13 Replies to “I’m back from NY

  1. 1
    mechanicalbirds says:

    Look forward to seeing it.

    Hope you feel better.

  2. 2
    jimbo says:

    After seeing the first installment last night, I’m sure Stewart and crew gave you a fair and respectful hearing.

    (Yeah, right…)

  3. 3
    Charlie says:

    Jimbo, you had me going for a second there.
    “Fair and respectful”. You had me thinking that maybe I was so biased I couldn’t see the forest for the trees.

  4. 4
    Deuce says:

    I ran across this article on Monday (though it looks like it was published Friday). I thought the hypothetical about an ID-promoting scientist on the Daily Show was timed rather well, though unintentionally. Is it a fairly accurate description of how it went? The article pretty well summarizes my opinion of Stewart.

  5. 5
    teleologist says:

    I thought it might air today and I was afraid that I missed it because I was busy tonight. I sat through the entire show on Monday thinking you were on. It was painful and inhumane torture. 😀

    Hope you feel better soon.

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    I watched Jon Stewart’s comedy show for like the second time in my life this morning.

    I can now state unequivocally and without hesitation that Jon Stewart is a girly man.

  7. 7
    Arnhart says:

    Bill,

    I just watched the Daily Show with you on the panel. Why did you participate in this?

    Do you really think that Ellie Crystal is a worthy paricipant in such a discussion?

    Are you sure that this promotes the idea that ID is a scientific activity?

    I am skeptical.

    Wouldn’t it be better to spend your time doing scientific research to support ID as a scientific activity?

    I can’t imagine Charles Darwin agreeing to appear on the Jon Stewart Daily Show. Why should you?

  8. 8
    mechanicalbirds says:

    Bill,

    Just got done watching, and I think you did great job on The Dailey Show. Seems like the only argument that the guy was able to come up with (if it’s okay, I won’t even bother with the woman) was that evolution was a consensus view in the scientific community. Well thanks for begging the question.

    But the thing that bothers me most is the false dichotomy between science and religion that so many people (God believing or not) set up. The presumption is that somehow naturalism is a neutral belief upon which other worldviews can be based. But both theistic and atheistic worldviews have their own metaphysical and epistemological claims. In calling Intelligent Design religion (a web of beliefs about what is real, and how we know it), they are only falling back on their own religion, which has its own different set of claims. If you presume naturalism, no amount of evidence can possibly sway you from it, because all the evidence is assessed in light of that presumption.

    Also, if you limit all factual knowledge to what is measurable and testable, you rule out consciousness and free will. Which is exactly what Dennett does in so many of his books (Consciousness Explained, Freedom Evolves, et cetera).

    You were the best one on there Bill, but I’m still steamed. Ug.

  9. 9
    Jedi Deist says:

    Bill,

    You did a great job. You were concise. You managed to illustrate the root of ID very well considering the small ammount of time. Good job.

    PS Dont listen to Arnhart. Someone had to go on the show and represent ID.

  10. 10
    Ben Z says:

    It was a great segment, considering what could have happened. It really was an insult to have Ellie Crystal on there with William Dembski and Edward Larson, but I got a laugh out of her. I especially liked the point on Newton.

  11. 11
    Charlie says:

    Hi Dr. Dembski,
    As though you need my approval, I too, thought the show went really well.
    It looked like a relatively fun and spirited event.
    Congratulations on making the strongest points, even over Stewart’s interruptions and attempts at humour (I realize that he is, after all, a comedian ): ID does not deny evolution happened; religious belief can be an impetus to scientific study; design is detectable; not every element of reality need show evidence of design, etc.
    I thought Larson was ok as well. Surprisingly, he goes both you and the DI one better on a couple of issues. The DI wants evolution taught, but with the caveat that if teachers want to mention criticisms they need not fear for their jobs. Larson believes that as long as evolution is taught then ID can be also. Kudos to him. He also seems to believe in divine intervention, which he introduced in supposed response to something that ID stands for. Good job in dismissing that obvious strawman from left field.
    Of course, Larson also made the error of attributing all scientific discovery in medicine and bio-technology in the last century to evolution, as well as committing the consensus fallacy, so he wasn’t perfect.
    (these thoughts of mine are obviously not for you as much for anyone who missed the show)

    When John Stewart implied the question “Why would an intelligent designer place my testicles in my scrotum where anyone could come by and hit them with a bat?” I would have responded ” your question is also your answer.”

  12. 12
    JaredL says:

    Where can I view a clip? TX.

  13. 13
    renoir_girl says:

    Dude. You can’t believe how many octaves my voice jumped when I saw you on TDS. I’ve been telling everyone that we lived in the same dorm once. You represented yourself very well, were appropriate to the show, and I’m completely jealous. Congratulations.

Leave a Reply