists. I think that the best way to combat it is to calmly and rationally present the facts, and I hope that's what will happen here.
Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2008 7:28 PM
Ben #32 wrote:
The post you're responding to is on a Creationism debate. Most of us think the change of format will allow PZ a better chance to really explain the science of evolution.
So I don't quite see what you're driving at here. The "me-tooism" kind of comes along with the fact that this is scienceblogs, and so of course we're on the science side. And just how are we supposed to show our "guts?" Debate Roy Comfort ourselves? Desecrate a banana? Please explain.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 7:37 PM
Thank you Wowbagger.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 4, 2008 7:40 PM
What's the toady-to-sage ratio in churches? One god, hundreds of millions of sheep. Drat! They have us beat!
Of course, for that comparison to work, we'd all have to regard PZ as a god, which I doubt any of us do. Frankly, I'm still waiting for him to answer my prayer for the plateful of calamari.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 7:43 PM
@44: I have read those stories, and they are truly sad: mainly for the horrors inflicted on the victims by their families and communities. How the believers can claim a loving faith while they bludgeon and disown still amazes me. I was also brought up without a faith, and I take your point.
But pride in disbelief is a superior pride, and among the prof and many of his followers here it has manifested in an ugly way. Provoking the faithful, then laughing at them, is the province of the young atheist. The prof has plenty of real things to be proud of. I think he degrades himself.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 7:47 PM
@48: Aren't fewer toadies a better thing? (Oh, I know you're just being coy.)
Does "PZ" call you by your first name? Maybe he just shortens it to "Jer". Either way, I'm sure you'll hear from him once he gets over his laughing fit at your calamari joke. Good one, buddy!
Posted by: Jeremy | August 4, 2008 7:49 PM
Ben, if you met someone who openly professed his sincere belief in a magical turtle who could answer prayers and save mankind, what would you think of them? If you say "I'd respect their beliefs" you're full of crap.
Think really hard about how you'd view such a person. It might be really similar to how some of us view people with superstitious beliefs.
For me, it might almost be a sense of pity.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 4, 2008 7:49 PM
Hmm, first I agreed that this is a good change. But I definitely think it may just result in all the wackos only tuning in for Ray man's chat and not PZ's. Also, I too first thought that PZ going second was quite the advantage, but really it isn't. It's just another reason for the crazies to not taking anything PZ says seriously and just whine that Ray didn't have the opportunity for rebuttal, and that PZ's a wimp and Ray is a superhero.
Oh well, they'll never listen to us anyways, so I suppose this is the best was for PZ to get his whole message across, and hopefully some people who really need to hear it will listen.
Posted by: Neil B | August 4, 2008 7:53 PM
I wish PZ would talk about the anthrax case (or did he already?) There are so many curious biological issues. See for example
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/index.html
and other articles by Greenwald.
See especially
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6239
Like I said before, there is so much more relevant science and political trickery that it's a distraction to focus on religious nuts.
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 8:00 PM
@46: Don't be so disingenuous: none of us really believes there's a "debate" to be had about creationism. Just look at the leadup to this rout--the prof makes fun of his opponent, various posters cheer him on to "destroy" the guy, etc, etc.
We know what's going to happen, just like the Romans did.
(Sure, I'd be false to disclaim any puerile interest of my own: but surely this is favoring dessert at the expense of the cheese-board...)
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 8:03 PM
@51: Are you seriously calling me out on my atheist street cred?
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 8:06 PM
Ben #49,
I think he thinks what he does is helping society - by reminding people of the need to make clear distinctions between church and state, and to give them reason to think more about what they believe in; in this case by pointing out to non-catholics that there are people who actually believe the cracker has magical properties; similarly, for catholics, that there exists amongst their co-religionists a frenzied extremist subset who consider the cracker more valuable than actual human life.
Yes, what he does is provocative and inflammatory - that doesn't means he's wrong to do so. Societal standards get challenged all the time and change as a result. If this helps get the godly to keep their hands to themselves then it's worth it.
