First of all, Dembski states the two debated (and <gasp> the topic of the debate!) The second sentence tell you where you could go to see it. And the last introduces a quote of the agnostic review. That’s it.

Plus, it’s a reference to a larger article where the agnostic stance is clearly in view. And the agnostic, as neutral spectator, said Dennet did not impress him at all. Lastly, you don’t have to be anywhere near a theist (which I am) ID proponent (which I am not) to enjoy ID opponent and Dawkins’ little buddy taking a beating, from the hands of a “religious nut”.

But this is kind of like the impromptu dogmatism of a lot of “skeptics”. They’re quick to jump to an announcement of what “everyone knows is true” and insist that everybody else play along, or be considered disengenuous–before they’ve really even made an argument.

When an outside barbarian like D’Souza comes into his arena, Dennett and his followers assume they’ll easily wipe up the floor with him.

This (IMHO) is what seems to have happened when Stephen Meyer debated Prof. Peter Ward

http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....38;id=3421

DULLARD, n. A member of the reigning dynasty in letters and life. The Dullards came in with Adam, and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world. The secret of their power is their insensibility to blows; tickle them with a bludgeon and they laugh with a platitude…

Watching Daniel Dennett fumble around (“so many things to discuss,” etc.) in his rumpled style was a sad scene indeed. It was as if his adoring students were asking D’Souza questions on his behalf. His logic was muddled. I dare say he never answered a question posed by either D’Souza or an audience member.

I grew up in a university family and spent the greater part of my life in university communities (Ann Arbor, Boulder) and I know very well the smug assumptions and the absence of real debate or new ideas.

When an outside barbarian like D’Souza comes into his arena, Dennett and his followers assume they’ll easily wipe up the floor with him. At the end of the debate, it was apparent that Dennett was intellectually shocked by what had happened and, moreover, angry that the students were paying more attention to D’Souza than him. In his closed world, he’s never had to face that kind of challenge and humiliation. I expect him to follow Dawkins and announce he will not debate with people outside the ghetto.

Re post 11: “And even though I applaud D’Souza for his performance in these debates, I have to wonder when he will get a clue with regard to evolution.”

There is a article on Tothesource that indicates that after Dennet’s performance that maybe the brites are really low wattage. Maybe we should call Dennet and company the “Dims.”

After viewing the debate I see he certainly IS NOT the intellectual I had expected either. It seemed that even his basic knowledge of philosophy was lacking which is a bit embarrassing considering he’s a philosophy professor at Tufts.

He had nothing to say to the points D’Souza made about Pascal, Kant, Hume and other foundational philosophers. In the modern academy one can raise to the level of professor without knowledge of basic subject matter.

I don’t see how he could have been caught off guard. Surely he must have viewed D’Souza’s recent debate with his fellow New Atheist colleague Hitchens. If not, he was simply unprepared or not up to the task rather than caught off guard.

I hope D’Souza can do more of these. He’s presenting classical arguments with great style to student audiences who have never heard them. As we all know, Dawkins won’t debate with anybody — maybe Sam Harris will be next.

That is why philosophical, or scientific proofs, like the 5 proofs of God of Thomas Aquinas, (based on Aristotle), are limited in their power to convince. I think pope John Paul II commented on this some time ago and made a brief comment in passing, hoping that perhaps the proof of St. Anselm might be more convincing, see here:

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

Re, 25: “that we are asserting that a. we can scientifically prove with mathematical certainty that God did it … In fact, in science nobody can “mathematically” prove anything.”

But it is not true that we cannot prove anything — we can, but the power of our proofs is limited. Mathematics, with its strict logic, offers the best kind of proof we can get, (it is debatable how science can “prove” things), but even this kind of proof has to be from the axioms or first principles. Along the same line of reasoning, it would be futile to think that ID can ever come up with such an absolutely convincing proof. Perhaps this Evolution vs. ID will never end, but the ID should still try to press its agenda as far as it can, because it makes sense, and the alternative does not. ID’s capability to be rational and meaningful should be proof enough to any sane thinking person.

Speaking for myself, I have flirted with agnosticism for quite a while now. At this point, I am definitely willing to acknowledge a “top-down” universe. I believe a Mind is at the root of it all, and I think any form of atheism requires much, much more faith than this position. As for God being the Designer? Well ultimately, He would be the First Cause of everything, but as the direct cause of biological life here on Earth I just don’t know – nor do I care. I’m entirely willing to entertain the possibility of other forms of intelligence being the designer. I second the suggestion to go see the D’Souza vs. Hitchens debate. That was a great one, although nothing new from the atheist side, and I really thought D’Souza owned him most of the debate. D’Souza is an amazing debater.

The only real answer from the science is that some immense intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and the same or another very large intelligence was involved in the creation of life.

Outside of that, there is really nothing to absolutely conclude from the data. I personally believe the intelligence was active along the way and the progression of life seems to support that. But is that a hard conclusion from the data? No but it is probable.

The rest of my personal beliefs flow from other things which are not based on physical sciences.

So the point I am making is that the science supports very heavily the existence of a least one immense intelligence of origin unknown and nothing more. And where we go from there is based heavily on non physical scientific data but does include logic.