Comments on: Wells vs. Shermer at Cato Institute

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:09:40 +0000

As I learned in the course of earning my Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley, Darwinism is false because it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit the scientific evidence. This includes the evidence cited by Mr. Shermer in his book, Why Darwin Matters.

And since you can learn this in your PhD program in biology, it seems like there is not much more to say… Until you read that Shermer can just tell that embracing information that would cast a shadow on the bible is somehow a “Way to strengthen your religion”. Sheesh. The nerve.

By: scordova

scordova — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:52:11 +0000

IMHO, the ID proponent has been the clear winner in every debate.

That’s exactly why in general Darwinists encourage each other to avoid debating IDers. Dawkins refuses to debate on the premise that it would dignify ID. Baloney. He’d have his arrogant head handed to him even by second string IDers.

By: David vun Kannon

David vun Kannon — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:19:40 +0000

Turell:
But no matter, research has shown that the human eye is more efficient in delivery of energy to the retinal vessels…

Do you have a reference for that? Thanks in advance!

By: Sladjo

Sladjo — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:07:15 +0000

GilDodgen, all,

Was the debate (aired by PBS) already put on the net (audio, video, text format) ?

If yes, can we have a link ?…

Thank you!

By: turell

turell — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:31:51 +0000

Shermer should read Dembski’s discussions of ‘optimal design’ vs. ‘perfect design’, whatever the latter is thought to be. Perfect , in the eye of the beholder, does not guarantee adequacy or appropriateness.

By: rabbite_uk

rabbite_uk — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:16:05 +0000

Shermer criticised ID proponents for taking swipes at Darwinian evolution without coming up with their own theory to explain the origin and development of life.

Yet I don’t see those who point out flaws in string theory being asked to come up with their own “Theory of Everything” before their views can be considered.

Isn’t there some hypocrisy here?

By: todd

todd — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:25:43 +0000

Shermer’s ‘bad designer’ points about the eye are made shallow by The Silicon Eye – if it is such a bad design, why can’t ‘Science’ replicate it?

I was also struck by Shermer’s attempt to co-opt design for ‘selection’. Ironically, he repeatedly claimed nature designed this or that…

By: turell

turell — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:30:58 +0000

Dr Wells has a statement that is not correct. The blood vessels in the eye do cast a shaddow. In an unlighted room shine a flashlightfrom the side into the eyes while gazing into the distance. You will see a road map of the vessels. I am a retired physician. But no matter, research has shown that the human eye is more efficient in delivery of energy to the retinal vessels, than the ‘more perfectly designed’ octopus retina, which is not ‘backwards’, the retina that Shermer delights in referencing.

By: russ

russ — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:36:43 +0000

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184

By: shaner74

shaner74 — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:49:39 +0000

The link for Shermer vs. Wells is here:
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184

To date, I have watched about five ID vs. Darwinism debates. I am partial to ID, but try to be objective as possible when watching these debates. IMHO, the ID proponent has been the clear winner in every debate. The Meyer vs. Ward debate hosted by the Seattle Times was just terrible for Ward. I actually felt myself becoming embarrassed for him Ã¢â‚¬â€œ he simply had nothing to say beyond unsuccessfully attempting to link ID to religion, and he even called out to colleagues sitting in the audience like he was at some kind of sporting event. In Wells vs. Shermer it was more of a Q&A type event, and although I think Wells presented the ID side very well, I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only fair to say that Shermer came across as articulate and for the most part polite, which is more than I can say for the other Darwinists. Shermer didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say anything to help poor Charlie though.