10 Replies to “My talk at KU on the 23rd of January

  1. 1
    Scott says:

    Great talk. And yes, lively Q&A… especially when the head-strong young lady takes the mic and proceeds to spout off with religious passion about how ID isn’t testable, no peer-review, rhetoric rhetoric, blah blah.

  2. 2
    DaveScot says:

    “line their labs with mirrors”

    Brutal! No prisoners taken. 🙂

    The loud young lady is obviously part of the vast leftwing conspiracy that exposed its motives and methods in the Sternberg affair. I’d remind her that putting an ID sympathetic article into a peer reviewed journal is professional suicide for the editor that allowed it.

    She was the extent the “heckling” the media played up? Incredible. Objective journalism is a lost art.

  3. 3
    jasonng says:

    “Objective journalism is a lost art.”

    ID brings out the worst in a lot of journalists, it seems harder to report this fairly than other controversial subjects. Is it ignorance or a vast conspiracy to properly “educate” the minds of the “uninformed public”? It’s hard to tell.

    At least I’ll be one of the few youth that won’t buy into the subconscious concept that the journalists/teachers are “always right”. All around me I sense and fear mindless indoctrination both in political and scientific thinking; scary thought.

  4. 4
    Mats says:

    I liked the presentation, but I have to disagree with your first sentence “Darwin was a great man”. If I am not mistaken, Darwin, in his “the Descent of Man” made some racists comments which would put him side by side with other historical racists.

    Good point. Even the Darwinian apologists concede that by today’s standards Darwin would be considered a racist. -ds

  5. 5

    “Great” has lots of meanings. For instance, Darwin was not great in the way Mother Teresa was great.

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    Agreed, Bill. Maybe “great naturalist” would be better than “great man”.

  7. 7
    Scott says:

    Perhaps “Great imagination” would work.

  8. 8
    Red Reader says:

    I listened to it all.
    Dr. Dembski’s talk is reasoned, clear, fair.

    Whence the opposition?

    The opposition is *always* theological. Or more accurately anti-theological. Detractor’s cackels and high-nervous laughter, their clever traps and shouts of near outrage sound far out of place in natural philosopy presentation.

    At least two questions (“statements” of opposition in some cases) had to do with the idea that ID is questionable because theists have roosted in its rafters.

    What is crystal clear is that anti-theists have not only roosted in Darwinism, but have bought property and constructed high-rise condominiums there.

  9. 9
    jasonng says:

    “What is crystal clear is that anti-theists have not only roosted in Darwinism, but have bought property and constructed high-rise condominiums there.”

    Theists have the option of believing ID, creationism or theistic evolution. Anti-theists have only evolution, and a very specific version of evolution at that. So specific that it has glaring philosophical implications; in other words, exactly what they want. I can’t wait to see the rug being pulled from under their feet.

  10. 10
    drseth says:

    Where’s the rest of the Q&A. Those two files are the same mp3. Thanks!

Leave a Reply