Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Now You Can Watch Casey Luskin School Tom Hartmann On ID And Evolution

Get to Know Thom Hartmann: "Thom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator." His bedside manor is well displayed. "He attained a Chartered Herbalist degree from Dominion Herbal College, a Master of Herbology degree from Emerson College of Herbology, a Ph.D. in Homeopathic Medicine from Brantridge Forest School, and did postgraduate work in acupuncture from the China Beijing International Acupuncture Training Center. He is a rostered psychotherapist in the State of Vermont and licensed Neuro-linguistic programming practitioner.[8]" He's all over the map with his science, yet he can criticize ID? Hmmm. Let's see: Neuro-Linguistic programming? "The title of NLP has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific. Roderique-Davies (2009) states that 'neuro' in NLP is 'effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility'. Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly, experimental psychologist Corballis (1999) in his critique of lateralization of brain function (the left/right brain myth), states that 'NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming Herbology? OK, there's some legitimacy there, but: Homeopathy? Well basically when I get a headache I take a tylenol capsule and pour the ingredients into a cup of water. I mix it real well. Then I pour a bit of that water into a teaspoon. I then pour that teaspoon into another cup of water...........you get the gist. Main Wiki article on Hartmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann CannuckianYankee
Casey did a far better job than I would have done. Don't get me wrong I think he's a good rep for it and I hope he does more. Above all, ignore people like me and do it your own way. lamarck
Let us not forget: It's easier to watch than to handle a hostile, on-camera talking point trifecta fallacy storm. kairosfocus
I think Casey did an excellent job. I would have said I don't know when asked if God did it, just be honest. It's got nothing to do with faith, it's what you know and don't know right now. ID is a "negative argument" and belongs in the classroom, no other tactic is needed, it's like you threw it under the bus for no reason, that was the only bad point. And when you get to the gates of heaven and god points out you didn't stick up for him then just tell him to fuck off. If he's a real god he won't demand propitiation or worship whatsoever. lamarck
Of related interest: IDtheFuture has a new podcast: "Discussion and commentary on publisher Failing to comply with Texas science standards" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-07-15T14_06_13-07_00 bornagain77
Well done, Casey. I think that video should be shown in the classroom as effective argumentation. Thom should learn a lesson about how easy it is to make yourself look foolish by not being genuine. Those could have been legitimate questions that his listeners may have. But his, "I'm gonna squeeze a confession out of this kid" condescending attitude backfired. Perfect. Again, well done, Casey...you are a great Ambassador for science. rpvicars
When you watch MST3K (Mystery Science Theatre 3,000) you watch not for the actual movie they're playing, you watch for the wise-cracks from the robot guys. This is why they turn the volume way down on the movie. So this is not so much an interview as it is a rhetorical trick not for Casey to get his point across, but for robot guy to get in his anti-religious and anti-science wise-cracks. Give us an actual interview next time, robot guy. CannuckianYankee
I wouldn't go so far to say that Casey "schooled" Tom. It actually seems like Casey got caught in the trap that Tom set up for him. All Casey had to do was say the theory of Intelligent Design is not a forced conclusion if the theory of evolution is incorrect. There are several other theories about how life came to be beside neo-Darwinian evolution and ID. He could have even said that the theory of Evolution should stand on its own ground and that just because the theory of ID might be false doesn't make neo-Darwinian evolution true. That is of course a logical fallacy. It is funny seeing Tom so highly concentrated on where he wanted the conversation to go instead of just asking him questions. I might ask, how does Tom believe sciences makes any progress? If there is disagreement about natural selection then that must mean its a religious claim then how does anyone challenge the conclusion with-out being labeled a heretic? ForJah
H'mm: Mr Hartmann trots out loaded NCSE-style talking point after talking point, along the lines of "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." he is so full of talking points he barely lets Mr Luskin get in a word or two edgewise while he tries again and again to set him up as a strawman to knock over. Notice, especially, the diagnostic new atheist contempt-laced sneer about a "bronze age god." (Presumably, the same bronze age God who teaches: "Lev. 19:15 You shall do no injustice in judging a case [hint, hint Mr Hartmann . . . this was actually a Case[y]!!!]; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty, but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbor. 16You shall not go up and down as a dispenser of gossip and scandal among your people, nor shall you [secure yourself by false testimony or by silence and] endanger the life of your neighbor. I am the Lord. [hint hint news and views media talking heads] 17You shall not hate your brother in your heart; but you shall surely rebuke your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.(A) 18You shall not take revenge or bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." [Remember, this is one of the key texts that Jesus alludes to in the Sermon on the Mount in highlighting the Golden Rule, Mt 7:12 & 22:37 - 40, and it is the pivotal reference that Paul uses to ground principles of citizenship in Rom 13:8 - 10, which is in turn the pivotal principle used by Locke when he cited Richard Hooker from Ecclesiastical Polity to ground the basis for modern liberty and democracy, in his second essay on civil govt Ch 2 sect 5. The insistent willful, bigoted and shameless misrepresentation of Biblical Judaeo-Christian ethics and its significance for a free society by today's New Atheists is utterly inexcusable and revelatory of their utter moral bankruptcy.) This is the sort of willful atmosphere poisoning agenda promoted by the likes of Mr Matzke et al that we are up against. Sadly, Mr Hartmann had no interest whatsoever in arriving at or communicating a true and fair view of the situation. It is exactly this evolutionary materialist, agenda-driven, factionist, ruthlessly amoral disregard for truth and fairness that Plato warned us against ever so long ago now in The Laws Bk X. We are seeing it play out before our eyes. For those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters. Let us hope that we will hear the moans of 100 million ghosts from the past 100 years, and will wake up from our hypnotic trance and stop the lemming-like rush over the cliff before it is too late. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
of note 'religion' is already in the science classroom!!!: Here is an atheist professor who openly proselytizes his religion in his classroom under the guise of 'unchecked' Darwinian evolution: Dr. Will Provine on Religion and Creationism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnMjaw8zUxQ I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher http://www.icr.org/article/455/ bornagain77
Wow, that interviewer (Tom Hartmann) is a jerk. Did he go to school to learn how to be that rude, or is he showing his true humanity? I wonder if he continually talks over his wife like that? This sort of awful interviewing seems to come up over and over again in my experience by the "tolerant" people on the other side. NZer

Leave a Reply