You should now be able to download the Ruse-Dembski debate from last night's Nightline with that cool guy from Sesame Street (Snuffaluffagus, is that it?)
Ruse always seems like a jolly fellow, but less so last night. Commercials to be removed later. Commercials to stay in.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
May 10th, 2005 at 8:57 am
At one point in the interview, Ruse actually suggests a theocracy is coming and talks about being put in a reform camp. I think this is downright kooky, but it is an important part of the exchange. Why? When Ruse hears "ID" with his ears, his mind hears "God->Theocracy->Camps." Since no one wants to be forced into a reform camp, we can hypothesize that Ruse simply cannot acknowledge any validity to any aspect of ID. In some ways, Ruse is the mirror image of the fundamentalist creationist who cannot acknowledge any validity to evolution because he is afraid it will destroy everyone's faith in God.
Comment by MikeGene — May 10, 2005 @ 8:57 am
May 10th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
btw, I'm a fan of George Stephanopoulos. That wasn't meant as a knock. I think he's a rare calm character in the blather that we've come to call news.
I just can't help but think about my favorite Sesame Street character every time I hear his name. Just a wierd psychological quirk.
Comment by bipod — May 10, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
May 10th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Several times, Ruse claims that Dembski is being "used" by the Religious Right, who'll take over the show as soon as he gets his foot in the door. Now, imagine that, some day, Ruse becomes convinced that intelligent design was behind, say, the origin of life. How might he handle this situation? Would he publically acknowledge that Dembski was right all along, thereby allowing the Religious Right to use him as a tool to institute theistic reform camps?
Comment by Krauze — May 10, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
May 10th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Ruse and Dembski on "Nightline"
Michael Ruse and William Dembski had a brief debate on ABC's Nightline last night. For anyone who missed it, video is availble here: Download Ruse-Dembski.wmv (Thanks to Telic Thoughts.)
Trackback by Philosophy of Biology — May 10, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
May 10th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
[emphasis in the original]
Watch out Dembski, blood will flow.
Comment by teleologist — May 10, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
May 10th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Dembski's statement at the end (about the next 10 years), was quite inspiring.
Comment by Guts — May 10, 2005 @ 7:50 pm
May 11th, 2005 at 10:23 am
I assumed that the bit about the theocracy and the reeducation camps, etc., was some ironic, self-deprecating humor on Ruse's part. Kind of like his comments about the rapture, which, while inappropriately condescending, were clearly intended as humor. If he really believes that theocrats are going to set up camps and whatnot, the man is simply deranged. (I don't mean that disrespectfully, only clinically.)
Comment by Carnap — May 11, 2005 @ 10:23 am
May 12th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
I didn't like Ruse's condescending tone. He used fear mongering as a tactic and tried to stay away from actually discussing the claims of ID theory. This is their tactic because they feel it is most effective. Actually engaging in debate is difficult because the evidence is really stacked against them. They have to frame their unwillingness to engage in debate in a condescending way of course. They cry "FOUL! RELIGION IN SCIENCE CLOTHING!" and hope that is enough to get people on their side. But more and more I think the general public is becoming more willing to lend an ear to what ID theory is actually saying. I too see ID making inroads in the next 10 years. Oh yeah, Ruse also brought up Bush's Supreme Court nominations and tried to cause as much alarm as possible about where this country is heading. He pities Michael. Aah, that's sweet. What a nice man! He is so empathetic and caring! Impressive for a Darwinist with no foundation for morality.
Comment by tokyojim — May 12, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
May 15th, 2005 at 5:00 am
The ”theocracy“ is a real danger, but ID (or Creationism, for that matter) is disconnected or at best tangential to this.
The two likely political sources of a “theocracy” are the Roman Catholic Church, which one way or another has always wanted every politician subordinate to the Pope (exactly which Pope is a second debate), and for a group which more or less inaccurately could be referred to as “the Christian right” who have some mad idea, in defiance of all history and at least the first half of the Bible, that they understand God’s laws well enough to apply them consistently and wisely themselves.
If anything, $DEITY-agnostic ID or God-specific Creationism will act to limit the authority of the “theocracists” in the same way that historically they always have.
Comment by Leon Brooks — May 15, 2005 @ 5:00 am
December 12th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Ruse reminds me of why I'm not a darwinist.
Comment by Benjii — December 12, 2005 @ 2:29 pm