Comments on: ID: Shaken, not stirred

By: Johny

Johny — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:10:21 +0000

hello everybody, i’m new to this site and this is my first post.
this isn’t an actual science question but:
“Do any real scientists like Dembski. also, why can’t dembski and all his other loser friends just learn to accept evolution. keep religion out of science please. it’s sadly pathetic he wastes his time trying to debunk something that’s already been proven.”

By: George

George — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:47:22 +0000

Thanks again for your program with the BA, Rick. Nice one, too. My compliments to both of you; much ground was covered and on several planets.

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:25:12 +0000

For those of you who requested Phil’s interview, you can go to http://www.audiomartini.com and click on the newsletter link to download the file.
Thanks,
Rick

By: Leon

Leon — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:27:45 +0000

WOW, that was poorly written. Sorry, folks. Let me redo that one.

Which to go golfing with? Oh, I think thatâ€™s an easy oneâ€“Dembski! After all, you can be pretty sure his methodology will never lead to a birdie or an eagle. In fact, youâ€™ll probably find that bogeys are par for his course.

By: Leon

Leon — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:26:20 +0000

Which to go golfing with? Oh, I think that’s an easy one–Dembski! After all, you can be pretty sure he’ll never his methodology will ever lead to a birdie or an eagle. In fact, he’ll probably find that bogeys are par for his course. ;-p

By: George

George — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:07:52 +0000

My thanks to Rick for the presentation. I enjoyed the debate and admired the decorum, which you helped maintain. The jabs were quite minor and few, thankfully, for such a tough subject.

Though Rick tried to excavate ID’s claim to science, I never could get a handle on Dembski’s arguments to establish ID as a science. His downgrading of the critical science term of “predictions” to “expectations” was, probably, an expected prediction for most around here. ["ID apologist", nice one BA.] His “two prongs” for ID did not come out in the discussion, at least for me.

Shermer was much easier to understand and his points presented the definition of science well enough to help clarifiy the pertinent differences and conflicts between it and ID.

Overall, I would be hard pressed to tell you who I would choose to go golfing with me of the three. Hmmmm…it would be an interesting foursome.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:54:05 +0000

Ah, see, I was speaking from my general impressions (that is, from having listened to it only once). So I think I missed that he was asked multiple times. My bad.