Friday, February 16, 2007

Shermer v Dembski

Michael Shermer and Bill Dembski debated evolution and intelligent design last night. You can read two very different versions of the debate. Jason Rosenhouse posted a summary on The Panda's Thumb. He thought Shermer was good and Dembski wasn't. Salvador Cordova over at Uncommon Descent says Dembski won the debate.

Basing my conclusion entirely on the credibility of the two reporters, I'd say Shermer had a good night.


  1. Dembski could have stepped on his tie and fallen flat on his face, and Salvador would have remarked on how gracefully he fell and how the blood flowing from his nose confirmed the irreducible complexity of the vertebrate blood clotting cascade. He'd have been wrong, of course: Dembski has no spine (see Kitzmiller, expert witnesses for the defense).

  2. rbh says,

    Dembski has no spine

    Perhaps that's why he falls down so gracefully?

  3. Thanks much for the links. As an amateur evolutionist, I've been looking forward to such a debate and will try to get a transcript or charts. I noticed that Cordova made a big deal about getting Shermer to back down on natural selection and say that he is now open to such things as "self-organization, and other evolutionary scenarios." Do you suppose a cooptation of "self-organization" to be the next big push from ID?

  4. Self-organization (if it ever proves to be a genuinely fruitful idea in evolutionary biology) doesn't help the IDiots one bit, of course (it's just another "blind" natural force), so only a dumbass like Sal would crow about this "concession". I don't think the wilier folks back at DI headquarters will fall into that trap.