Home » Atheism, Intelligent Design, Video » William Lane Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate?

William Lane Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate?

Thumbnail for version as of 10:47, 30 September 2010

Lawrence Krauss/Peter Ellis

Paul Lucas offers atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss’s reflections on his debate with William Lane Craig (June 23, 2011), in interview with Michael Payton and Theo Warner. Krauss seems to regret it now and has nasty things to say about sponsor Campus Crusade for Christ, as well as Craig:

PM: … Craig draws a distinction between “Is there evidence..?” and “Is there compelling or good evidence?”. So it appears that he was under the impression that his only burden in the debate was to say that there was some evidence for God. I think that was evident in his equation, sort of meaningless equation that he put on…


LK: Yeah absolutely meaningless and disingenuous in the extreme. The use of those pseudo-equations at the beginning shocked me and it was only after the fact that it really upset me because it really indicated that he had no interest in explaining anything but rather hoodwinkin the students who were there.

Is Craig disingenuous? A hoodwinker? Is Krauss, called by Scientific American “one of the few top physicists who is also known as a “public intellectual“, a sore loser?

But actually, the subject for the debate got evolved several times because their initial desire was to have a topic that was much more emotionally charged. In fact, impossible to address. I think the original topic was ‘Has science done away with the need for God?’ or questions like that, which is like asking “When [will] you stop beating your mother?”, you know, or your son or whatever. That kind of topic is really inappropriate and what I wanted to ask was.. I wanted to centre on the question of evidence. I presented titles that were even clearer than that one but that was a reasonable compromise and I wanted centre around the question of ‘Is there a God?’, ‘Can science disprove God?’, ‘Do I believe science can disprove God?’ – all these things that I don’t think are relevant or interesting or answerable questions but rather, from an empirical perspective, is there evidence for God? And there the answer’s obviously “no” and so I thought it’d be worthwhile treating it from that point of view.

And much more. Thoughts, especially from those who watched the debate?

Is Craig disingenuous? Is Krauss a sore loser?

Debates here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to William Lane Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate?

  1. That is too funny; He complains about ‘pseudo-equations’ and yet he wore a t-shirt that had 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2,

    2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM

    ,,, and Darwinian logic strikes again!!!

  2. Lawrence Krauss stated,

    The use of those pseudo-equations at the beginning shocked me and it was only after the fact that it really upset me because it really indicated that he had no interest in explaining anything but rather hoodwinkin the students who were there.

    Krauss appears to be completely uninformed of the use of Bayesian probability equations in philosophy papers. It is very common practice by both theist and atheist philosophers in discussions of the existence of God to use these sorts of Bayesian equations. For example, see atheist William Rowe’s paper ‘The Evidential Argument from Evil’, The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard Snyder, Indiana University Press, 1996, 62-285. See also atheist philosopher Bruce Russell’s paper ‘Defenseless’, in the same book, 193-205.

    The use of Bayesian equations is common in discussions of the existence of God in peer reviewed philosophical publications. What I find shocking is Krauss’s ignorance of Bayesian equations and his general incompetence evident in the debate. If a person is going to pass himself off as a spokesperson for atheism, then the least he or she should do is to acquaint himself/herself with the four or five most common arguments for the existence of God at the level of which they are discussed in the peer-reviewed philosophical literature, not in the pub by the local village atheists. If Krauss was suckered, it was by his own arrogant ignorance of the subject matter.

  3. 3

    Hi, my name is Larry, and I got curb-stomped by William Lane Craig.

    Hi Larry.

  4. semi OT: Seems to me that atheists are not that good with logic or math in the first place: For instance in the recent antagonistic epistasis paper of Lenski it was found:

    ‘Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    ,,, And yet, after billions upon billions of mutations, with a bacteria population that far exceeds the human population, for 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to approx. 1,000,000 years of ‘supposed’ human evolution, these 5 ‘beneficial mutations’, were first, all found to be ‘loss or modification of function mutations’ but not gain,,,

    Michael Behe’s Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski’s E. Coli Evolution Experiments – December 2010
    Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski’s research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification–but not gain–of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41221.html

    ,,, and second, by Lenski’s own research the 5 ‘beneficial’ mutations are found to ‘get in each others way,,, and bear in mind this is equivalent to one million years of human evolution with a population that far exceeds humans in ‘mutational firepower’,,, Yet evolution is required to explain the origination of far more than 5 mutations which get in each others way in the supposed human lineage of 1 million years ago:

    Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
    Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47041.html

    23% is equal to approximately 750,000,000 base pair differences!!!

    Moreover, the ‘math’ simply does not crunch for the fixation of ‘coordinated mutation’

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years,
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....ns-part-5/

    ,,, but despite all this Darwinists act as if they are being logical???

  5. all these things that I don’t think are relevant or interesting or answerable questions but rather, from an empirical perspective, is there evidence for God? And there the answer’s obviously “no” and so I thought it’d be worthwhile treating it from that point of view.

    The first question to ask would not be, is there evidence for God, but rather, is science even capable of answering the question of whether there is empirical evidence for God.

  6. If God is the origin of the Cosmos and the laws of nature, and if science is an outcome of human thinking plus the laws of nature, then science may be a crude tool when it comes to exploring the existence of God. Still, a non-physical entity, if involved in some way in the Cosmos, may leave behind evidence that might be detected by science and history. I would also say that logic is a better tool than science when it comes to contemplating the existence of God.

  7. Too many on Krauss’s side and who share his profession are ill equipped to deal with the kinds of nuances philosophers deal with. Lacking the humility required to say “I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re getting at” they stomp and pout instead.

Leave a Reply