Let PZ worry about his own reputation.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 4, 2008 8:10 PM
Norman @12,
checked your blogpost; interesting, but it wasn't clear whether this Vatican astronomer is a creationist. (In fact, I'd be a bit surprised if he is.) If he's not, PZ could have a debate with him, but it wouldn't be the same debate he'd have with that banana-brandishing gobshite Comfort.
(Also, one minor technical quibble from a former presbyterian, if I may: Bayes might have been a presbyterian clergyman, but it's extraordinarily unlikely he'd have been a monk. The reformed denominations have their faults, but as a rule monkery is not one of them.)
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 8:11 PM
Ben (#54) cried from the mountain,
In what way? What could you be using as a reference?
70% of the world's population are lactose intolerant.
The other 30 debate using bad jokes.
Posted by: EM | August 4, 2008 8:12 PM
Hello, this is the producer for Ben and Jim in the Morning, the show that was going to have the Ray Comfort/PZ Myers debate. After looking over the responses to Dr. Myers' announcement of the change of plans, I thought I would make a short post answering some of the questions.
Posts numbers 2&8: The decision to change formats from a debate to two separate segments was made this afternoon by myself and the hosts of the show, Ben and Jim. We decided that given the short time available, neither side would be able to construct much in the way of arguments for their respective positions, and it would ultimately be fairer to both sides to give them their own segment to make their case.
As for Mr. Comfort going first, Comfort has a very tight schedule, and Dr. Myers was able to re-schedule easier than Mr. Comfort was. Mr. Comfort will be on the show at ~10:06am CT Tues., Aug. 5th, and Dr. Myers will be on ~10:06am CT Weds., Aug. 6th, each for 20-30 minutes.
We apologize that plans were changed at the last minute, but we still invite you to listen to both Mr. Comfort's and Dr. Myers' respective segments. You can stream the show live from our website, or can stream it later in the day from the website. We do not currently offer podcasts or downloads of our shows, but they are available to listen to on the WDAY website for one week after the air-date. You can live-stream or archive-stream from the WDAY Radio site, http://www.wday.com/radio/
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | August 4, 2008 8:14 PM
Hello Phentari #45,
If you are not an atheist what are you?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 8:14 PM
What do you mean, "us", kemo sabe?
The Romans had public evolution-creation debates?
It looks like you've been hitting the dessert wines. Or maybe rather the port, or the rum.Posted by: mothra | August 4, 2008 8:20 PM
Atheism should be abandoned as a descriptor of un-belief in deities. While some may (and have) disagreed, the better term is 'non-theism' as atheism implies theism as the default condition. Theism is taught (sanctioned child abuse), whereas non-theism can be a natural or an acquired state.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 8:23 PM
That's what atheism is. Don't know much about latin, huh?
Posted by: Ben | August 4, 2008 8:30 PM
@56: You make good points. But just as it's vital to have this public debate, isn't it just as vital to debate the way in which it's conducted, as well as the general conduct of its participants?
Anybody can come to this site and see the prof's relationship with the comment board. Much of it comes off very strongly as the exchange between an alpha male and his obsequious hangers-on. The constant egging-on--he doesn't need it!--is sort of pathetic, and the endless and one-sided cephalopod in-jokes are a bit sad.
This is debatable, but: if the prof's goals are as you suggest, he might turn on more people if he comported himself with less hollow triumph, if no less force.
(Why doesn't Dawkins debate creationists anymore?)
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 8:33 PM
Snort. You have been caught by the Bierce-Hartman-McKean-Skitt Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation.
The initial "a" is a negation in Greek.
Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2008 8:40 PM
Ben #54 wrote:
Actually, I was referring to the radio show debate itself, but as for whether there is really any "debate" to be had about creationism, yes and no. There's no serious debate in the scientific communities -- but there certainly is among the public.
And no, we really don't know what's going to happen, because the more interesting goal is not the smashdown of Ray Comfort on the science. That's a given (and maybe a fun bit.) The harder part is going to be whether PZ Myers can find a way to explain evolution to a hostile audience, and say some things to make a few of the points stick. He doesn't have to go for a total win, with creationists flipping 180. A few people thinking "well, I guess there may be some points to be said on both sides" is a victory.
