24 Replies to “Shermer vs. Dembski at Colby College this Wednesday

  1. 1
    saxe17 says:

    Will this be shown on C-SPAN?

  2. 2
    crandaddy says:

    What?! No audio or video feed?! Aw, crap!

  3. 3
    wheadgib says:

    Go get him Bill. Have fun beating up the “skeptic.”

  4. 4
    russ says:

    I’m sure “The Skeptic” magazine will have tell us everything we need to know about how things turned out.

  5. 5
    CharlesW says:

    Prior to his current beliefs, Shermer had basically every strange belief possible. He even went through an Ayn Rand style Objectivist phase. If he is the best the evolutionists can put up, no wonder they’re losing. No doubt they’ll claim this debate as another victory no matter how badly Shermer does.

  6. 6
    crandaddy says:

    Every now and then I rummage through the Conspiracy Archive. They have some pretty way-out stuff over there, but it’s interesting nonetheless. This is off-topic, but I thought it might make for some interesting food for thought:


    Understand I don’t agree with everything the author says, but I think it has the potential to be an interesting discussion piece.


  7. 7
    Brian says:

    Looks like colby.edu is having issues, can’t get to the link.

  8. 8
    DonaldM says:

    Best wishes, Bill, and don’t let that weasel get away with any of his usual contortions of logic and reasoning. Make him actually produce an argument in support of his positions.

  9. 9
    Renard says:

    Any reports on how successful the debate was yet?

  10. 10
    dodgingcars says:

    Yeah.. Give us an update! 🙂

  11. 11
    Bombadill says:

    I’m not sure why, but Shermer makes me giggle. I can’t take him seriously.

  12. 12
    Benjii says:

    I just heard that George Coyne came out and said that ID is not science. I’m not sure if Bill is going to touch on this issue.

  13. 13
    DaysofNoah says:

    Maybe somebody can help me out here. First let me state that I believe that all things have been designed therefore have purpose. Not saying that hence, all is understandable in an exhaustive way, but that Telos applies to all of reality. That being said, in the exchange between the language of Telos and doctrine of A-Teology as it would pertain to the actual practice of the scientific endeavor with regard to the physical sciences, I’m trying to figure out indeed what does acknowledgement of a Design Agent (no matter what or who) practically do to the science of poking the inards of a cell. Because I definitely know what it does to the establishment of science, but am trying to specifically think correctly about what it would do to the investigative aspects/practicum of scientific inquiry (in the lab)…or perhaps is it that admitting telos, just simply unburdens science from taking a stance that it could never and should never have taken…that is, removing it from the standing in the place of proclaiming a-priori explanations concerning origins and restores scientific investigation as a human endeavor to what it always has been and logically can never do more than, which is investigate, experiment, and figure out the mechanics of the universe both macro and micro? Does this make sense to anyone out there? I think if it does, perhaps these philosophical motivations should be stated just as clearly/strategically and upfront-wise as the actual practical details (Information theory, engineering at the cellular level, etc.), so that the issue is not so much of usurping what many people already do and have done, but actually restoring a proper concept-base to why they are doing what they are doing. Ie. Design, hence Scientific Inquiry is a reasonable way to spend one’s time…no Design, hence Scientific Inquiry trying to answer and speak for things that it just can’t logically do. I dunno…it’s like I don’t see ‘Intelligent Design’ as necessarilly being a “different” sort of science…I see it as actually being what science should be about ….period. I suppose the reason why it all has to be stated in this one theory vs. another theory, is that we have a case of some intellectually honest people calling out the metaphysicians in scientists clothing and vice-versa, and simply revealing what has been really going on since Darwin/Huxley shennanigans, and now we’ve got people all up in arms…frightened of what? That people will start doing scienctific inquiry like Newton, Pascal, Liebeniz, etc.? Goodness Gracious. So yeah, maybe I do “Get it”….it’s just that science has been carrying philosophy’s burdens for so long, that now no one can tell the difference, and I think what the “ID movement” is doing is nothing short of showing up the distinction, which of course is shedding showers of light upon a certain 200 year old idealogical and conceptual, sleight of hand move that hoodwinked scientists into becoming priests at the same time.

  14. 14
    DaysofNoah says:

    Sorry for second post…but for background sake I was thinking at first about Shermers’s response on CNN about “well what does that change?” well nothing (method of scientific inquiry, investigation, experimentation) and everything (making science accountable to logic and not letting it become an absolute point of reference in regards to explaining “why”) at the same time I suppose! HA!

  15. 15
    Benjii says:

    Shermer is a joke. He debated Steven Meyer and Ben Witherington on Faith under Fire one time. Although he put up a semi-decent fight against Meyer, he was still crushed. All he could do is resort to outmoded and trite arguments to the extreme. Against Witherington, he didn’t even know anything about the bible. One of his arguments was that the Old testament was written up by superstitious christians in the 1st century. Wrong! It was written by the hebrews centuries before the advent of christianity. He stood no chance against Witherington, who has a PHd in New Testament history and interpretation. What a joke! Both Meyer and Witherington showed that miracles and design are intellectually defendable.

  16. 16
    Teddy says:

    I don’t mind Shermer. His books are amusing. But I’ll admit he should never have debated Witherington. His ‘arguments’ were very upsetting because he seemed to be just making stuff up. That made me lose some respect for him.
    Then he was also on Penn & Teller’s show “B.S.” (and episode in regards to the Bible) and his lack of honesty again was quite upsetting. Then the fact that Penn & Teller were cheering him on on the show just made their claim more pathetic.

  17. 17
    Renard says:

    Oddly, Dr Shermer’s perception is that he did well in the debate. His evaluation: “I handled his (Dr. Dembski’s) arguments last night, no problem.”

  18. 18
    Mats says:

    I don’t think that Shermer is the best the Darwinian fundamentalists can offer.

    I once saw a debate between Dr Kent Hovind and Dr Shermer (there was someone else in there but I forgot his name) and it was a slaughter. I mean, even the public took turns in intelectually beating Shermer.

    Not only Shermer avoided MANY questions, but he offered up some old dated, million of times refuted answers.

    Oh, and yes, whatever happens in these type of debates, Darwinists always win since Evolution is a FACT!

  19. 19
    Benjii says:

    Where did you find that comment? He probably thinks he faired up well against Meyer and Witherington too! You would think that the director of the Skeptic magazine be adequate enough to defend reason and atheism.

  20. 20
    Mirth says:

    Does anyone have a trancript of the Colby College debate?

  21. 21
    Renard says:


    I emailed him and asked him. There’s often a gap between reality and percption. That old Kurosawa film, with the same events told by three different participants to give three different stories, comes to mind.

  22. 22
    Benjii says:

    What’s his e-mail?

  23. 23
    Buck Rogers says:

    mshermer@skeptic.com is his e-mail. He seems like a very nice guy. He was cordial and polite when I e-mailed him.

    He’s got a new book coming out in the spring called Why Darwin Matters. Ahem.

  24. 24
    robocopper says:

    Is there an MP3 of the debate? Could someone send a link to robocopper@gmail.com. Thanks!

Leave a Reply