Thank you Vr
Sir,
Thank you for hosting a discussion on Darwin and Intelligent Design. I saw portions of the program today on PBS. One comment: When you asked Stephen Meyer whether it mattered which class that Intelligent Design is taught in, either science or philosophy classes, you seemed to miss that your question made the point. I believe your implication was that why would proponents of Intelligent Design care which class as long as their view point was presented to the kids. If it doesn't matter, then why would the Darwinian "side" mind if Intelligent Design is taught in the science class?
My personal view is that Stephen made the better argument.
Again, thanks for holding the "debate."
Vr
Shawn Grenier
posted by Ben Wattenberg at 12:46 PM
1 Comments:
I very much enjoyed this broadcast of Think Tank. Both guests seem to have a respectable academic pedigree and it was nice that they conducted themselves in a cordial manner toward one another. I believe the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is at the forefront of the culture war in America today and I appreciate that Think Tank had the courage to host the debate. All in all, well done.
As to the debate itself, I am a bit disappointed that the debate never really got to the merits of the scientific arguments. While I am not sure it was intentional, Dr. Ruse, appeared to keep steering the discussion toward the religious beliefs of Dr. Meyer, as if to completely discount his scientific pedigree and expertise. When Dr. Meyer introduced the topics of “cellular circuitry” and “digital coding”, Dr. Ruse stated that Intelligent Design scientists had an “anti-scientific, anti-naturalistic attitude” and again turned the discussion to religious ideas rather than address the issues head on. It struck me that if an “evangelical christian” scientist developed a promising AIDS vaccine, Dr, Ruse would argue against funding because of the religious beliefs of the scientist involved.
I would hope that in the next session of the debate you will compel the guests to focus on the merits of the competing scientific theories rather than avoid them by changing the subject and turning the debate into an ad hominem attack, albeit a cordial one, attempting to personally discredit a professional scientist, simply because of his personal religious beliefs. Please lets us hear the empirical evidence—the science—and compel the guests to stick to it.
Thank you again and I look forward to Part 2.
Richard Harris
Post a Comment
<< Home