Home
» Intelligent Design » Behe-McWhorter Back Online
Behe-McWhorter Back Online
| August 31, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
[Update 8.31.09: The McWhorter-Behe interview is back online at Bloggingheads; Robert Wright, who heads Bloggingheads, was incommunicado during the interview's removal and on his return to wired reality decided to put the dialogue back up. For his explanation of what happened, go here: bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075]
[Update 8.28.09: Michael Behe has just posted his take on the bloggingheads matter -- behe.uncommondescent.com]
Isn’t the Internet wonderful. Bloggingheads takes down the Behe-McWhorter discussion one day. A few hours later it’s back up:
104 Responses to Behe-McWhorter Back Online
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
McWhorter has a wonderful set of lectures on language from The Teaching Company. In those lectures it became clear that he is prepared to step outside the reigning orthodoxy.
McWhorter is an interesting guy and I also highly recommend his Teaching Company courses on linguistics. If you want to understand what the difference is between a creole and a dialect or how languages developed all over the world or how certain sounds for a concept is similar in many languages get his course. He is down to earth and easy to understand.
He is a mixture of conservative and Black politics who has been critical of black attitudes on education and affirmative action but is also highly critical of many policies that hurt Blacks. He would like to legalize drugs because a lot of Black crime is drug related and thinks it would ease pressures in the Black community to legalize drugs.
I have some affinity for him since he grew up close to where I used to live in Philadelphia and went to schools where some of my acquaintances went. My initial assessment of him is that he is basically honest and a whole lot of sh__ was probably dumped on him after the posting on Blogging Heads.
Somebody make a copy of this so we do not lose it again or at least make an mp3.
I have the full thing on my hard drive. Actually the video posted is my reduced version with less sound quality.
As soon as I figure out how to split it I will re-upload it in it’s full uncompressed glory.
Somebody make a copy of this so we do not lose it again or at least make an mp3.
I downloaded the .wmv file from ExposureRoom and have it archived. (Note the “Download Original” link.)
I think it’s pretty obvious why the original was removed from Bloggingheads. John McWhorter was far too sympathetic and expressed too much skepticism concerning Darwinian orthodoxy. He even upbraided Behe’s critics for scoffing and not evaluating or addressing Behe’s arguments sufficiently. In addition, Behe is far too rational, calm, and persuasive. The clincher was probably John’s comment about Behe’s arguments and evidence bringing him close to becoming a believer. This is heresy, and warrants excommunication from the church of Darwin.
The removal of the original from Bloggingheads says far more than words about the frailty and vulnerability of neo-Darwinism.
I am very impressed with McWhorter in the interview. He has done his homework, actually read the material, and is very open-minded to a point of view that may challenge his worldview. It is hard to imagine how he thought that this interview didn’t represent him well. He has had over a decade to think about DBB and he commented intelligently on it.
It’s a shame that something happened after airing the video that made him think it was better to shelf it after taking the time to prepare and taking both his and Behe’s time in recording.
I think in the aftermath he learned a little more than he would like to have about the way ID is treated.
I like the blurb given to the file on ExposureRoom. McWhorter praises Behe extensively and gives him a very friendly venue in which to air his views, yet is labeled a “Darwin cultist” by the IDer who uploaded the video.
I don’t believe that the “Darwin cultist” comment was necessarily aimed at McWhorter, but at those who attack Behe so mercilessly and who probably forced the removal of the interview.
Hey thanks to McWhorter and bloggingheads for this video. McWhorter you are asking all the right questions and I’m sure Behe had a great time addressing the issues instead of the more common discrimination.
Where do you read that yakky d? This is all I see:
“The infamous bloggingheads debate between John McWhorter and the legendary biochemist and ‘Darwin Slayer’, Michael Behe.
Dr. Behe’s arguments are so air-tight and influential that the Darwin cultist’s only tactic is a combination of strawman arguments (Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, etc.) and censoring his views, as was the case with this video.”
Heh, there is the ‘cultist’ thing. Didn’t see it for some reason the first time round.
It doesn’t take much thought to realize it he wasn’t referring to John but the people that went off-side on him and made hie take the video down because of “offense”.
In other words he took the video down after being lambasted by those offended.
yakky d:
I could be wrong, but I assume that “the Darwin cultist” is meant as a generalisation (as in ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’) not a reference to McWhorter or any specific individual. I presume that Allen Factor sees McWhorter as relaying the arguments of the “Darwin cultists” (an annoying label, I agree) not being one himself. But you could ask Factor himself.
Gil,
Yeah, after reading it again, I think you are likely right about the intended target of the “Darwin cultist” label.
I’m going to wait until Mr McWhorter tells his side of the story before I speculate about who “probably forced the removal of the video”, however.
anonym,
Yes, I think you and Gil are probably correct.
The video was available for free and open download from bloggingheads.tv up until it was pulled.
I’m glad I could listen to the interview, so thanks to all involved. I remain skeptical about ID, but I agree with others here that the decision to pull it was bizarre and smacks of contemptible censorship. Whoever was behind it will probably soon learn something about the Streisand effect.
Check out the Bloggingheads comments here:
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/.....7#poststop
This comment
John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.
reeks of a confession made with a gun held to one’s head. Furthermore, it makes no sense. McWhorter said what he said and obviously meant it, and Behe did the same, as he always does. What in the hell does “not represent usefully” mean?
Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that’s what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation.
Gil,
“Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that’s what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation.”
It’s because ID is a “pseudo-science.” They’re used to dealing with pseudo-sciences that don’t make any sense, or that have no backup data. It’s easy to dismiss them. What they are not used to dealing with is a “pseudo-science” like ID, that does make sense, and which does have backup data. Therefore, since they can’t easily dismiss ID, their only ammunitions are censorship, threats and intimidation.
All this talk of guns held to people’s heads and censorship, threats, and intimidation is exciting, to be sure, but what actually is being suggested here? Do y’all really think PZ or Dawk called up McWhorter and told him to get Bloggingheads to withdraw the video or else?
yakky d:
Are you a high school student perchance? Let me tell you how the real world works. McWhorther gets a call from his boss at the Manhattan Institute: “Say, John, several of our biggest donors are threatening to withdraw funding because of your recent stunt at Bloggingheads. Knock it off and get that video pulled.” Of course, I’m not saying that this is what happened. But something like this could easily have happened. I’ve witnessed this sort of stuff first-hand.
Dr Dembski,
I’m sure I could also create lots of dramatic scenarios to explain the removal of the video, but again, they would be based on exactly zero evidence.
Is the Manhattan Institute a likely culprit in your view? I gather it’s a conservative think tank which has or had some overlap with the Discovery Institute. It would certainly be ironic if they were responsible for the video’s removal.
yakky d
Excuse me, you raised the ridiculous scenario about Dawkins directly approaching McWhorter. I sketched a much more realistic scenario. No, I’m not accusing the Manhattan Institute of anything. I am, however, sketching a much more realistic scenario. More realistic still would be Columbia University putting pressure on him.
But please, answer my question: are you a high school student?
No, I am not a high school student.
But who at Columbia do you have in mind? Fellow faculty members? His dean? The president?
I’m not sure why, but my earlier post didn’t go through. I was able to split the original video in two parts so I could upload it to windows live.
They are 50MB’s a piece in case your on dial-up.
http://cid-279eee3e1f797824.sk.....38;lc=4105
For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ign-fatal/
AND
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....atics-lab/
Yakky, what do you do when your in a hole? Google it.
yakky,
Read the quote again. John McWhorter is a guy on his knees begging forgiveness for an unpardonable sin, and promising repentance. How could this not be obvious?
Listen to the interview, and then ask yourself, Why would he do this?
Here we find a classic case of a design inference. John did not suddenly (in a matter of hours), accidentally come to his senses and realize that ID is a bunch of BS based on pseudo-science, and conclude that everything he said in the interview was wrong.
He was obviously coerced — by what means and by whom I cannot say – but he was obviously coerced.
I cannot identify the coercer, but I am confident that he (she, it, they, or whatever) exists, because logic and evidence make it the most reasonable inference.
I am aware that all sorts of things can happen at universities.
But you’ve already floated theories involving McWhorter’s associates at the Manhattan Institute and Columbia with absolutely no evidence in hand. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the facts come out before speculating like this.
yakky d
Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it’s still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.
Enough of this useless talk! Let’s start banning darwinists! If they can do it, why can’t we?
I suggest we ban a few of them. In any case they contribute absolutely NOTHING to UD.