The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Truth is the first casualty of war > Comments

Truth is the first casualty of war : Comments

By Michael Viljoen, published 29/1/2010

The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All
I'm sorry Dan, but your claim that AJ was rude in this particular debate smacks a little of desperation.
You might recall I was one of the participants who objected to AJ resorting to personal abuse on that earlier thread. While I can understand his impatience, "playing the man, rather than the ball" is not only ill mannered, but arguably a sign of weakness in rational debate.
I think AJ has quite admirably kept his cool, and addressed the argument, and I guess the style of argument, without actually abusing the arguer.
It seems the shoe is now on the other foot.
But hey, that's just my opinion. Cheers, grim.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 8 March 2010 9:51:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Dan/Michael,

You wish to suggest that Kelvin's opposition to Darwin's science was both devout and well-founded. I don't dispute his devotion to his branch of biblical literalism. He did however invest a lot of effort into a false argument against evolution. His motivation in doing so was not accuracy in estimating the sun's age (he got *more* wrong* in revisions). His motivation was purely a bitter and unchristian opposition to anything that challenged his religious complacency, or perhaps more correctly, the complacency of his religion.

We know he was capable of give-and-take in the advances of his own field. Using his position to attempt to steamroller debate on evolution, and ignoring new information that would force revision of his "scientific" objection, reflects poorly in contrast with his genuine achievements. Let us not forget that the pre-eminent physicist of the time would be among the first to become aware of the new physics of nuclear processes, yet he waited years to be told of it's impact on his theory of solar age by Darwin's son.

That christians such as youself (and in a lesser way runner) are willing to accept and disseminate the less-than-honest-best efforts of some scientists to deny evolution speaks much as to the underlying motivations and diligence of biblical literalists. Other christians are able to conduct themselves with much more christ-like dignity by avoiding literalism.

I suggest *you* have a lot of homework to do, and so do any creationist buddies you have who compiled that list.

*I'm* not giving you clues to vet the rest of that list, I'd prefer your buddies to wind up looking as silly as you, and just as unexpectedly due to their lack of genuine scholarship. Suffice to say that exceptions most certainly do "prove" the rule. You certainly have the skills to check the etymology of such a phrase.

I think Dawkins and others are quite right to not debate creationist franchise hacks until such lift their game substantially.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 8 March 2010 10:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve been stewing for days over what I should say in response, but after giving it some thought, I don’t think anything else really needs to be said other than thank you Pericles and Grim.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 9:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
I’m aware of the origin of the phrase (or its 'etymology'). I think I used it appropriately.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 11 March 2010 9:33:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And so did I, Dan. I *knew* you would go for the red herring.

*Your* lists *are* exceptions, in the light of what we know now.

After excluding those heavily indoctrinated, we find several fair-minded individuals like Mendel, or Darwin himself, who are prepared to look at nature squarely and not spin circles trying to find excuses for scripture.

The majority of the scientists listed would not have an objection to evolution given the evidence we now have available, just as very few today object. Many would have prospered more readily in a world where the church had less of a grip on society, regardless of their own "divine" motivation. Newton could not advance to an academic sinecure just for not believing unconditionally in "the trinity", what a travesty. Mendel wasn't regarded as a good teacher by the bishop, and relegated to a rural monastery. Kepler was not well treated, despite his clearly being gripped by vision completely lacking in the church hierarchy.

*given* that the basic mechanisms can be demonstrated at the molecular level in convenient organisms, as a matter of workaday matter-of-fact. Given that the details of at least some speciation events are fairly well established, and mechanisms are known that contribute to others, I find your list pointless.

That some scientists were *creationist* (not necessarily the current "type", then or now) in the past is no criticism of an established theory today. If asked *today*, the fair would be with it (possibly delighted) and the beyond-sense objectors would be few. Even Kelvin was silent when his "solar age" objection was disposed of.

The ad for a creationist circus flagged your true intent, hinted at by the previous sullen position that distinguished scientists don't debate people like Wieland. Plimer established long ago the usual tactics of his crowd and the criticism stands today.

If Wieland was such a fine doctor, why is he not working as one in the time he otherwise devotes to the circus? The doctors I know would not waste their time on such.

Hope you are catching up on homework,

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 11 March 2010 7:28:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
I don’t know what you mean by ‘people like Wieland’. Perhaps you mean people with a solid understanding of science who are not intimidated by the weight of majority opinion.

You compare Wieland to Plimer. One thing the two have in common is their openness to debate an issue. I know of one time Prof. Plimer publically debated creationists in the past.

You can help support whatever stereotype you like about Wieland and his position or say that he’s involved in a ‘circus’. Alternatively, you could listen to what he has to say. Last week (7/3/10) he was interviewed by ABC presenter John Safran on the 3JJJ Sunday Night Safran program.

You can download the program here http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/safran/

Wieland’s interview comes about three quarters of the way through the eighty minute program.

Safran also recently interviewed anti-creationist PZ Meyers, and will soon be presenting his interview with Richard Dawkins. We’ll see if Safran puts any points raised by Wieland to Dawkins when he airs that interview.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 14 March 2010 7:30:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy