Another ID debate

Here's a fun account of a four-way debate on Intelligent Design in Fort Worth, Texas. Actually, it sounds like it was more of a two-way, with Lawrence Krauss, who is very, very good, speaking on the side of science, against David Berlinski, who is very, very supercilious (that word always comes up when Berlinski's name is mentioned) speaking on the side of … well, it's not clear. He doesn't really have any pro-ID arguments, but mainly seems to be on the side of cashing checks from the Discovery Institute.

You know the debate went well when creationists have temper tantrums afterwards.

More like this

Berlinski is a tool, there is no doubt. But who the fuck is this guy and what is he snorting

Dr. Bradley Monton (atheist/pro-ID)

I don't quite know what to make of Dr. Monton. He is a philosopher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and an atheist. And yet, he seems to be the Discovery Institute's flavor of the month because he's pro-ID. Well... not actually. Just like Berlinski, at no point in the debate did he ever actually argue for intelligent design. In fact, he stated quite plainly that the current arguments used by ID advocates are awful and ineffective, and he was interested in trying to develop better arguments for them to use in the future. Idiotsayswhat??? Turns out the reason he's interested in doing this is because he doesn't like methodological naturalism, and he'd like to see supernatural explanations at least given a place at the table. I really don't see why this would be helpful or interesting, but then again, I'm not a low-level philosopher getting friendly with the Discovery Institute. The less said about Dr. Monton the better, quite frankly- I'm sure he's a nice fellow, but he had about as much relevance to the discussion as an expert in 17th century French poetry.

It's past time to include a "Thinking skills" course in every grade from public school up: evidence vs. magic, logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks, ad-proofing, etc.

How on earth can you have someone who is both an atheist and pro ID!

How confused can you be?!!!

I agree Monado. Reading, writing, arithmetic, thinking straight, global awareness with comparative religion. Get their little minds out of their backyards and into the global sphere.

By Katkinkate (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

How on earth can you have someone who is both an atheist and pro ID!

Andy, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but the Intelligent Designer is not, in fact, god - it's me.

(Well, it makes as much sense as anything else from tha crowd.)

Turns out the reason he's interested in doing this is because he doesn't like methodological naturalism, and he'd like to see supernatural explanations at least given a place at the table

Say what??

Ssounds like it was a slam dunk for rationalism and science,that debate...Love the spanking Jeebus cartoon !!

So, chris y, do you cause cancer too? (Kids In the Hall reference... sorry if it's too vague.)

The second-last paragraph of the article was the one that caught my attention. It's a second-hand report of an overheard conversation in which Berlinski allegedly admitted he doesn't buy ID either, but is more than willing to cash the DI's checks for saying he does.

That's just bizarre, if accurate.

By Donnie B. (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Oh c'mon, don't pretend that you guys have never heard of Slartibartfast!

The second-last paragraph of the article was the one that caught my attention. It's a second-hand report of an overheard conversation in which Berlinski allegedly admitted he doesn't buy ID either, but is more than willing to cash the DI's checks for saying he does.

I wouldn't put it past Berlinksi, but that just rang of too convenient of something to overhear. Not that it couldn't/didn't happen but the hearsay aspects of it make me question it.

I think Dr. Morton is more than a little confused. Or he just wants publicity as an atheist IDiot.

.He doesn't really have any pro-ID arguments, but mainly seems to be on the side of cashing checks from the Discovery Institute.

Yeah well, who isn't? That's some easy cash right there.

Oh c'mon, don't pretend that you guys have never heard of Slartibartfast!

Last I checked, the coast of Norway--and the country of Africa--are still working. You know, keeping the sea off the land.

Clearly a sound reason for a temper tantrum. Good old Slartibartfast not only built things that worked, he's also the best evidence for ID, but he's not the dog in the sky.

From the link, my favorite quote regarding someone that asked to pray for the author:

I didn't have the heart to say no to the guy, so I stood there with a pained expression waiting for him to finish, as if he were an amorous dog with so much leg.
By c-serpent (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

How on earth can you have someone who is both an atheist and pro ID!

Just because you don't believe in a god or gods doen't mean you're a rationalist. Famous example- the last chapter of Sam Harris' The End of Faith.

So, chris y, do you cause cancer too?

Only on alternate Thursdays. You have to make an appointment.

With regard to Monton, my guess would be that he's just seeking to establish a professional reputation. For any philosopher who doesn't actually have any fresh insights, establishing territorial rights over some contrarian philosophical position, however devoid of merit, is probably the best strategy.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Essentially, this is theistic evolution, as championed by Ken Miller and just about the most hateful concept to the Discovery Institute.

Except for when they're trying to co-opt theistic evolutionists as nearly the same as IDists.

But yes, they can't hide the fact that they hate theistic evolution, even calling it about the worst name imaginable (to them), atheistic.

Berlinski makes selling out to theistic partisans look even worse than it would otherwise.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

There was nothing in the article about whether Berlinski had the DI fly over his lounge chair so he could do the debate from a supine, relaxed position, talking to the other debaters through his knees.

Of ocourse, if that was the case, the DI would have had to ship the lounger from his Paris apartment, which, as everyone knows, is the oldest apartment in Paris.

Berlinski = pompous ass

By Benjamin Franklin (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Why have a debate about magic? This is like debating whether or not the earth is flat.

I would rather see a debate about whether or not the lying idiots of the Discovery Institute should be put in prison for treason.

Treason? I can't see how you got there from here?
For that matter, presuming DI hasn't been involving in the typical(?) fundie crimes (e.g., assorted sex- and/or tax-related offences), I'm not too sure there's anything they can or should be tried for, much less jailed for. Whilst I can sympathise with the idea of locking up the obnoxious twits in a deep soundproof dungeon, I certainly do not think that's an appropriate punishment for anything, much less just for being clewless idiots.

Treason?

The only purpose of the Discovery Institute is to attack America's science education. That's treason and the penalty should be prison.

When the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, school board members, politicians, or Pastor Bubba from Alabama, tries to dumb down or suppress science education, they need to be told they're traitors. They need to be told they're no better than terrorists and they belong in prison.

[ Promoting absurd nonsense in schools as science is ] treason and the penalty should be prison.

By that "reasoning", so is promoting absurd legal hypothesises. Which means either you or I is also guilty. Without any mention of a trial, I notice...

You cannot be serious. The USA has this thing called free speech. Whilst that's a qualified right (you cannot shout "Fire!" in a theatre, e.g.) merely calling for increasing stupidity in schools isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime. Implementing increased stupidity is also not a crime per se, albeit I suspect it may be an infringement of civil liberties and, as various court decisions have shown, in the case of IDiocy, it is a violation of the establishment clause. (As far as I know, un-constructional acts are not treason per se?)

Then there's the problem of creating martyrs. If some DIdiot was tossed in jail (esp. on such dubious grounds), there'd be cries of intimidation and what-not. The Expelled! nutjobs wouldn't have to make anything up for a sequel.

blf,
Pay no attention to BobC. He's a nutter, who recently said the response to 9/11 should have been to kill everyone in Afghanistan.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

One of these days I'm gonna write a love song to Lawrence Kraus.
A creepy stalker one with lines about my father not hugging me.
The grunge crowd will love it.

Nick,
ah... thanks. I assume I would have eventually figured that out. Kill everyone in <insert ethnic area you hate most>? Good grief!

