Radio interview opportunity for Evolution expert

[remigh]

On 8/3 on 1010KXXT (Phoenix Air America station), the morning guy, Charles Goyette, had Stephen Meyer on for over an hour to spread his ID junk without much challenge. When a caller pointed out the lack of an expert on the other side of the discussion, Charles said he would be happy to have an expert from the evolution side on the radio on a future date.

Charles is a progressive talk guy that is on Air America as the local morning show, and other than seeming to have a little soft spot for ID, he is great.

My hope is that someone with the correct credentials, experience, and desire to do this type of radio thing will contact Charles through "charlesgoyette.com".

roger

[RBH]

Thanks for the heads up, remigh. I'll pass it on to some folks who are both qualified and may be interested.

And welcome to Infidels.

RBH

ETA: MP3 of the show (http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/index.cgi?2005-08-03-Charles) available.

[lippard]

On 8/3 on 1010KXXT (Phoenix Air America station), the morning guy, Charles Goyette, had Stephen Meyer on for over an hour to spread his ID junk without much challenge. When a caller pointed out the lack of an expert on the other side of the discussion, Charles said he would be happy to have an expert from the evolution side on the radio on a future date.

Charles is a progressive talk guy that is on Air America as the local morning show, and other than seeming to have a little soft spot for ID, he is great.

My hope is that someone with the correct credentials, experience, and desire to do this type of radio thing will contact Charles through "charlesgoyette.com".

roger

Thanks for posting this, Roger. I happen to be acquainted with Charles as well as be a long-time supporter of the National Center for Science Education--I'll see if I can help make something happen. I'd like to see either somebody from the NCSE or somebody like Barbara Forrest (co-author of _Creationism's Trojan Horse_) take this on.

[RBH]

I sent the info on to NCSE, and sent it to a list Barbara is on.

RBH

[m9mr]

I just listend to the two radio clips and I have to say the guy Stephen Meyer OWNED all the die hard evolutionist...
Is funny when the evolutionist atack your religion even tho it has nothing to do with the subject.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I just listend to the two radio clips and I have to say the guy Stephen Meyer OWNED all the die hard evolutionist...
Is funny when the evolutionist atack your religion even tho it has nothing to do with the subject.
Right, so you're some sort of IDist, where religion is irrelevant (allegedly), are you?

[Sven]

I just listend to the two radio clips and I have to say the guy Stephen Meyer OWNED all the die hard evolutionist...
Comments like this really say much from people who know so little about evolution that they have to flee from threads (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=131871) as soon as evidence is presented to them.

For some real perspective on Meyer, a search for him at the Panda's thumb (http://www.google.com/custom?cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pandasthumb.org%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A38e0a0f7f4d5f984%3B&domains=pandasthumb.org&sitesearch=pandasthumb.org&q=%22Stephen+meyer%22&sa=Search) is worthwile.

Is funny when the evolutionist atack your religion even tho it has nothing to do with the subject.
Could you please point me to the "attack [on] religion", supposedly to be find somewhere in this thread? Thanks!

[m9mr]

Oolon,
Dont get me wrong I am religious I belive in God.But when looking at the Evolution theory one does not have to bring the religion into the subject.One could also say Evolutionist only believe in Evolution because they denail God..And yes when we look at life and wonder how it all came into being one has only two choices.One can look at life and say, there must be a Creator,The Most Wise, Who created all the life as well the laws of nature.Or one can look and say,and denai all the beauty,complexity and design, and say this all came into being by chance,no intelligence,no design.
So when arguing about life one should not point the finger and say your are religious and that is why you reject evolution as well one should not say you are an evolutionist and that is why you reject God.We all should be able to argue and present evidence of our own to support our belifes.So whatever side science proves right, so be it.
More we study life more complex it gets, and more it points to a Creator.
Yeah I know most of you dont agree with that.

Sven,
Flee from thread bah...
It came down to Nothing making the selection in Evolution to the Enviroment.
Which makes more sense lol,I duno I guess it would have to be the enviroment since it is somthing,but thats about it.
Everybody is an evolutionist on that thread so yeah you right I cant keep up nor do I really feel like arguing to much.I only like to say what I believe in and why.But most of people here usualy responde with posts that dont say anything informative except go to this link and read more of the same or they just keep saying same things over and over.I dont feel saying much anymore since I get bombarded with nothingness and it gets very frustrating to argue with that.
Arguing to much I simply dont like I know that some people can not be changed even when you present the evidence.So is best to let the people alone after a while and let them think for them self.
I was comenting on the radio clips,some guy brings religion into the argument even tho they were talkin about evolution,in a very scientific way.

[JPD]

I think the key is not permitting your religious beliefs to stand in the way of investigating theories and ascertaining knowledge. You haven't done very much of the former so far - but you have a sound opportunity to here with the wealth of knowledge and experience on offer - and once you start on it the latter will logically follow.

[Sven]

Sven,
Flee from thread bah...
It came down to Nothing making the selection in Evolution to the Enviroment.
No, it did not. See, you are making it even more obvious that you left it without actually bothering what people had to say. Go and look again.

Which makes more sense lol,I duno I guess it would have to be the enviroment since it is somthing,but thats about it.
Guess what? That's exactly what I said: The environment. But you apparently prefer to ignore the inconvenient fact that you got more than one answer.

Everybody is an evolutionist on that thread so yeah you right I cant keep up nor do I really feel like arguing to much.
Hint: When you don't "feel like arguing to much", don't start threads here showing your ignorance of the topic while at the same time making proud claims.

I only like to say what I believe in and why.
And you never bother about that people may want to answer this and point out where you go wrong? Do you simply like hearing yourself talking, or what?

But most of people here usualy responde with posts that dont say anything informative except go to this link and read more of the same
:rolling: Thanks, this made my day! :thumbs:

or they just keep saying same things over and over.
Yeah, in the hope that you get it finally.

Arguing to much I simply dont like I know that some people can not be changed even when you present the evidence.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
This cost me another irony meter, and the price keeps rising due to the many creationists coming here. What to do, what to do, ...

I was comenting on the radio clips,some guy brings religion into the argument even tho they were talkin about evolution,in a very scientific way.
Oh, I see, sorry.

But in case you didn't notice: Virtually all people disagreeing with evolution are religious (if not fundamentally religious), while the people agreeing with it come from all faiths (except for some fundamentalistic religions). So this at least hints at that acceptance of evolution may have more to do with religion than with the evidence, don't you agree?

[Plognark]

*twitch*

Please, please, I beg of you, use proper paragraph and sentence structure :banghead:

Your position doesn't have to be even remotely coherent, but at least make an effort with the language.

[Sven]

But when looking at the Evolution theory one does not have to bring the religion into the subject.One could also say Evolutionist only believe in Evolution because they denail God.
No, one can obviously not make a stupid claim like this: Because the majority of people who accept evolution are theists, and the majority of theists accept evolution.

And yes when we look at life and wonder how it all came into being one has only two choices.One can look at life and say, there must be a Creator,The Most Wise, Who created all the life as well the laws of nature. Or one can look and say,and denai all the beauty,complexity and design, and say this all came into being by chance,no intelligence,no design.
False dichotomy.
First, evolution is not chance. But I think we told you this before - and you really wonder why we repeat ourselves?
Second, there's a continuum between these two possibilities, it's not a black or white thing (which theists apparently love so much). For example, a deistic version is very well possible, some god creating the universe in a way that finally humans would emerge from it, and him not interfering him in any way later (I only see no reason to believe in such a god).

So when arguing about life one should not point the finger and say your are religious and that is why you reject evolution
See my post above. There's certainly something to it, even if it isn't a that important point.

We all should be able to argue and present evidence of our own to support our belifes.
So when will you start presenting evidence?

More we study life more complex it gets, and more it points to a Creator. Yeah I know most of you dont agree with that.
Yes, because this is a classical argument from incredulity/ignorance, more specifically god-of-the-gaps.
And when we include the countless design flaws, what exactly does this say about the designer?
Something I said previously: The term "intelligent design" (ID) is misleading - it rather should be called "amateurish design" (AD).

[JPD]

Dont get me wrong I am religious I belive in God.


We had kind of gathered as much.



But when looking at the Evolution theory one does not have to bring the religion into the subject.One could also say Evolutionist only believe in Evolution because they denail God.


Rather evolution has no stance on God or any other supernatural possibility.



.And yes when we look at life and wonder how it all came into being one has only two choices.One can look at life and say, there must be a Creator,The Most Wise, Who created all the life as well the laws of nature.Or one can look and say,and denai all the beauty,complexity and design, and say this all came into being by chance,no intelligence,no design.


Having no evidence to support your theory you present two possiblities only, one of which you don't like, so the net result is that your position is correct?

Oh please.


So when arguing about life one should not point the finger and say your are religious and that is why you reject evolution as well one should not say you are an evolutionist and that is why you reject God.We all should be able to argue and present evidence of our own to support our belifes.So whatever side science proves right, so be it.


Absolutely so show us yours now (evidence).


More we study life more complex it gets, and more it points to a Creator.
Yeah I know most of you dont agree with that.


And just imagine how complex the creator must be, and the pre-creator, and the endless string of creators that enabled them to "come into existence" (oddly absent in a direct observational sense so anything can be pinned).

[m9mr]

JPD,
aight,umm.. what do I say except only one sentence in your post has anything to do with my post above.still it dont say anything except that you didnt understood what I was talkin about.


I think the key is not permitting your religious beliefs to stand in
the way of investigating theories and ascertaining knowledge.
what does that mean Im not sure,what are you trying to say.How is religion in the way.?did I say anything like religion not allowing to study life or anythink like that.

[JPD]

JPD,
aight,umm.. what do I say except only one sentence in your post has anything to do with my post above.still it dont say anything except that you didnt understood what I was talkin about.


Which sentence?
All that you have told us thus far is that you don't "believe" in evolution because you don't see how it can be real. That's a starting point.


what does that mean Im not sure,what are you trying to say.How is religion in the way.?did I say anything like religion not allowing to study life or anythink like that.

You shouldn't allow your beliefs to shape how you view certain processes that you imagine interfere with that worldview. Hint - plenty of religious people understand that evolution is real and accept it rather than seeing it as a threat.

[m9mr]

[QUOTE=JPD]Which sentence?
All that you have told us thus far is that you don't "believe" in evolution because you don't see how it can be real. That's a starting point.

did I say that in this thread?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oolon,
Dont get me wrong I am religious I belive in God.
No problem so far. Evolution does not say much either way about that.
But when looking at the Evolution theory one does not have to bring the religion into the subject.
Correct.
One could also say Evolutionist only believe in Evolution because they denail God.
This would be false. However, by removing the Argument from Design, evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ;).
And yes when we look at life and wonder how it all came into being one has only two choices.One can look at life and say, there must be a Creator,The Most Wise, Who created all the life as well the laws of nature.
It is very difficult to say this when one does actually look at life. Regulars will know why I now ask you to define "The Most Wise" for us... You see, by any reasonable definition of 'wise', let alone some sort of superlative of it, the creator (if there was one) most definitely was not it. There are too many downright idiotic designs in nature.
Or one can look and say,and denai all the beauty,complexity and design, and say this all came into being by chance,no intelligence,no design.
Firstly, as I've pointed out to you previously (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2596615#post2596615), evolution is not a theory of chance.

Secondly, we have evidence of a lack of intelligence in natural designs. Of extreme stupidity, in fact.

Thirdly, (though depending on how you define ‘design’), there is plenty of design in nature. It is just that it was produced by an algorithmic natural process, which is the reason for my first point and the explanation for the second.

And fourthly, you’ll find few ‘evolutionists’ who deny the beauty and complexity of natural designs. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has written extensively on them... but I know you’re easily bored and promised not to recommend any books. :p
So when arguing about life one should not point the finger and say your are religious and that is why you reject evolution as well one should not say you are an evolutionist and that is why you reject God.
Fine. But I didn’t do that. I was commenting on where you said that (it) "Is funny when the evolutionist atack your religion even tho it has nothing to do with the subject." Unless one is an Intelligent Design™ advocate, one who tries not to mention who the alleged designer is, religion has quite a lot to do with the subject. Creation is a claim that life was created by a god or gods. You can’t get much more religious than that.
We all should be able to argue and present evidence of our own to support our belifes. So whatever side science proves right, so be it.
Yes. And we 'evolutionists' can. Can you? If so, please do so.
More we study life more complex it gets, and more it points to a Creator.
Yeah I know most of you dont agree with that.
You are, as my American colleagues might say, damned tootin'. And we disagree for evidential reasons, just as you say we should.

Perhaps you can explain why the creator would give humans a coccyx. Why our laryngeal nerve travels under an artery by the heart on its way from one side of the neck to the other. Why this “most wise� of entities thought that adult mayflies needed mouthparts and that bats were okay with far less efficient lungs than birds.
Sven,
Flee from thread bah...
It came down to Nothing making the selection in Evolution to the Enviroment. Which makes more sense lol,I duno I guess it would have to be the enviroment since it is somthing,but thats about it.
Huh? The environment selects what lives and reproduces and what doesn’t, because those things that aren’t so good at living in that environment get out-competed by those that are better. The less-good ones are picked off by predators, starve because they cannot catch enough prey, succumb to infections more readily, and so on.

The environment doesn’t need to know what it is doing, that’s just what happens. Some things make it through the sieve, others don’t.
Everybody is an evolutionist on that thread so yeah you right I cant keep up nor do I really feel like arguing to much.
I realise it is difficult, and disheartening. But I fail to see how re-iterating the same flawed reasoning, which we’ve already taken the trouble to explain to you, is much help either.
I only like to say what I believe in and why.
Sorry, I missed the evidence for the 'why' part.
But most of people here usualy responde with posts that dont say anything informative except go to this link and read more of the same
Well I hope you are not including me in that “most people�, because otherwise I shall have to take great exception to that comment. As far as I can see, I have given you no links and recommended little. I have tried to respond to your comments and substantiate my own. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of doing the same?
or they just keep saying same things over and over.
If the evolution = chance idea is anything to go by, then repeating 'evolution is not a theory of chance', over and over, would seem to be the only option till it gets through.
I dont feel saying much anymore since I get bombarded with nothingness
Bombarded, yes. But I take "nothingness" as an insult, pal.
and it gets very frustrating to argue with that.
Damn, given that I haven’t seen you post anything to substantiate your claims, you owe me another irony meter. You’re damned right it’s frustrating to argue with that. Whining about the number of replies will just make you look stupid. Cut to the chase, matey: don't repeat your claims, substantiate them. Put up or shut up.
Arguing to much I simply dont like I know that some people can not be changed even when you present the evidence.
You’re going to do that at some point, right? How about right here, right now.
So is best to let the people alone after a while and let them think for them self.
:boohoo:
Ahhh, fed up with casting your pearls before the swine, eh? Only trouble is we've yet to see any of these pearls. Just waffle and whining. Just get on with it, will you please?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Guess what? That's exactly what I said: The environment.
So did I (and before you too, Sven :Cheeky: ).

He ignored that too.

[Oolon Colluphid]

what does that mean Im not sure,what are you trying to say.How is religion in the way.?
Because if religion says one thing and nature says another, the religious feel obliged to reject nature.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Which sentence?
All that you have told us thus far is that you don't "believe" in evolution because you don't see how it can be real. That's a starting point.

did I say that in this thread?

Nope, not in this thread. But as you seem to have abandoned the other one and turned up here, and as I and others have put in the effort to reply to you there, I’ve no intention of letting you just escape, then repeat your foolishness.

You said that evolution has not been observed.

You said that you just don't see the evidence for evolution.

You said that evolution is not proven and is just a theory.

You said that similarity between fossils and today’s animals indicating evolution does not make sense to you.

None of those has been substantiated by you.
All those have been answered by us.
And you have the temerity to whinge about the replies?

If you cannot see why I'm getting cross, then you are ill suited to rational discussion.

[Godless Dave]

Evolutionists denail God? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying evolutionists pulled the nails out of Jesus's wrists and ankles?

[David B]

Looking down the thread, I see you linked to a thread where you explained why you thought evolution wasn't down to chance.

I think you overstated your case here, and, while I don't want to give ammunition to the antiscientists, I think we ought to get the case right.

You said, in the link:-

'One ingredient, mutations, are random, sure. But the other key ingredient, selection, is the absolute opposite of chance.

There's a clue in the fact it's called 'selection'.'

I just don't think you are right. A favourable mutation isn't selected because it's better, it's selected because it is better and lucky. A favourable mutation gives a statistical edge - but there are no guarantees. A faster running antelope can meet a faster running cheetah, or run into a swamp, all sorts of things.

I think that says enough, so I'll stop now. It looks clear cut to me

David B

[m9mr]

I read all your posts,no coments tho at least for now.I get your point is just that I dont believe in no intelligence making anything intelligent.by the way some of you asked why I dont believe in evolution.Well, why I dont belive in evolution is cuz life seems way to complex to come about by no intelligence.cant say chance,lol.anyway now Im gonna go play some counter strike.

[RBH]

Addressing Oolon, David B wroteYou said, in the link:-

'One ingredient, mutations, are random, sure. But the other key ingredient, selection, is the absolute opposite of chance.

There's a clue in the fact it's called 'selection'.'

I just don't think you are right. A favourable mutation isn't selected because it's better, it's selected because it is better and lucky. A favourable mutation gives a statistical edge - but there are no guarantees. A faster running antelope can meet a faster running cheetah, or run into a swamp, all sorts of things.

I think that says enough, so I'll stop now. It looks clear cut to me

David BA biased stochastic process is not purely random, it's biased. Selection biases the distributions associated with mutations and the accidents of life, so that on average, variants that produce a differential reproductive advantage increase in frequency in the population. Read the popgen literature for just how tiny that advantage can be and still go to fixation in a population.

RBH

[Sven]

I read all your posts,no coments tho at least for now.I get your point is just that I dont believe in no intelligence making anything intelligent.
Do you also don't believe that anything non-wet (single H2O molecules) can make up something wet (a bucket of water)?
Do you also don't believe that anything non-living (H-, C-, N-, O-atoms etc.) can make up something living (an organism)?
Do you also don't believe believe that anything non-ordered (anions + cations in solution) can make up something ordered (a salt crystal)?

Ever heard of emergence?

by the way some of you asked why I dont believe in evolution.Well, why I dont belive in evolution is cuz life seems way to complex to come about by no intelligence.
Well, that's an argument from incredulity. The same way, you could "argue" that you don't believe in life since an bunch of atoms can not be so complex. IOW, educate yourself.

cant say chance,lol.anyway now Im gonna go play some counter strike.
We're still waiting...

[show_no_mercy]

I dont believe in no intelligence making anything intelligent.

Ok.

So where did the intelligence that created intelligence come from? It came from intelligence, obviously! But where did THAT intelligence come from?

Oh yeah, that's right -- special pleading.

[judanne]

Just lurking here for the most part, but having read your posts m9mr, the entire left hemisphere of my brain is hurting. I must echo Plognark and suggest that your points would be better understood if you took some time to compose sentences a little more carefully, both in terms of their grammar and spelling. This might help (http://dir.yahoo.com/social_science/Linguistics_and_Human_Languages/Languages/Specific_Languages/English/Grammar__Usage__and_Style/). A clearly stated and well thought out response will show others that you truly understand the points they are making and may help reduce the number of repetitive posts. Keep in mind, that the arguments you are trying to make have been heard and refuted many times in this forum. It might be more productive for you to actually read some of the links so that you know a little more about the topic you seek to discuss. Arrogance combined with ignorance is a sure fire recipe for hostility in any exchange. Think on that a while, for dog's sake! Now, back to my lurking.