“The Great Debate” — Scott & Trefil vs. Sisson & Dembski

_{William Dembski

October 31, 2005

Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“Should public schools teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution?”
http://www.bu.edu/com/greatdebate

Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Tsai Performance Center, Boston University
685 Commonwealth Avenue

Visit this page to view a live webcast of the debate:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/encoder/greatdebate.rm

The Debate Participants:

Affirmative

Edward H. Sisson, Esq.
Partner, Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sisson advised witnesses at the Kansas evolution hearings.

Professor Bill Dembski, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Discovery InstituteÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Center for Science and Culture

Nick Barber
Broadcast Journalism major, Boston University College of Communication

+++++++++++++++++

Negative

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Executive Director, National Center for Science Education.

Professor James Trefil, Ph.D.
Robinson Professor, George Mason University;
co-author, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.

Neil St. Clair
Broadcast Journalism and Political Science major, Boston University College of Communication and College of Arts and Sciences.

Comments

Mannnnnnn!!!!, i was planing to see it and totally missed it!. Anyplace i can download a clip or something ? CharlieCharliecrs_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

My first-impression paraphrases: Edward H. Sisson, Esq.: "When I learned about the theory of intelligent design, I realized that Darwinists' main mode of defense against it was not to address it's actual arguments, but to simply repeat the false mantra, 'It's Creationism'. As a lawyer, I know that this is typical of someone arguing from a position of weakness. But otherwise, let me spend the majority of my precious time up here slowly and gratuitously babbling about myself. What, my times up? Already?!" Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.: "I feel really uncomfortable debating with these yucky ID people. (After all, THERE'S NO CONTROVERSY!) ID is Creationism. ID is characterized by scientific methods, albeit 'poor'. (Did I actually say that?) There's really nothing wrong with our so-called scientific theory of evolution except that we don't have a mechanism (in other words, I tacitly admit that Darwin was basically wrong, but don't say that too loud) and we still can't say what the evolutionary history of any species is. Anyway, blah blah, blah blah blah...evolution...Blah blah, blah blah blah." Professor Bill Dembski, Ph.D.: "Really, folks, it's not that complicated. Informal detection of design is already run-of-the-mill in many scientific endeavors (e.g., archaeology, SETI). Intelligent design simply applies formalized techniques for the detection of design to biology and concludes that aspects of living things are designed." Professor James Trefil, Ph.D.: "A golden nugget isn't designed, so how can you say the bacterial flagellum is? Blah blah, blah blah blah...Darwin...blah blah, blah blah blah. So ya see, Johnny (ie John Q. Public), if ya just give me one more month, I promise I'll have that money I owe you for the car I'm drivin'." (These are based only on opening statements - I did not get to see anything after the first hour.) Dr. Dembski came across as the confident advocate of common sense, and the only one who really knew what he was talking about. A breath of fresh air.jay_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

i meant more that i think its odd to hate organized religion in the sense that some people think religion is great and all...just that THEY get to decide what feels right for them is what they do, what they believe, how they act and worship, etc. i dont think christianity without a church means much to me. if you dont worship and take fellowship with others...share things with others who know your situation and such- it means less. thats just my take, you see it how you do which is totally cool. i wonder which questins i answered the way i did lead it to give me the results that im not into organized religion so much and have a more generalized view of god and religion. heck- i cant even remember any of the questions now. :) im not into the stiff manner some adhere to, which i guess is part of what you were referring to? i must be honest- ive no idea what religious legalism is, tho i guess thats whats google is good for:) im not sure i care much for catholic practices that tend to lean too much on symbolism (at least it seems that is a big thing with these practices- its more a formality, too many ritualistic ideas and such)- tho im not familiar enough with all of it to completely say one way or another. but sharing faith with others, having a place to go to share ideas, learn, etc. - thats what i like about it. to be able to go sit with others and study theological issues and relating these issues to your life is nice. heck- meeting new friends and having basic fellowship is nice. the church is like a family a lot of the times- close churches like that is what i like. (tho, im actually not a member of a church presently).jboze3131_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Josh, I'm a Christian too, but I have major issues with ecclesiastical methodology - particularly with religious legalism. I just don't think the organized church (That includes every denomination.) is being run the way Jesus would want. I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. It is a powerful, dynamic, life-changing presence, and I have yet to feel that presence in any organized church I have visited. In fact, the whole "church culture" turns me off. I think it turns a lot of people off, and that's a big reason that there are so many God-haters out there. Maybe you subconsciously share that sentiment. I think my results are pretty accurate. Davidcrandaddy_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

no...im just wondering why my results came closest to a person who doesnt care for organized religion and the like. because thats precisely the person i am- a person who is part of a particular religion. that, and i dont like how it ends with "rational"- as if belief in god and more than what nature can tell us is irrational in some way. no big deal- i saw another quiz earlier today that equaled atheism to the most rational and common sense belief and put christians on the opposite end of the spectrum with irrational fools. so, each quiz made out there has a lot of personal bias built into it. then again, as i said- two of the questions i didnt even fully understand so i put them right in the middle, which might have affected the result.jboze3131_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Interesting results on the quiz so far. Boze, it sounds like you're hooked on ritual trappings and positive feedback. Do you really think the creator of everything needs these things for you to know Him? Just look into your heart. Everything you need to find your way home is in there.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

ive no idea about that quiz, because mine also said Cultural Creative- but im definitely not someone why shys away from organized religion. i think religion without a church is foolish- becauses its all relative to what YOU want it to be without an official body to gather with, congregate with, be in fellowship with, etc. so i was surprised that mine said that. especially considering im a christian who believes in the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of christ...the reality of heaven and hell, a spiritual life/side to man, etc. who knows why the results were the way they are. then again- 2 of the questions i answered right in the middle because they didnt make total sense to me.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

I didn't know it would take up that much space. My bad.crandaddy_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Why don't you guys settle this by asking Dr. Trefil what he means: jtrefil@gmu.edu My world view results: Cultural Creative Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Cultural Creative 88% Fundamentalist 69% Romanticist 69% Postmodernist 63% Existentialist 25% Idealist 19% Modernist 19% Materialist 0% Davidcrandaddy_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Wow! Can someone explain what was with the first speaker for the affirmative? He went on and on about his mostly irrelevant personal experience, making only a very occasional point that advanced the affirmative posistion, until his time was almost completely up! Incredible! I don't know if I have heard a worse debater.bensonbear_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

how does it go against his entire thesis? he said what he said- he was saying that the evidence seems to point to something special and unique about us. hes just not willing to accept the evidence for what it is- evidence for design...evidence for a designer. so, youre saying that he never really meant that the evidence in the past few decades could easily lead one to believe that were unique in the eyes of god (if only hed accepted the evidence to where it leads...)?? that he was just making stuff up (which you call poetic license) ??jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Jboze, Every snowflake is unique, does not mean they were created by a god. If you want to construe the guys poetic license as evidence for design or special creation be my guest. However, you and I know that it goes against his whole thesis. Let's not try to look at quotes out of context.testerschoice_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

hes clearly refusing to accept religion and God...but hes saying that the evidence points to a designer. hes clearly not arguing that the idea is irrational as you say! why would he say that all the evidence points to such a thing, and if he were religious (hes not, which means he doesnt accept God), hed have to see it as being evidence for man being special and life being special.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Sal, Come on, you can see that he qualified his statement by saying "If I were a religious man,..." He is not arguing that the idea is rational, but that to a religious person it would seem to be so.testerschoice_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

id have to disagree- im fairly sure that not all IDers support the supposed FACT of evolution. and its not merely about the mechanism either. to some, sure...but to many others, no- its about much more than that.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

I wish (and I realize the format sucked) that you guys didn't fall into the trap of making it "Evolution vs. ID", which Scott repeated ad nauseum. Once you make people realize that it's a debate not about the FACT of evolution but the hypothesized mechanism, it's a lot easier to escape the "creationism" canard. Overall, a pretty disappointing evening - and the hooting rubes in the audience made me once agina regret my decision to move to Boston...jimbo_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

For me I was disappointed, but expected to be. Neither side really brought up anything new, at least to those that regularly follow this discussion, so it felt like each person was just rehashing worn points. I was a bit surprised at the lack of rhetorical skill displayed by Ed Sisson, especially being a lawyer. Oh and I was there in person which was fun, though quite painful at times.doran_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

I wish someone could have responded to James Trefil's gold nugget example. That would have been a great opportunity to distinguish between something complex not specified with something that was complex and specified such as a gold ring.Eric Hochstetler_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

I just saw the debate. I really wish Bill could have responded to Dr. Scott's spin on the SETI analogy. That had the potential to be a slam dunk for ID! Davidcrandaddy_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

"Sal, What are you trying to prove? " That it's reasonable to think we're "special in God's sight." I don't know that Dr. Trefil could get away with saying that in public school science classes as it's too close to the ID position and touches on metaphysical issues, but the impression that we're special in God's sight is hard to avoid from purely empirical grounds alone. One could accept this as an appearance, or as a reality. The interesting question is whether his own quote would be considered too close to ID to mention in public schools? "everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special, in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sight."scordova_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Cultural Creative.dodgingcars_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Where are you in this debate? http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320 I'd be interested in seeing results from others. Here's mine:
You scored as Idealist. Idealism centers around the belief that we are moving towards something greater. An odd mix of evolutionist and spiritualist, you see the divine within ourselves, waiting to emerge over time. Many religious traditions express how the divine spirit lost its identity, thus creating our world of turmoil, but in time it will find itself and all things will again become one. Idealist 100% Cultural Creative 75% Existentialist 38% Fundamentalist 13% Materialist 13% Romanticist 13% Modernist 0% Postmodernist 0%
DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Sal, What are you trying to prove?testerschoice_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

"If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special, in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sight." -- James Trefil in his book on the specialness of Earth, entitled "Are We Alone?"scordova_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

youre still confused and think that only true science is the science being proclaimed as truth by major scientific organizations. science is NOT about consensus. you seem to think that the "biological community" only consists of those who do NOT support ID. and that anyone who does isnt truly part of the biological community (ot seems)...again, appealing to consensus which means nothing in science. a consensus can and have been wrong on numerous occasions. you say that youre an "the evilutionist)"- youre only goal is to try to claim that evolution is a dirty word here (it isnt). which also goes to show your attitude about ID and science in general- if you dont agree, mock it, attack it, call those who support it liars, blowhard, and quacks! heck, you have an entire post on quackery- every negative word is linked to dembski, ID the future, and other sites...while you praise pz myers (the foul-mouthed, abusive, anti-christian bigot/professor- you praise him in many places) and the hate-filled fools at pandas thumb (i see you mention the dishonest nick matzke- who went on natl television and told bald face lies about the DI fellow he was on with.) and still you put quotes around debate. why? in your mind, behe and others (on your own page you call them quacks and liars- tho without shedding any light on their supposed lies) dont count. there is absolutely no debate, you tell us...there is no controversy- mud to man evolution via unguided, purposeless processes is fact. this is all a cosmic accident, it has to be true, because you say so. but, since thousands of scientists with Ph. D's disagree with you- there is, by definition, a debate (not a "debate") and a controversy. your point wasnt that ID is in its infancy- your point is (and its made clear to anyone who looks at your webpage) is that these people are quacks, anti-science, liars, and maybe even worse.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

DaveScot brings up the sensible question of how to balance public opinion and established science. A democratic republic functions on the basis that the majority on any one issue will have enough collective wisdom to make the best decision, while still protecting minority rights. From this, Dave and everyone else here are within their right to elect representatives whom make decisions in line with their own views, and I (the evilutionist) cannot deny that fact. As is evident from jboze's tirade, my own views are not that of a ID proponent, but I hope most here would agree that from your own perspective "ID is still in its infancy" as some DI fellows have previously remarked. My two points from my first post still stand though. I feel confident enough about the first one, that I believe Dr. Dembski would agree with it. Now I do not deny that there are creationists that are also biologists (or more likely biochemists), but that professional biology societies such as those within the AAAS and the National Academies view Intelligent Design as a non-issue. Dr. Behe freely admits he is in the very slim minority on this particular issue, so I do not see why this point is controversial. Whether "ID theory" is valid experimentally or should be taught to high-schoolers remains a separate point. It is obvious that most of the "debate" has existed through op-eds, popularizations, and panel debates like the BU one. In my defence, I was not commenting about the religious context of Intelligent Design, and I highly doubt anyone here wants to go down this tired path again.doran_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