I was at the "Great Debate" on Friday so I think I can give a little insight into what Monton was up to. I take it that Monton wanted to defend the rather weak thesis that since supernatural explanations are genuine possibilities, especially in those cases that Berlinski mentioned (i.e., what created the university, how is it that it is so fine tuned for life, etc.), they deserve some degree of attention. Now what was so frustrating is that Monton, as a philosopher, surely knows what a trivial claim it is to say that some thesis is possible. It's POSSIBLE that an invisible, immaterial unicorn is standing behind me in my office right now. The reason we don't pursue this thesis with any vigor is that it is just not PROBABLE. As far as the probability of ID theory Monton was noticeably silent. I might add that Monton's roll in the debate was confusing in part because what exactly the "Great Debate' was about was left undefined. If the debate was the roll that ID could play in science, then Monton's presence was inexplicable. It just does not follow from the fact that some thesis is possible that it is an appropriate field of scientific inquiry. On the other hand, if the debate was about the existence of god and whether or not science can lead us to a definitive answer to that question, then Monton made some MILDLY interesting contributions.

From one of the links in the article:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-05-03/news/god-in-the-details/1
Roy Abraham Varghese has a God equation. It is self-evident. He sees it in a grain of sand. He sees it in bees, especially bees. By rights, bees shouldn't fly. The haphazard way in which they beat their wings simply shouldn't haul their pot-bellied bodies aloft. But they fly, hovering and reversing over bluebonnets and bachelor buttons. Bees flout the laws of physics and aerodynamics, a puzzle that perplexed scientists for 70 years. "How is it that they can do that?" he asked in a 2005 interview at Perry's Restaurant while smacking on bites of filet mignon. "The fact that these insects can do this..." Varghese trailed off.

OMG!! Miracle Bees!!
I've heard this stupidity before. Why do people regurgitate silliness like this? I'll finish his trailed of sentence for him, I guess:
".... means that I'm a complete idiot who is talking out of his arse.".

Gotts, I suggested the extermination of the entire population of Afghanistan would be better than the loss of one American soldier. If you disagree, please feel free to go there and get yourself blown up by a suicide bomber. That's what's going on every day over there. Thousands of American lives would have been saved if we carpet bombed the entire country. I noticed we did that in Japan, and we even used nuclear weapons. American lives were saved then. Why would that be a bad idea today?

Of course the Discovery Institute retards will never will be put in prison for trying to destroy America's science education, but most certainly that's where they belong.

I see nothing wrong with telling creationists who want to suppress science education they are traitors who belong in prison. They are causing more damage to the future of this country than the Muslim terrorists.

Re: "The only purpose of the Discovery Institute is to attack America's science education. That's treason and the penalty should be prison."

There is a slight bit of merit to this. While prison/treason accusations are a bit much, that really is their only goal, and in making their occasional skirmish in the court system after carefully repackaging their bologna, the only end result is:

1) Months or years of legal battles, followed by:
2) (depending on the results of the court decision) zero or more appeals, resulting in:
3) a final loss due to the Establishment clause, and culminating in:
4) a net financial loss to pay off the lawyers, paid for by the school district which was silly enough to elect faith-tards on their school board, with the final results being:
5) cutbacks to school programs.

In other words, the children lose.

How sane is this?

Gotts, I suggested the extermination of the entire population of Afghanistan would be better than the loss of one American soldier. If you disagree, please feel free to go there and get yourself blown up by a suicide bomber. - BobC

I'd tell you not to be so fucking stupid if I thought it would do the least good. How does my unwillingness to be blown up imply that I'm wrong about this or anything else. You're a genocidal racist scumbag and a disgrace to humanity. Fuck off and die.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Gotts, your problem is you don't care about the lives of American soldiers. You would rather protect Muslim scum.

Ok really BobC that's fucking ridiculous. You sound EXACTLY like the right wing nutcases that try and make that case every day. No rational person who has any grasp on logic would try and say that Not bombing an entire country composed of mostly innocent people means we care more for them than American soldiers.

Seriously dude, get a grip.

BobC, I don't consider the lives of American soldiers either more or less valuable than those of Afghans. As I said, you're a racist scumbag. You might also like to note that the two categories "American soldiers" and "Muslims" overlap, shit-for-brains.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

... Muslim scum

Thought so. Here's a hint: Blatant racism is an automatic lose. And, in some parts of the world, a crime. As-is warmongering.

I strongly suggest you crawl back into your bunker and hide from the UN's black helicopters. And the chemtrails. And Obama's muslim-marxism. And... well, the world's beyond your grasp, so just stay in your bunker. Please.

Sorry to get this thread off topic. I'm more interested in what should be done with the American creationists and their never ending attacks against science education. This is a Christian war against science and I don't like the idea of being nice to these people. They really are traitors and they need to be told they're traitors.

Off topic: Gotts wrote "I don't consider the lives of American soldiers either more or less valuable than those of Afghans." I'm sure the Americans risking their lives to defend your country will be glad to hear you think their lives are equal to the Taliban's lives.

Gotts, I was in the Army. I was taught it's much better to kill than be killed. I still agree with that philosophy. After 9/11 I wish Bush said "Turn over Osama now or we will flatten your largest city." He could have given civilians a warning to get out, then carpet bomb every living thing left in Kabul. We could have avoided going in there and thousands of American lives would have been saved. Also, soldiers who are missing their hands, legs, noses, and other body parts that were blown off by a suicide bomber would be living normal lives today. And other countries who plan to harm America would learn a valuable lesson. Attack us and you will die.

Thousands of American lives would have been saved if we carpet bombed the entire country.

Dickhead is as dickhead does, I suppose. The jingoist colors bleed through eventually.

Do you believe so strongly in American exceptionalism that you truly think it would be the right thing to do to contravene international law and alienate the entire international community --allies and rivals? You don't think Russia and China might have a little something to say about drastic unilateral action in Western Asia?

Further, do you think that would be it, Taliban and many Al Qaeda killed, GAME OVER, hasta la vista baby, big parade, and Bruce Willis and Rambo kick back with a cold one? Do you not see that showy, asymmetrical ruthlessness serves as a recruiting commercial in the cafes of Cairo and Damascus? What's next, carpet bomb Egypt and Syria? Where do we stop, Terminator Bob?

I realize you're just not very bright and that contributes to you being an unpleasant asshole all the time. But jeez.

You remind me of my father BobC, deluded about what is "practical" or "ethical", because in his mind its better to make your country look even more like a bunch of fucking monsters, piss off even more people, so even your allies want to bomb you to dust, and stand around claiming, in his case, that Korea and Vietnam where "great victories" because we would now all be speaking Russian if we hadn't napalmed villages or created the conditions under which Kim Jong Il came to power.

Hell yes I think the DI are traitors, but I also recognize that while a small number of countries might agree with our actions in jailing them, China for example..., 90% of the citizens of the US, and some old dudes on something called the Supreme Court, might kind of object to it. The problem here is not "if" they deserve jail, but how to do you **first** codify law that doesn't step on free speech rights too badly, while never the less making the malicious stupidity of this stuff illegal, and without having to (and this is one that ***really*** pisses me off) bring up belief systems in a court, which will get it thrown out on the grounds that the court can't demand reality, but must bow to what ever made up bullshit the state calls a church, and back away when issues of "validity" of such things, its practice, or how it screws over its own members, come up.

I suppose... One could make the legal argument that the beliefs of the "churches" involved in supporting DI are not relevant, only what the end result of their actions are, since they do not themselves constitute a "church" with any specific set of "codified" beliefs, and that, even internally, their is no clear consistency between "members" as to what their definition of intelligent design may entail. As such, their actions, behaviors and ideas cannot be "protected" on the same grounds as church doctrine, and more to the point, the dissolution of the organization would not effect the right to believe or follow the ideas expressed by those whose "churches" continue to preach such definitions. Therefor the only question on the table is whether or not the organization, by itself, is acting in bad faith in attempting to push a non-protected agenda, which undermines other people's rights, national education, or ... what ever else you could charge them with.

I would have liked to have heard more about Monton.. or maybe not (thanks for the additional observations from John). What I find intriguing is that he doesn't like "methodological naturalism." I don't either. Makes it sound like naturalism is like a choice of lab glassware, when it is in fact a very well confirmed theory that unites all of science. But I don't suppose Monton thinks of it that way at all.

By AmericanGodless (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

You sound EXACTLY like the right wing nutcases that try and make that case every day.

He clearly is a right wing nutcase. With a non-existent grasp of international relations. Redundant, I know.

I'm sure the Americans risking their lives to defend your country will be glad to hear you think their lives are equal to the Taliban's lives.

strawman. Congratulations. Nick never said anything of the sort.

Gotts: "I don't consider the lives of American soldiers either more or less valuable than those of Afghans."

Gotts, I don't think the soldiers of the United States Army who are dying every day to defend your country appreciate your idea their lives are no more valuable than the people who are killing them.

Anyway, OK, I don't like Muslims. It's because they're stupid and insane, and because many of them are dangerous.

Let's get back on topic please. I think this thread had something to do with a Discovery Institute retard.

BobC,

I've heard many people make comments much like yours and I've always been at a bit of a loss to understand the motivation. In what you said above you suggest that the sacrifice of 1 single American life is a greater loss than the life of many non-Americans. I take it, again from you comments, that this is not merely because 'we' are Christian and 'they' are muslin, because you seem to think our various forms of bombing Japan (be it carpet or nuclear) were justified and clearly this cannot be a Christian v. Muslim situation. So, I take you are inclined to think American lives are more valuable than other lives generally speaking. Can you justify this? It strikes me as obviously false, but since I've heard so many people say as much perhaps there are arguments I haven't heard. To help illustrate my confusion let me give you a hypothetical case: A mother, pregnant with twins, gives birth to the first child in the USA then, before she gives birth to the second child, the woman is flown to Afganistan where she gives birth to the second. Let's also say that each child is put up for adoption in their repective birth-countries and raised there. Is it truly your belief that the first child is somehow more morally valuable than the second? If so, is it merely based up geographic location of birth? This strikes me as absurd, perhaps it is and that doesn't bother you, but I'd love to hear an attempt to justify the greater value of American life.

Gotts, I don't think the soldiers of the United States Army who are dying every day to defend your country appreciate your idea their lives are no more valuable than the people who are killing them.

BobC, seriously. Same strawman, different wording.

Nick. Never. Said. That.

Anyway, OK, I don't like Muslims. It's because they're stupid and insane, and because many of them are dangerous.

A lot of the world feels the same about the USA, and not just Muslims. But they mostly feel it about intolerant people as yourself, and not your country as a whole. Go learn some world culture and history before you make blanket statements about people. You come across as a dumb fuck, trigger happy, us or them, Yank.

Let's get back on topic please.

Oh look, the murderous, racist, scumbag American exceptionalist doesn't like being talked about.

John wrote "...I'd love to hear an attempt to justify the greater value of American life."

I really am sorry about getting off-topic.

I said earlier I was in the Army. We were taught our lives were more valuable than the lives of our enemies. I really liked that idea and I still like it. Being alive is a wonderful thing, much better than being dead in my opinion. I don't much care for violence, but if I had to wipe out a few thousand people to save my life, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

My point is when a country is at war, it should not show any mercy to the enemy. The idea is to end the war as fast as possible. Worrying about civilian deaths only prolongs the war and kills more Americans. Of course the best solution is not having a war at all. But after 9/11 we had to do something. Unfortunately these two wars we are in now have been going on longer than we were in World War Two. Obviously we are doing something wrong. We should never have gone into Iraq. We could also have avoided going into Afghanistan by flattening their capital and telling the world this will happen again if we are attacked again. There was no need to go in there and waste American lives and taxpayer money.

We could also have avoided going into Afghanistan by flattening their capital and telling the world this will happen again if we are attacked again.

So, by your logic, if two Irishman set off a bomb on a NYC subway, Dublin should be flattened by a thermonuclear weapon. Is that it in a nutshell?

So, by your logic, if two Irishman set off a bomb on a NYC subway, Dublin should be flattened by a thermonuclear weapon. Is that it in a nutshell?

