Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ruse versus Nelson: What Would Make Us Change Our Minds? An Unconventional Debate, October 4

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

M Ruse P Nelson

An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”

— Paul Valery, Analects

Next month, on Thursday, October 4, Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate. Each of us will be asked to spell out what would change our minds about the other’s position. More to the point, what would persuade us to adopt the opposing stance on evolution or ID?

What evidence, what arguments, what whatever, would change Michael Ruse’s view of intelligent design? Conversely, what would turn me into a card-carrying Darwinian?

Go here for information about the debate location and time. See you there.

Comments
For Ruse this un-debate is easy: "Introduce me to the designer(s). Or at least let me see the designer(s) in action." "Produce the specific design process used in each- cosmic and biological, including the OoL."Joseph
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
A science buff/atheist coworker of mine offered this possible falsification of NDE: "A fossilized rabbit in precambrian rock." This strikes me as a rigged example, but I'm unsure why that is. Perhaps its because this is really a refutation of common descent, not a refutation of RM+NS. Perhaps its also because ancestor-descendent relationships are redefined by evolutionists all the time. Wouldn't it be a simple matter of adjusting the timeline and saying "The modern rabbit has been around much longer than previously thought", then scribble out the rabbit's former family tree?russ
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
For me a good start would to be able to (scientifically) for the obseved physiological and anatomical differences observed. That is in the face of the genetic similarities. Heck I would be very impressed if he could demonstrate something beyond the observed wobbling stability. Then scientific data which demonstrates the variation is indeed random, ie that purely stochastic processes are responsible. Do that I would be an evolutionist (Darwinist) again. But that's just me...Joseph
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Dr. Ruse could end up in hot water with his Darwinist buddies if he isn't careful in this un-dabate. I don't see how he'll be able to come up with some new or novel criteria that hasn't already been addressed ad infinitum by ID. Which would leave him in the untenable position of having to explain why he hasn't changed his mind lo these many years. I suspect something close to this might happen. Nelson, on the other hand, stands to come out in good shape, because the converse doesn't seem to be the case. The natural mechanisms required for evolution, acting through chance and necessity alone, have never been adequately addressed by Darwinians.DonaldM
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
geoffrobinson said: "In other words, what would falsify one’s position?" It is a little more involved than that. This would also cover the types and quality of evidence one would find convincing for the other position. geoffrobinson said: "If Ruse can’t fill in the blank, Darwinism is unfalsifiable." That's not correct. A single person not being able to fill in that blank would not prove that the theory is unfalsifiable, it would only demonstrate that the individual, or collaboration of people, could not think of a falsifiable prediction for the theory, surely not a good sign but not proof that the theory is unfalsifiable. Demonstrating that a theory is unfalsifiable is more challenging than someone saying "I dunno." All in all this sounds kind of fun.Aph
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I love this line of logic for the debate. ID proponents have always been clear about the criteria for accepting Darwinism. First and foremost, Show Precisely how a Irreducibly Complex system originated in step by step fashion instead of using just so stories to explain its origination. Whereas Darwinists have always been very foggy about what it would take to convince them of Intelligent Design... Fantastic complexity in the genome as well as overwhelming detrimental mutation rates to the DNA don't seem to impress them in the least. I truly believe that many Darwinists will take no amount of evidence for Intelligent Design no matter how overwhelming simply because it does not agree with their materialistic philosophy. I wish you well.bornagain77
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
This is a good idea. On an unrelated note, what happend to the blog formatting?Atom
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
In other words, what would falsify one's position? I would love to see Ruse's answer. I would be more specific: "If we found in a biological sytem, systems or organisms, this would disprove Darwinian evolution." If Ruse can't fill in the blank, Darwinism is unfalsifiable.geoffrobinson
September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply