Clash of the Type A-Type C Titans?
by MikeGeneOver at the #1 Science Blog, PZ Myers is willing to debate Ken Miller
We won't be on the same segment, sorry"¦there could be some vigorous argument if we were, and poor Karl might not be able to get in a word edgewise. It is an interesting combination, though: the extremely helpful and well-regarded speaker and biologist who is also an apologist for religion, and the pirate evilutionist with a knife between his teeth who brooks no compromise in his war against religion. We'll have to see what Karl does with the possibilities.
And the host is willing to do this:
It would be possible to set up a Miller-Myers brawl bash, but not for tonight's show. I'm going to try to set up a dual-interview for next week which will involve such a thing, but I'll know tonight how possible it will be.
I think lots of us would like to see Miller and Myers debate about science and religion. After all, in his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller argues that many of his scientific colleagues are to blame for "the strength and depth of anti-evolution feelings in the U.S" (p. 104). I'm sure Myers would like the chance to defend himself while exploring Miller's "anti-science" approach. Remember, that according to type C critic Sam Harris, "There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality."
So Miller has a problem with Myers and Myers has a problem with Miller. Let's see the debate. PZ is willing. They have someone willing to host it. Ken Miller likes to debate. Whether there will be a debate is all up to Ken Miller.
Would you like to listen to such a debate?
January 26th, 2007 at 6:49 am
So Myers has decided to start debating creationists?
Comment by macht — January 26, 2007 @ 6:49 am
January 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Yes. Even one between Ed Brayon and PZ Myers would be good.
I don't think a debate of this sort would have easily transpired pre-Dover. But in post-Dover, much of the "pro-science" pretense by type C's is gone.
I do consider you insightful on these matters, Mike. I had refrained from asking you the following questions up until now partly because you don't strike me as the kind to engage in speculation even for entertainment sake.
But do you think:
1. Type C's feel they are declining in power?
2. Are the Type C's actually declining in power?
I seem to recall other post by you suggesting their outrage is based on fear. Theire outrage is symbolized by Myers wanting a fight with Miller.
That may be true that type C's are fearful, but I suppose even though I may have accepted this intellectually, at the gut level I experience cognitive dissonance. The Type C strike me as being very powerful.
The Type C's also strike me like a nervous robber with a pistol trying to subjugate very calm victims (the IDers). The IDers in contrast act like they have absolutely nothing to lose. The Type C can point a gun to the head of the IDers and the IDers seem to have no anxiety that justice will eventually prevail. That the masses will eventually come to their defense…
That is my assessment of each side's psychology. Whether the Type C's are actually losing political clout and losing numbers is another story. Do they have demographic data they circulate amongst themselves? They seem to been keenly interested in polling freshmen at universities. For example they discovered to their horror 40% creationists in UCSD's sixth college, 33% bio majors in Iowa state, 50% to 70% in Will Provine's course in Cornell.
I'm a bit appalled at the kind of methods they are willing to resort to as well, like coralling an entire freshman class (or at least a large part) at UCSD to have them listen to Pennock. Similar thing happened at GMU when Eugenie Scott visited (science teachers requiring students to attend an anti-ID talk, LOL!).
However if they are losing power, their fears are justified. The outrage and appeals to legal sactions is therefore completely logical.
And it may not be just a demographic change but cultural. That is to say, even if more people are becoming secular, its not as big a deal. By way of anaology, in the US, catholics and protestants eventually got along quite well in contrast to Northern Ireland. It might be the real "New Atheists" (the kind I see among the young, and not the Sam Harris's), simply don't care about making atheism a big issue. Like that catholics and protestants in the US, there is not really a desire to start a religious war over atheism and Christianity.
The young atheists seem to not make the religion thing a big deal. They don't see atheism as the engine for Utopia. They're actually too cynical to buy into that. Lauren Sandler gave a good antropological assessment. Her side just can't muster much enthusiasm over the issue. A lot of them, like her and Shermer and Ruse, actually like being around religious folks…
I see a lot of ambivalence over the ID issue on BOTH sides. That's the other thing. Contrary to general perception, there is a lot of ambivalence toward ID and creation in the churches, even strongly Evangelical ones. That may be changing (interest growing) while at the same time atheists become more ambivalent about ID. If my speculation is accurate, then the Type C's should be worried, and their outrage is perfectly logical.
Given the post Dover situation, Miller should be feeling quite victorious, and Myers in a tizzy. Should make for an interesting debate.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 26, 2007 @ 10:13 am
January 26th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I'd pay good money to see PZ discuss any political subject with Timothy Sandefur. Of course, the organizers would have to rent a huge metal cage, Tina Turner as a referee, and a crowd chanting "Two men enter, one man leave!"
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2007 @ 10:25 am
January 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am
It will be a non-debate (if it happens), like S.C. Morris v Dawkins or Collins v. Dawkins.
Myers would try to force Miller into a strong ID position… and then he'd take the usual line of arguments against ID.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 11:10 am
January 26th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Sal,
I believe you are on to something. I think the ambivalent whom you referenced will fall along roughly left/right partisan lines. Moderate types (left and right) are willing to live and let live, the extreme ends are less doubtful of their beliefs and more willing to coerce their moral good with penal codes.
There have been isolated outrages defending Darwin's ramparts - Jones' ACLU water carrying, Sternberg and your freshmen indoctrination orientation example - but not enough to trigger the barbarian horde at the gates to storm it.
However, the gathering mass of Visgoths, Huns and Celts - IDEA clubs (hat tip to ya, Attila), blogs such as TT and UD (pointing to stories and research downplayed in the mainstream) and many thousands of interested parties such as myself and the many others who participate in the discussion online - we are now encamped, various standards have been raised, what will be the rallying cry?
Krauze, I'd like to see Dawkins and Allen Orr debate, especially in light of Orr's scathing review of TGD.
Comment by todd — January 26, 2007 @ 11:11 am
January 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I'd rather see Myers debate Cornelius Hunter…. someone who would actually take the debate to him.
Miller's going to be doing too much tip-toeing for it to be interesting.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 11:25 am
January 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Sorry, I meant Stephen Barr.
No idea why I wrote C. Hunter. That debate wouldn't make sense….
Barr holds to pretty much the same position as Miller, but I think it would make for a more interesting debate.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I still have hopes for Ken Miller. One of these days he's going to switch camps. He has all but admitted that the best explanation for first life is a miracle. I think such a debate would be fruitful in helping him get there.
Comment by bFast — January 26, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
How about Gary Hurd (type C) and Ed Bratyon (type A) or PZ and Lenny Flank (type B?).
We got a taste of what it would be like : Pandas Gone Wild
There is not much real science to be learned in such exchanges. These debates would be for studying rhetoric and being entertained.
I'd rather see a Pandas Gone Wild shouting match.
PS
I hate to admit it, but I cancelled my New Years travel plans to Tunica, Mississippi because I was so rivetted by the exchange Brayton and Myers had over Dawkins signing of a pettition. See: PZ keeps lying. Debates between ID proponents and their detractors are so tepid by comparison.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I'm excited for the McGrath v. Dennett debate.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Over at dangerousidea.blogspot.com there is a quote from Richard Dawkins as to why he has turned down a potential debate with William Lane Craig "I've never heard of William
Craig. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"
A poster by the name of David Wood points out that, "There's quite a difference between not hearing of Craig in a philosophy class and not hearing of him if you're one of the top atheists in the world."
I find it hard to believe, with as critical he is of religion and Christianity, that he has never heard of W.L.Craig.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I gotta go with the Miller-Myers match-up, as it's hard to predict who would come out on top. But I'd put my money on Myers.
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
And here it is:
http://www.inoculatedmind.com/...
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 27, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
January 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
FYI
Miller starts at about 28:00, Myers at about 1:04:00.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 27, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
not able to hear it.
Any opinions on how it went?
Comment by Doug — January 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
January 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Doug:
Well, Miller is well-spoken and manages to put a little conviction into his opinions. I'd like to go to a lecture now, will keep an eye out for when he's appearing at one of my local colleges. PZ sounded positively timid in comparison. Quite the surprising amount of dissonance between his oral presence and his written steel-toed boots. He calls his approach a "strategy."
Mogel's style is a lot like Condi Rice. Slow thinking, slow talking, more "um…" than actual words. Makes me want to climb the walls. Both Miller and PZ seem to have been as frustrated as me with the pace, jumping in on anticipated points Mogel would have taken twenty minutes to get around to making. ARGH!!!
I doubt I'll take the time to download anything this long and boring again. Reading the flame wars is more fun.
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2007 @ 1:33 pm