Newfie, I said earlier, Bush could have told Afghanistan "Give Osama to us or lose your capital". That's sounds fair to me. The soldiers who came back from that country without their hands and/or legs would probably agree bombing them would have been better than going in there.

I was not suggesting using a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan, and I don't think your Irishman example is a fair comparison to four hijacked airplanes, the Pentagon attacked, and the two tallest buildings in our largest city vaporized.

I noticed this blog is infested with liberals who have never been in the Army. They seem to think American lives are worth sacrificing if that helps protect the lives of Muslims. How brave those liberals are. So willing to sacrifice the lives of the people who defend their country.

BobC,

Man, you are tribal. But let's play this out:

America carpet bombs Afghanistan (and parts of Pakistan) killing tens of millions. The rest of the world looks on aghast. Populations rise up and governments question their nations' alliance with this genocidal state. Millions demonstrate to put a stop to this. The inevitable terrorist attacks spread throughout the world. American's retreat behind their borders. BobC (who's in charge) sees enemies all over the world and extends his bombing campaign to any country where even one American is killed. After all, that's BobC's equation: (1 American .gt. Entire Population of fill-in-the-blank).

And that's a best case scenario. Yep. That'll work. Dickhead.

His "logic" suggests that multiple nuclear weapons should have been used on whichever state Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (both also ex-Army) were living in at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing. After all, they also lived in the same state as those two known terrorists and heavily-armed religious fanatics, and therefore are clearly guilty by association. Or something.

BobC clearly thinks (using that word in its loosest sense) that all Afghans are Taliban.

It is, by the way, laughably stupid to suggest that American soldiers are "dying to defend your country [the UK]". They are dying in pursuit of elite US interests, and the Islamist threat to the UK is a result of poodle Blair doing his master's bidding. After 9/11 the USA had the moral high ground, and there were many ways to pressure the Taliban regime to surrender bin Laden, just as they had been successfully pressured to crack down on heroin production. If these failed, targeted military action - cruise missiles on government buildings and terrorist training camps, special forces raids, should have been tried. The kind of mass murder you advocate (and forget the crap about warnings to civilians - do you really think the Taliban would have allowed evacuation?) is evil, and so are you.

By the way, what about the fact that there are Muslims in the US army? Are they "scum"?

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Wow Bob
I mean wow.
I hope you enjoyed your time in the service, and I hope you are no longer allowed to carry firearms.
I'm not very happy about the fact that you are on my side in the creation v science war.
You need to be kept for observation.

BobC would make a great crisis negotiator.

Bob, have you heard the term "cowboy diplomacy"? How about "unilateralism"?

You should be commended on your military service, and I can't imagine the horrors you have witnessed.

But, Bob... you were trained to be a soldier, to react, to follow orders without question. You were trained to be a killer, Bob. If they didn't turn you into a killer, you'd have been a risk to your unit, and other soldiers.
I've had enough friend in the military to see how this training can warp a person's perspective.
Your perspective is fuckin' warped, Bob. You have the same us vs them attitude as your imagined enemy. Perceived threats that you don't fully understand.. the world is full of shades of gray.
The VA has councilors, Bob, go make use of them, you'll thank me.

But after 9/11 we had to do something.

So, instead of pulling out of your Middle East bases, and stopping unthinking unilateral support of Israel, which were the actual causes of 9/11, you invaded one Middle Eastern country to gain control of its oil, and another, to make yet another cause for the Middle East to hate you. Thus gauranteeing more American deaths. Stupid, really stupid.

John #31 wrote:

Now what was so frustrating is that Monton, as a philosopher, surely knows what a trivial claim it is to say that some thesis is possible.

Well, he should, but philosophers aren't always trying to check reason against reality. From what I can make out, some philosophers apparently think "possibility" describes a particular state of existence. Possible things live in possible worlds. Since everything is true in some sense of the word 'true' and everything is real in some sense of the word 'real', they think they can take it from there and run. Like liberal theists, they blur concepts and equivocate vocabulary in pursuit of an open-minded acceptance of diversity where every view is valid.

Frankly, I think that trotting out folks like Berlinski and Morton in order to make ID appear non-religious is an interesting way for the Discovery Institute to fall on their swords. Christians are enthusiastic boosters of the claim that "all beliefs rest on faith" only as long as it helps to disarm criticism of their faith belief, which must be a special faith belief, because it is really true. They don't want the view applied across the board, or Jesus is just one of many paths to God, and -- worse -- atheism is just as real and true as theism.

BobC, at this point I don't believe you were a soldier. Soldiers are taught to value their lives over the enemies in so far as to complete the mission, you have to kill. That is not a mandate to slaughter every enemy solider you come across. Do the initials P.O.W. come to mind?

I also know that soldiers are taught ethics and how to treat civilians. You do not treat all civilians as enemies to be killed for the sake of convenience. Especially in as careless a manner as "give us what we want or lose a city."

You are a troll, who at the very least should have his blog posts disemvoweled.

It may well have been true that many American lives were saved in WWII by the firebombing of Japanese cities and the use of the atomic bomb.

But it is generally recognized today by civilized people that these were EVIL and WRONG things to do.

It may, possibly, be argued that it was the "necessary" thing to do, in that not doing so may have lead to even more Japanese deaths in addition to the greater numbers of American dead, or that ending the war earlier ultimately provided greater benefit to the people of Japan and the world. Nevertheless, this is all in context that one is a lesser evil and lesser wrong than the other.

To argue that these wartime actions were actually "right" or "good" things to do, as you do, BobC, is, well, sickening.

I bet if we took BobC's remarks, turned them around, and performed some simple "us" to "them" style substitutions, he would not recognize them as his own words.

By speedwell (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Did David Berlinski actually say that Man's opposable thumb is totally unknown in the animal kingdom? I thought the opposable thumb was the defining feature of all primates?

By Wayne Robinson (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Wayne Robinson,
Most but not all primates, the koala, opossum and some dinosaurs according to Wikipedia, but the article seems to be rubbish, as elsewhere it says the human opposable thumb first appeared in Homo habilis, which it identifies as evolving from Homo erectus! My guess is it might depend on exactly how you defined "opposable". Non-human apes have much shorter thumbs relative to the rest of the digits than humans, so there are things they can't do but we can (and of course, vice versa).

Incidentally, I tried googling "opposable thumb evolution", and most of the results were obviously porn sites. What's that about?

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Nick Gotts (comment #66),
The first time I got internet, a girl at work told me the best way of finding porn on the 'net was to type "breast" into Google. She was right. I never have seen so many great recipes for chicken breasts before. The last time I visited a zoo, I compared my hand with that of a monkey (not an ape) on the other side of a window, and was impressed how similar my hand was to the monkey's hand (I'm not deformed). The point I was making was that David Berlinski was saying that the human opposable thumb is UNKNOWN in the animal kingdom.

By Wayne Robinson (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

Does anyone know the source of the spanking Jesus cartoon? That's seriously kinky!

I've never liked debates as a means of educating people about conflicting topics.

I was on a debate team in college. I was okay as a debater, about half the time I won, the other half I didn't win. There was one guy on the debate team who was great. He always had a superb phrase or two to toss at his opponents. I watched him win a debate by arguing one side of a question, and then next week win again by arguing the other side.

Krauss appears to have been the best debater at this debate. But winning a debate doesn't mean his side was the most true, just that Krauss was better at making arguments than the other guys.

In 1920 two astronomers, Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis, had "the Great Debate" about the nature of our galaxy and spiral nebulae. At the time it was generally considered that Curtis won the Great Debate because his arguments were better than Shapley's. Curtis argued that our Galaxy was small, the sun was near the center, and spiral nebulae were other galaxies similar to our own. Shapley argued that our galaxy was large, our sun was offset greatly from the center, and he did not endorse spiral nebulae as external galaxies. Both Shapley and Curtis were incorrect on the first point (Shapley guessed too large, Curtis too small) and Shapley was also incorrect on the last point. That Shapley was correct in the second point has changed mankind's view of our place in the universe. That Curtis was correct in the last point has also changed mankind's view of our place in the universe.

Debates do nothing but show which person is a better debater.

By 'Tis Himself (not verified) on 10 Nov 2008 #permalink

To argue that these wartime actions were actually "right" or "good" things to do, as you do, BobC, is, well, sickening.

Its a toss up really. On one hand, yes, if they had not surrendered when they did, its likely their wouldn't have been "anything" left of Japan by the time it was over, the cultural mindset they had simply would not have allowed it. But, our local dipshit misses the provenance of serendipity too, in that a) they where likely only a few months from having "working" jet aircraft, a number of which where near complete copies of what the US happened to field, based on the Japanese scientific research, a few years later and b) there are an attempt, that could have ***very easily*** have succeeded, to prevent their emperor's surrender address and orders for reaching the population. The intent had been to "protect" him, and the nation, by preventing what the hardliners considered a serious mistake. To prevent a surrender that they ***still*** considered wrong, and unworthy of the emperor, or his people, even **after** two cities where nuked out of existence.

That BobC doesn't seem to get, nay.. can't comprehend at all, is that some people are so far gone, and some other are likely to react so negatively to such an action, that actually carpet bombing Kabul to the ground could have not just resulted in Bin Laden being hidden even faster, but the entire populous, and not just a lot of warlords and pro-Taliban types, rising the fight the monsters that did it. And, unlike all their prior bullshit, lies and claims about the US wanting to destroy them, this time, they would be 100% justified in claiming it.

For those who still wonder Monton can be atheist and pro-ID at the same time: he isn't pro-ID, he just enjoys cashing the DI's checks.
Says so at the end of the article.

Wayne Robinson@67,
Now I think about it, I've a feeling one of the muscles inserts at a different point in humans compared to the other primates. Haven't found anything about this on the web yet.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 11 Nov 2008 #permalink

Here's a fun account of a four-way debate on Intelligent Design in Fort Worth, Texas. Actually, it sounds like it was more of a two-way

So how many ID lemmings and pro-science advocates does it actually take to have a "three-way?" *ducks*

For those who still wonder Monton can be atheist and pro-ID at the same time: he isn't pro-ID, he just enjoys cashing the DI's checks.
Says so at the end of the article.

Berlinksi not Monton.

For those of you who might wonder why there was a debate about ID in Texas --- it is needed. Well, not the debate, but what Krauss and Anderson brought to the table: reason. I was there at the debate, and although I'm biased, I (like the author) felt that even if evolution didn't get great publicity, ID got terrible PR. There were still audience members I overheard gushing about Berlinski's "wisdom" and Expelled's "truth", but anyone who approached Krauss or Anderson with qualms about evolution got an earful of examples (Anderson mentioned Tiktaalik and a host of other transitional species to one puffed up Christian). In Anderson, Christians were even faced with having no excuse not to accept the theory and Get.Over.It.

Regarding Monton, I hear he has a book about Atheism and ID coming out soon... which I'm sure the DI will love. And yes, to whoever said that ID 'proponentists' like to make the claim that our understanding of truth is relative --- all of that pretense dissipates like mist in a hot afternoon when it's applied to their own faith.

By the way, i was disappointed that the DI had a full spread of buyables at both the debate and the more informal conversation the next day, while Krauss' position was conspicuously absent from the selection.

DVDs and audio are available at St Andrew's site (link on original goosetheantithesis blog), for those interested.

By Cosmos-Phile (not verified) on 16 Nov 2008 #permalink

By the way, i was disappointed that the DI had a full spread of buyables at both the debate and the more informal conversation the next day, while Krauss' position was conspicuously absent from the selection.

i.e. a fool and his money are soon parted

John,

what created the university, how is it that it is so fine tuned for life

In my experience the university is not conducive to life. In fact it's rather soulcrushing. That may well be the case for the Universe too ...