"Out of curiosity, since when was the general public considered and authority on science?" They're not. That's not the point. Since when was the general public stripped of the right to decide what gets taught to their children in schools they pay for with local tax revenue? Teaching that earth is flat would be a shame but it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like the way democracy works you're living the wrong country.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

heck...while im at it (okay, i left and came back) lets point out more nonsense from doran:
Is there a budding research program like Steve Myers tried to con Nightline into thinking? No. Is there a controversy in the scientific community about the validity of Biological Evolution? No. Will the media stop printing pseudo-scientific garbage? Probably not. Is it worth the effort to keep fighting for science? YES!
remember that everyone. there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community about the validity of bioevo! not only does doran think creation biologist and ID biologist are imaginary beings that dont exist (see my comment above)...he also proclaims that dembski, behe, any IDer at all- none of these men and women are scientists at all. they cant be, because they think theres a controversy, yet doran assures is that there is no controversy at all among "the scientific community" (a community that has banned all IDers and other non-darwinists in doran's world). lesson? ignore any further comments from doran. im sorry to post 3 times about someone- but dishonesty and lame attacks like this just wont stand in my book without it being pointed out to everyone else.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

oops. doran, a quick glance finds that you violate your own standards.
Any member of the Boston area scientific community is urged to come out and support Eugenie Scott of the N.C.S.E. and Prof. James Trefil of the G.M.U. physics department. This is one more chance to show that scientists regardless of discipline stand behind the rigorous requirements of scientific research and review.
you do realize that NCSE's stated sole purpose is to push darwinian theory yes? which means, their goal is to get their ideas out to the public, schools, children, teachers, parents, etc. which means theyre trying to get "exposure". when you speak of them tho, you speak in great support...when the DI wants to do the same thing, you act as if science will soon be dead because of it and you sit there and gape open mouth for a few mins! again...why am i not surprised? a lack of honesty, a double standard, a demand that science be about consenus. hmmm. those are the exact qualities that make for BAD science.jboze3131_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

doran, you claim that ID is a religious view trying to undermine science. so what of the non-religious IDers and those who dont believe the designer is god? youre claim is bogus, and im fairly sure you know it. you also claim that there is no debate over ID among biologists...how does this work in your world? do you pretend the ID supporting biologists or further- creationism biologists dont exist? are they figments of the imagination, since you claim there is absolutely no debate over ID? do the IDers who are also biologists- are they not true scientists, or worse are they lying? you can make claims that have no basis in fact- but that doesnt make the claims fact. none of this dishonesty is a surprise considering that in the very first post on your own blog, you complain:
In a flash of utter stupidity, I cared to email the Discovery Institute's leading Blowhard/Laconic about what he hoped to accomplish at this event, since the DI's policy on teaching ID is that it should not be mandatory, but teachers should discuss the "evidence against evolution."
then you "I gaped open mouthed at this for a good few minutes." when the email reply from DI said they hoped to gain "exposure" with this debate. how is wanting an idea to get exposure such a bad thing in your mind? THAT is whats mind boggling. so then you must have a problem with the various materialistic scientific organizations that keep putting out guides on evolution and how to teach it and how to get the idea out to church-goers, etc...right? you must DESPISE the NCSE, right? their sole goal is to push darwinian evolution to the public and try to get the most exposure for this view possible. double standard, im sure, as i doubt youd attack these groups for wanting to get ideas out into the public realm! science isnt about consensus. whats right and true isnt always what the majority believes. its often been, in the history of science, that the majority has been wrong, and sometimes VERY wrong. so, in your view- it was an act of utter stupidity to even email DI, and you attack them for merely wanting the idea (that is supported by a large number of americans) to get out there andheard and understood? you claim theres no debate over ID among biologists, but we know there are IDers who ARE biologists and outright creationists who are biologists- so clearly there is a debate. what you meant to say was theres no debate among those who YOU consider REAL scientists, and you think the others arent truly worthy of being called scientists. when one has to continually lie about something and or someone- that means that there is, by definition, a controversey. keep putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that the ID and creationists who are also biologists dont really exist- that theyre all make believe. maybe, in time, if you wish hard enough- itll all come true. until then, honesty should be the rule...and until you can be honest about simple matters like this, dont expect anyone to take anything you say with anything but a grain of salt.jboze3131_{November 1, 2005
November
11
Nov
1
01
2005
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply