Dawkins vs. Gilder today at 10:00am EDT

[crazyfingers]

WBUR, Boston's NPR station, "On Point" show will feature guests Dawkins and Gilder on the Evolution vs ID "debate".

On-Point (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050810_a_main.asp)

Streaming audio can be found at www.wbur.org

It will likely be archived - I think.

[Machiavelli]

wow, Dawkins declined a head to head debate.....didn't want to elevate ID.....

wow.

[Roller]

Oh my... Can this dude Gilder misrepresent evolution any more?

[Oolon Colluphid]

I can't get any sound here at work, but I'd be gobsmacked if Dawkins did go for a head-to-head. He told me years ago -- and has written it in a few places (eg in the Devil's Chaplain chapter with the letters between himself and Gould) -- that he always declines to debate creationists (and cryptocreationists)... because to do so suggests that there is a debate to be had.

[Machiavelli]

he says religion is a metaphor for what we don't know.

[braces_for_impact]

Oh my... Can this dude Gilder misrepresent evolution any more?

Talk about your convoluted double speak! And what's with him continuously going back to Lamarckian evolution?

Gilder keeps mentioning he's a scientist, but it seems he's more into politics and economics, not biology.

Gilder (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=10&isFellow=true)

[Ahab]

He also claims he's a scientist because he has written some books about science. :rolleyes:

[Roller]

Yea, Gilder said how we are looking for proteins on Mars to find life (and that, he says, is a wrong approach). So anchor asked him if we should look for "disembodied information" as a sign of life. That was pretty cool. Anyways, Gilder seems to be equating modern synthesis with Lysenkoism and Lamarckism. :confused:

[Roller]

Good, anchor is pressing him to explain the influence of his beliefs.

edit: Central dogma of biology? He haven't heard of ribozymes?

[openeyes]

Why aren't they letting Dawkins talk? We have to listen to Gilder drone on. . .

Oops, now it's Dawkin's turn.

[braces_for_impact]

Why aren't they letting Dawkins talk? We have to listen to Gilder drone on. . .

Dawkins won't engage an IDiot or Creationist in direct debate as he believes it validates the idea that there is a debate to be had in the first place.

[Roller]

Dawkins is on!

[G Zuss]

Excelent point, if life is too complex to just evolve, how could an even more complex designer come about? Who designed the designer?

[Gooch's dad]

Excelent point, if life is too complex to just evolve, how could an even more complex designer come about? Who designed the designer?

Yes, but the moderator wasn't even able to understand that simple concept. He tried turning it into "Dawkins can't imagine an intelligence greater than man's", which has nothing whatsoever to do with what Dawkins actually said.

Dawkins is otherwise just tearing apart everything that the creationist said. And he's clearly not even an ID-er, he's a fundy creationist. He gave it away by quoting from gJohn 1:1. What a load of hogwash.

[braces_for_impact]

Dawkins to caller: "Do go away and read a book, they're fascinating and I'm sure you will love them." :rolling: :rolling:

[Roller]

Dawkins just plugged Miller's "Finding Darwins God"

[Roller]

Lol! "Debating IDists is similar to reproductive biologist debating stork theory"

[Roller]

Michael Ruse is on!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Lol! "Debating IDists is similar to reproductive biologist debating stork theory"
Except that the stork theorists refuse to tell you anything about the stork, only that there is one.

[Roller]

Except that the stork theorists refuse to tell you anything about the stork, only that there is one.

Good point!

[Amen-Moses]

Except that the stork theorists refuse to tell you anything about the stork, only that there is one.

What! You mean the Stork didn't leave me under the blackberry bush. :eek:

Amen-Moses

[gravitybow]

Here is a link to the archived program:
Debate Over Intelligent Design (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050810_a_main.asp)

Select Windows Media Player or RealPlayer at the top.

[Tenshu]

Good god...

L-A-M-A-R-C-K-I-S-M ?????

W - T - F. :mad: :mad:

What a dumb little kid. At least pretend like you're debating on an advanced level.

[Albion]

Gilder says he's a scientist and has written 13 science books? I don't see very much evidence of science in the books listed at Amazon under his name. Since when are "The Spirit of Enterprise" and "Wealth and Poverty" science books? This guy's an economist, isn't he, not a scientist?

[G Zuss]

Is there a legal definition of scientist in the US?

[Toto]

George Gilder is usually described as a "futurist." He makes his money (lots, I assume) publishing the Gilder Technology Report for investors and writing for Forbes Mag (Capitalist Tool) about the internet and technology. He is a noted anti-feminist and neo-conservative.

[JLK]

Gilder ...makes his money (lots, I assume) publishing the Gilder Technology Report for investors and writing for Forbes Mag about the internet and technology.When the tech bubble popped, his subscribers lost their shorts. George got to keep his house.
The Madness of King George (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.07/gilder_pr.html).
Gilder had stuck by Global Crossing even as share prices fell; if anything, he supported the stock more fervently. "Your current qualms will seem insignificant," he had declared midway through 2001, in response to frightened investors. Upon hearing the official news that their shares in Global Crossing were indeed worthless, some posters were philosophical. A few were angry, like the man who asked Gilder, "Are you a villain or just naive?" But mainly people seemed annoyed that for days their high priest remained silent despite their suffering. One loyalist named Phil even sought investment advice: "All I ask is for you to give us one stock right now which will offer the greatest upside potential with the least amount of risk to make up for Global Crossing."

A different kind of man, feeling chastened after a disaster of such magnitude, would have declined. By then a full 50 percent of his subscribers had fled the Gilder Technology Report, and there had been similar circulation drops at his four other newsletters. His list of telecosmic stocks had lost 75 percent of their value since the start of 2000. He'd lost his own fortune. Yet, incredibly, when Gilder finally appeared in the Telecosm Lounge nine days later, he had an answer for Phil: "I would buy National Semiconductor."BTW, National Semiconductor then promptly tanked 50% in 2002 but has come back to give a whopping 3.2% annual rate of return since 2001.
Perhaps all ID leaders should be confronted with "Are you a villain or just naive?"
He is a noted anti-feminist and neo-conservative.Owner of the wingnut The American Spectator, which runs bizarre articles on evolution (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8514).

[Albion]

He was going on in that radio piece about not criticising Darwinism (after all, Darwin did get a few things right, apparently) but attacking materialism. And about how this designing intelligence didn't have to be God at all, oh no, we have no idea what it might be.

So if your designer isn't God, why attack materialism?

I do wish Richard Dawkins had ratchetted back a step with his descriptions of ID and his assumption that the designer had to be God. I think he'd be a lot more effective if he met them on their own level, which is that the designer doesn't have to be God, in fact the identity of the designer is irrelevant, and showed what a piece of deceptive idiocy that claim is. At the moment, he says the ID people are saying Goddidit and they're claiming plausible deniability by saying that he's misreading their position and everybody's just getting confused. He's misreading their stated position although he's correct about their actual position, but I think it'd be more effective of him to deal with their stated position and show it up for the sham that it is.

[RBH]

Albiion wroteI think he'd be a lot more effective if he met them on their own level, which is that the designer doesn't have to be God, in fact the identity of the designer is irrelevant, and showed what a piece of deceptive idiocy that claim is.I've come to agree with Albion on that one. I need to work a bit to get my thoughts better organized on it, but I think it's a real good point.

RBH

[glennallen]

Evolutionary theory needs its' own Carl Sagan, although many people thought him annoying - Carl couldn't touch the arrogance of Dawkins.

To begin with, he won't "debate" these new Paley's. Why not - but first take a cue from Kenneth Miller. Destroy the myth(s) about evolution, use crisp examples of why we know it really really works, show ID as a complete sham given our knowledge of evolutionary processes, and say that belief in god(s) is a personal faith decision.

I'm a fan of Dawkins, but the man is caustic even to me. But his description and awe of life on our planet (and his humanism) are quite enjoyable.

At one point he makes the remark that we basically have a complete understanding of evolution - from a man who admitted dozens of times in "The Ancestors Tale" that our ancestors' and their deep origins are far from understood. That book, btw, shouldn't be given to someone wanting to learn about evolution. It long and tedious. Much better to offer something from Carl Zimmer.

We need a real debater who knows the issues, has the skill and patience to teach evolution to the public, and looks good on the Discovery Channel. Miller has done alot to promote science and is anti-Dawkins in the caustic department. Zimmer should continue to do some of the wonderful research that he has done.

[Sparrow]

I just finished listening to the archive and although I thought Dawkins clearly won, I doubt that anyone changed their minds as a result. Gilder seemed very nervous and unsure of what his srguments were. The moderator didn't just let him get away with everything like many of these 'debates' do. When Dawkins was trying to describe the problem of explaining the origin of a complex creator if human life is too complex to have emerged naturally, he didn't get it communicated as clearly as he needed to do. There needs to be something said about the nature of the debate. Newspapers, websites and other entities that want to give equal time to both sides undermine a public understanding of how alone the 'scientists' that support ID are, relative to those that support evolutionary theory.

[telerion]

We need a real debater who knows the issues, has the skill and patience to teach evolution to the public, and looks good on the Discovery Channel. Miller has done alot to promote science and is anti-Dawkins in the caustic department. Zimmer should continue to do some of the wonderful research that he has done.


You need to mix Richard Dawkins with Jeff Corwin. :thumbs:

[dmarker]

Evolutionary theory needs its' own Carl Sagan, although many people thought him annoying - Carl couldn't touch the arrogance of Dawkins.

To begin with, he won't "debate" these new Paley's. Why not - but first take a cue from Kenneth Miller. Destroy the myth(s) about evolution, use crisp examples of why we know it really really works, show ID as a complete sham given our knowledge of evolutionary processes, and say that belief in god(s) is a personal faith decision.

I'm a fan of Dawkins, but the man is caustic even to me. But his description and awe of life on our planet (and his humanism) are quite enjoyable.

At one point he makes the remark that we basically have a complete understanding of evolution - from a man who admitted dozens of times in "The Ancestors Tale" that our ancestors' and their deep origins are far from understood. That book, btw, shouldn't be given to someone wanting to learn about evolution. It long and tedious. Much better to offer something from Carl Zimmer.

We need a real debater who knows the issues, has the skill and patience to teach evolution to the public, and looks good on the Discovery Channel. Miller has done alot to promote science and is anti-Dawkins in the caustic department. Zimmer should continue to do some of the wonderful research that he has done.

I don't think Dawkins is that arrogant. If you want arrogant try reading books by ex-FBI profilers. :)

But I can't blame him for being caustic, he's been lied to and about by creationists and he's seen creationists lie to and about other scientists. If he came out all concilatory and nice he would be swamped with creationist piranhas wanting a bite and they would quote mine him for all he's worth.

[NottyImp]

But I can't blame him for being caustic, he's been lied to and about by creationists and he's seen creationists lie to and about other scientists. If he came out all concilatory and nice he would be swamped with creationist piranhas wanting a bite and they would quote mine him for all he's worth.

Well indeed. Imagine if you had to put up with this in your own profession (whatever it happens to be). You might get a little testy once in a while.

[kenni]

Good point, actually. Think of having your chosen career and life's work's validity constantly doubted. But worse, constantly ganged up on (by highly ignorant people), and lied about to others to demean and destroy your reputation and work because it doesn't quite fit with an outdated and unsubstantiated myth, after you yourself did lengthy and meticulous research and learning to properly understand and verify it. I think it would make some of the most patient people a bit pissy ;)

Anyway, liked the interview (back-to-back thing). Have the "Do go away and read a book. They're fascinating; you'll love them." as part of my MSN thing for the moment. What can I say, I was amused by it :Cheeky: