Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Joe Carter Takes on David B. Hart

Barry Arrington
January 5, 2010
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In UD Contest 19 Denyse asked readers to identify the several errors in a passage from David B. Hart’s blurb about the “problems with ID.”  Over at First Things Joe Carter also goes after Hart (here).

Comments
Off-topic I know, but the Wolpert-Dembski thread wont allow comments. Is it just my Browser, or is it intended ?Graham1
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
After reading Joe Carter's write up, I have to say that he won Denyse's contest for question #19.jerry
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Another missed opportunity was when Wolpert kept insisting that we are all just a bunch of cells. Well, that's true but very simplistic. He even said that these cells aren't coordinated at all, which is absolutely laughable. Bill could have explained very easily that we are a bunch of differentiated cells. Are bodies are organized into organs like lungs and heart that all work together with many different kinds of cells to get oxygen to our muscles. Examples are good. Wolpert said some really idiotic things and it would have been so simple to knock them down but it wasn't done. Even a high school biology student would have understood.tragic mishap
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
I'd have to agree jerry. Debate is not so much about presenting nuances in some idea, it's about making the other guy look like a fool. Numerous chances to do that to Wolpert were missed. The biggest one IMHO was Bill could have just explained very simply how you calculate a probability for a DNA or protein of a certain length. Wolpert kept saying you couldn't do that, which is so obviously wrong Bill should have jumped on it immediately. That said, Wolpert looked like a fool anyway. It's like poker. Don't play your cards, play the man. In a debate you don't have to argue with the entire opposing position and deal with all possible counterarguments. All you have to deal with is the guy opposite you. Playing your cards is like writing a book or a paper, something which Bill has been doing quite a lot of lately so it's understandable.tragic mishap
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
tribune7, I totally agree. I have yet to hear someone explain the difference between scientific skepticism and personal incredulity. One is for PC skepticism and the other is for us ID-iots I guess.Collin
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
It seems that some would like to dismiss any rational or honest skepticism as an argument from personal incredulity. I suppose we could play that game too -- "You say life is not designed? You're making an argument from personal incredulity." But 1. We don't have to. 2. Most of us think that rational or honest skeptics should be treasured and not dismissed.tribune7
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply