I have debated Darwinists for many years, and I don’t debate them in order to persuade them, but rather to humiliate their claims as best I can, and this is done by arguing from the most unassailable positions possible. A few months ago, in a discussion on The Fundamental Law of Intelligent Design, I pleaded with Barry to pose a question to Nick Matzke, and this was the result: A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke. We didn’t ask Nick, “are 500 coins heads designed” or “are 500 coins heads intelligently designed” or “are 500 coins heads intelligently designed, and therefore isn’t ID science” we asked: If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) Read More ›

Victor Stenger has his How to Debate a Christian Apologist in the Huffington Post. An atheist PhD physicist is reduced to using arguments many of which go beyond fallacious and border on the risible. I find the article very encouraging. If that’s all they’ve got, they ain’t got much.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight February 25, 2014 “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies” Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace. After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific Read More ›

At the Dangerous Idea site, a commenter called I’m Skeptical writes: In science, you have to be driven by the evidence. The folks from [Discovery Institute] are driven by their beliefs. They search for evidence to support what they already believe. That’s not scientific method, because it leads them to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their objective. If you ignore evidence, you can’t hope to move scientific understanding forward. In this post I hope to disabuse Mr. Skeptical of his naïve assumption that “real scientists” (as opposed, in his view, to the researchers at DI) are always dispassionate, always objective, always striving for the truth even if the data are contrary to their cherished shibboleths (nay, especially if the data are Read More ›