That's going to take skill.
I think it's a mistake to assume that fans who cheer on a hero are all nothing but toadies who would blindly agree with whatever their role model does. People are a pretty diverse lot, and I doubt that's true for either Pharyngula's regulars or Comfort's. Don't underestimate the intelligence or overestimate the conformity of creationists. Even Ray Comfort fans.
I bet PZ won't, or he wouldn't have agreed to the debate.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 8:40 PM
Owlmirror re-corrected,
Drat, you have quartered my posture with the delicate stroke of a true gentleman (or lady). Beware, for I plot my revenge!
Posted by: Mick | August 4, 2008 8:42 PM
Is WDAY radio making this available as a download or anything? I'd love to hear it, but won't be able to listen live.
Posted by: Mick | August 4, 2008 8:44 PM
Seems I should have read the thread before posting. Thanks EM!
Posted by: Milo Johnson | August 4, 2008 8:44 PM
Yeah, it'll be better, but it won't be as funny.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 8:45 PM
Ben #64,
I don't really know what works and what doesn't; it's difficult (if not impossible) to get accurate data on things like level of (un)belief and how people reach and/or maintain those levels and the behaviours associated with it.
While I'm not a sociologist there are some who show up here from time to time (MA Jeff, for example) who could better respond to your question on that topic.
As for conduct; if you've read this post you'll realise that, when faced with a civil opponent, PZ is measured and reasonable. His actions in the cracker incident were, I believe, relative to the actions of instigator.
My own opinion is that he was better off not actually going through with the desecration - it made the ridiculous carryings-on of the frenzied catholic jihad all that more nonsensical considering it was regarding something that hadn't even happened.
But that's me.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 8:49 PM
Randy @60:
I don't really like labels. If you must have one, I suppose I'd be considered a theistic evolutionist.
Posted by: God | August 4, 2008 8:59 PM
Does anyone know where I can download the talks for Tuesday and Wednesday. I will most unfortunately not be able to listen live.
Posted by: mothra | August 4, 2008 9:00 PM
@63, the whooshing sound you undoubtedly heard was my point passing majestically overhead. To be conciliatory, I could perhaps have spelled it out better. Christians frequently make the argument that having to add the 'a' to theism shows that we are by default theistic, and yes this is a false analogy but they use it non-the-less. Non-theism while still suffering from the added prefix has a clarity of meaning so simple even a Christian can grasp it. Atheism seems like all Greek to me. I freely admit to having had only 2 years of Latin in high school, I really did enjoy Caesar's Gallic Wars and I [not] being Caesar would never allow myself to be caught in a two front battle with Vercengetorix.
Posted by: BluesBassist | August 4, 2008 9:24 PM
#73: Yes, you can listen to the show after it's been aired live. Read post #59.
I just watched some of the Comfort/Cameron vs RRS debate on youtube to see what this guy Ray Comfort is about. Wow, his "arguments" against evolution are hilariously feeble and fallacious, even by ID proponent standards. Not to mention, Comfort & Cameron were supposed to present "scientific" evidence that God exists. I don't understand how presenting evidence which (supposedly) falsifies evolution, even if legitimate, accomplishes that.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | August 4, 2008 9:24 PM
Hi Phentari,
True labels are very inadequate. But would you consider yourself to be a non-Christian? Do you think that evolution was guided by God, or that God exists and evolution happened and they are unrelated, or what?
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 9:32 PM
Randy @76,
I consider myself a Christian; not a very good one, perhaps, but a Christian. However, I am also aware that that is an article of faith on my part. I can't prove that Christ rose from the dead; I can't prove that my faith is true and someone else's is false. I don't attempt to do so. It may be that I'm wrong. Perhaps there's no God at all; perhaps there is one, and I've got the details completely wrong. If the former is the case, my choosing to believe does nobody any harm. If the latter is the case, hopefully whatever God there is will be tolerant enough to accept sincere but misguided attempts at worship.
I think evolution exists, yes; having looked at the evidence, there's just no way I can believe otherwise. Since I believe that there's a God, I believe that He guided that process in some way. Exactly what way is something that I don't think I'll ever be able to know, so I don't lose any sleep over it; I'll stick to measuring what I can measure and testing what I can test. If God wants to make His involvement in the process known, I'm quite confident that He can do so without my help.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 4, 2008 9:34 PM
Mrs Tilton wrote:
He's not. He blames creationism on the protestants.
That's the point. A logical, scientific argument aimed at Ray is kind of like casting pearls before swine.
I'll have to check that out and I will change my post if you're right.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 9:36 PM
I assure you, your point was understood well before you laid it out.
You're not the first atheist/agnostic/whatever to suggest that the very word is the problem.
First, I can agree slightly that changing 'a' to 'non' would aid the reading comprehension of the Christians that you had gotten this idea from, but I don't think most of them have a problem understanding this. I think the next part shows a bigger problem than the first.
Second, that they choose to view 'theism' as 'default' smacks me of linguistic trickery, because yes, theism is the root word of atheism and yes, atheism relies on a definition of theism to be understandable, but that's language structure, and says nothing about accepted positions, which is what 'default' does.
If someone has argued as such with you, then I'll put it plainly: they're either very stupid or a total nob.
Lastly (and I'm glad you didn't go there, but I will!), some say that 'atheism' as a word has a bad image. I would say that the people who want to tarnish the word will just as soon tarnish any replacement. It's the meaning they dislike and only some good PR can help turn that around.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 4, 2008 9:43 PM
Randy Stimpson asked "Do you think that evolution was guided by God, or that God exists and evolution happened and they are unrelated, or what?" (#76)
Which "God" are you talking about? (The term "god" is an occupational title, not a name.) Yahweh/Jehovah or Wotan/Odin or Jupiter/Zeus Pater or Mumbo-Jumbo Lord of the Congo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ahura Mazda or Vishnu or...?
Posted by: DanB | August 4, 2008 9:44 PM
Boo! I was excited for an actual debate. He needs to be challenged directly.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 4, 2008 9:51 PM
I'll see your toadies and raise you a sage.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 9:52 PM
Ryan F Stello, #79
I agree there are connotations involved in using the term - while I don't especially like it, there's not much else to choose from; I'll answer to it if necessary.
Have you read what Sam Harris had to say about it?
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 9:56 PM
Whenever these discussions come up about being atheists, I can't help but wonder how much energy is wasted on arguments of definition. Couple that with the fact that I have family and friends that are very religious and they will honestly worry about my soul if I say I'm an atheist.
Therefore, I realize it's a bit of a cop out but I now define myself as a skeptic. It seems accurate enough to me and doesn't carry the 'baggage' of saying you're an atheist. Hell, even Prof Dawkins doesn't claim to be 100% sure there is no supernatural so, hey, it works for me. Life's too short (especially when you don't believe in an afterlife).
Posted by: mandrake | August 4, 2008 9:57 PM
People don't tend to agree with PZ because they read Pharyngula. People tend to read Pharyngula because they agree with PZ. Obviously none of us agree with him all the time and all of us disagree some of the time. But it is nice to see someone with a voice expressing views that I agree with; it happens so infrequently in the real world.Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 10:00 PM
&Phentari (#&):
Horrible. Why do Christians have to stick their magic into evolutionary biology? They don't invoke the Magic Man for gravity. Why should evolution be any different? Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magical sky fairy.
Only 14% of Americans accept evolution without magic. That's disgraceful.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 10:14 PM
Aye, his speech was what I was referencing in the third part.
To note, I thought that Dawkins' response said pretty much what I would say on the subject (a link escapes me).
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 4, 2008 10:19 PM
BobC said,
To be fair, he's not sticking it into biology, he's encasing evolution, like a bubble.
I just hope it's big enough to allow for such an expanding universe (like, what happens when humans aren't defined as the end product of evolution? What's the purpose of 'guiding' something if there's no given direction to guide it?)
Posted by: Brandonazz | August 4, 2008 10:24 PM
Sounds like a plan. Half of the problem we have when arguing with his type is the constant stream of interruptions to prevent us from getting our point across.