Evolution v. Creation 'Debate'

[mcvideo 0]

This link posted by a FB friend. It's driving me crazy, but, for the life of me, I can't remember the name of a particular scientist I think would be better for the science side.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Listen to this lecture by Dr. Keith Lockitch:

Creationism in Camouflage: The “Intelligent Design” Deception

By Keith Lockitch
Recorded November 17, 2005

For decades creationists have sought to replace evolution with the book of Genesis. But defenders of evolution have consistently prevailed in the schools and the courts of law. This struggle for intellectual survival has led to the evolution of a new “species” of creationist, better adapted to its inhospitable environment. The new creationism goes by the name “intelligent design” and poses a greater danger than old-style creationism. In this talk Dr. Lockitch will examine the intelligent design movement focusing on its similarities and differences with standard creationism. By hiding its religious essence behind a cloak of pseudo-science, the movement seeks to make itself more palatable to intellectuals and the general public. And because today’s academics—including the most passionate and vocal defenders of evolution—have failed to offer rational answers to intelligent design’s most fundamental arguments, the doors of our colleges and schools are ominously open to primitive mysticism masquerading as science.

[mcvideo 0]

Listen to this lecture by Dr. Keith Lockitch:

Creationism in Camouflage: The “Intelligent Design” Deception

By Keith Lockitch

Recorded November 17, 2005

For decades creationists have sought to replace evolution with the book of Genesis. But defenders of evolution have consistently prevailed in the schools and the courts of law. This struggle for intellectual survival has led to the evolution of a new “species” of creationist, better adapted to its inhospitable environment. The new creationism goes by the name “intelligent design” and poses a greater danger than old-style creationism. In this talk Dr. Lockitch will examine the intelligent design movement focusing on its similarities and differences with standard creationism. By hiding its religious essence behind a cloak of pseudo-science, the movement seeks to make itself more palatable to intellectuals and the general public. And because today’s academics—including the most passionate and vocal defenders of evolution—have failed to offer rational answers to intelligent design’s most fundamental arguments, the doors of our colleges and schools are ominously open to primitive mysticism masquerading as science.

Thanks for the reference. As it happens, I was unable to access the debate anyway. Oh well.

[Jason Fowler 0]

Here's the video from the debate:

In many ways the creationist side loses by default, especially when Ken Ham attempts to ground his case in shoddy evidences which he would later admit are of no concern to creationism anyway. On the other hand, Bill Nye did a good job of explaining the concretes that are the basis for evolution. This, however, is not the video to watch for a principled defense of science and reason.

[Arnold 0]

Here's the video from the debate:

In many ways the creationist side loses by default, especially when Ken Ham attempts to ground his case in shoddy evidences which he would later admit are of no concern to creationism anyway. On the other hand, Bill Nye did a good job of explaining the concretes that are the basis for evolution. This, however, is not the video to watch for a principled defense of science and reason.

Thanks for posting this. Trying to defend against the Creationist, using science, was rather futile when the Creationist was not challenging observable science per se. He was challenging assumptions made by science - which leads to endless and rather futile debate. Clearly the attack should have been against the foundations of the Creationist argument. There was simply no way for the Bible to be verified, and that alone should have sunk the whole case for that world view. The conflating of the word "faith" used in 'trusting a logical conclusion' about the past, with "faith" meaning 'trust with no evidence' should have been exposed. It is futile to point out absurdities in the Bible to a mind that worships the absurd.

[ewv 0]

After about 30 minutes the debate was still so boring and irrelevant to me that I couldn't keep watching. The creationist's constant appeal with his high tech props and testimonials to a couple of 'young earthers' who are otherwise successful scientists or engineers is a tediously boring fallacy. Their genuine accomplishments had nothing to do with creationism. How do repeated testimonials boasting that a Bristol professor who designed a worm gear mechanical system to open a door on a satellite support the professor's claim that his "research" supports creationism? These fallacies show a defensive desperation in the creationists' grasping to be taken seriously, which illustrates why the Dawkins organization is right in its emphatic recommendations that scientists not debate creationists.

A much more interesting presentation worth your time to watch is Neil deGrasse Tyson's

on how even a minority of scientists could embrace religion at all. He describes how their appeals to religion have historically been in the gaps in understanding on the edge of advancing science as religion crumbles before the advancing wave of rational understanding.

Two good written articles by Tyson at the Hayden Planetarium web site expanding on the video presentation are The Perimeter of Ignorance and Holy Wars.

A couple of very informative books on the topic are Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, and Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy (2^nd ed 2000), which emphasizes major events and creationist institutions in the political and legal history, including the battle over textbook content in schools.

One of the many interesting explanations in the Dawkins book is his discussion of the concept 'random' in its role for natural selection in evolution. He explains how it does not mean that the universe operates with a metaphysical randomness in place of natural law, showing that momentous evolutionary results occurring with negligibly miniscule probability by "chance" versus teleological design is a false alternative. This also shows how the fence-sitting religious compromisers' claim to embrace "evolution" reconstrued as "God's plan" is inherently a rejection of Darwinian evolution.

[mcvideo 0]

After about 30 minutes the debate was still so boring and irrelevant to me that I couldn't keep watching. The creationist's constant appeal with his high tech props and testimonials to a couple of 'young earthers' who are otherwise successful scientists or engineers is a tediously boring fallacy. Their genuine accomplishments had nothing to do with creationism. How do repeated testimonials boasting that a Bristol professor who designed a worm gear mechanical system to open a door on a satellite support the professor's claim that his "research" supports creationism? These fallacies show a defensive desperation in the creationists' grasping to be taken seriously, which illustrates why the Dawkins organization is right in its emphatic recommendations that scientists not debate creationists.

A much more interesting presentation worth your time to watch is Neil deGrasse Tyson's

on how even a minority of scientists could embrace religion at all. He describes how their appeals to religion have historically been in the gaps in understanding on the edge of advancing science as religion crumbles before the advancing wave of rational understanding.

Two good written articles by Tyson at the Hayden Planetarium web site expanding on the video presentation are The Perimeter of Ignorance and Holy Wars.

A couple of very informative books on the topic are Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, and Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy (2^nd ed 2000), which emphasizes major events and creationist institutions in the political and legal history, including the battle over textbook content in schools.

One of the many interesting explanations in the Dawkins book is his discussion of the concept 'random' in its role for natural selection in evolution. He explains how it does not mean that the universe operates with a metaphysical randomness in place of natural law, showing that momentous evolutionary results occurring with negligibly miniscule probability by "chance" versus teleological design is a false alternative. This also shows how the fence-sitting religious compromisers' claim to embrace "evolution" reconstrued as "God's plan" is inherently a rejection of Darwinian evolution.

Thanks for the references.