7 Comments

1. 

   Joe Jarosak on November 14, 2007 at 11:59 pm

   Hey Jerrald thanks for posting that series. David Berlinski is an A-hole and I wish I could smack him several times.

   ~ Scarecrow

   Reply
2. 

   Jack on January 3, 2008 at 8:59 pm

   Hey Jerrald,

   David Berlinski is an intellectual heavy weight with considerable skill in debate and exposes the weaknessess in his opponents arguments with great ease. He is a site to behold, I wish I could pat him on the back several times.

   Love the strategy of the ID people.

   1. Johnson – position was to expose darwinians of pushing athesitic philosophy cloaked as science hidden and hidden behind the academic credentials of its proponents
   2. Berlinski – position was to expose the sloppy nature of darwinians use of the scientific method in pushing their “theory” as well as providing a skeptical view when it comes to quantitative probabilities of darwinian evolution from a mathmaticians point of view.
   3. Behe – position that the scientific method can be applied to prove of evidence of design, thus giving evidence of a “Designer”
   4. Buckley – does what he has always done…exposing the hypocrisy of academic institutions and intellectuals with credentials as being subject, just as anybody else, to “Groupthink” and taking part in “Bullying” the opposition into an agenda of their liking (Often left leaning) instead of promoting individual thought, discovery, and intellectual honesty.

   Dream Team and very calculated group

   Reply
3. 

   la moufette on February 28, 2008 at 12:23 am

   thanks for this wonderful series. I used to sneak to watch Firing Line when I was a kid because my parent’s didn’t approve of me watching ‘conservative propaganda’ but I was always so in awe of these heavyweight intellectuals using such fine words, and deep thoughts. Right or Left, Right or Wrong, it’s nice to hear people really talking.

   Reply
4. 

   Seth D. Moody on March 22, 2008 at 6:57 pm

   Yeah, like la moufette, I saw this when I was a kid (14, actually), and I remember it being very important to me because I was losing my faith at the time, or maybe just realizing and accepting that I didn’t have it, and so to see adults argue to intensely about what I was going through was very comforting. Thanks for this post.

   Reply
5. 

   minorwork on May 16, 2008 at 11:42 pm

   I’ve watched this great debate twice as of today. I’ve watched David Berlinski in EXPELLED. He be, seemingly, the perfect skeptic, though in both he presents on the side of Intelligent Design. I’ve yet to hear what David believes. ‘Course I’ve not put effort into him yet. His constant rejecting of conclusions makes me wonder how he determines he is done taking a leak.

   Sure, he is irritating. He thinks that no scientist can look skeptically at biology if they accept evolution. Scientists are very aware of the role of skepticism.

   Evolution being the idea of common descent. Most design advocates fail to take into account that this simply put idea encompasses much complexity that has become apparent with the development of precision instrumentation.

   And finally, I have to agree that a postulated designer might have given the command: Evolve! Why do the biblical literalists reject this?

   Reply
6. 

   Eric Sherman on July 26, 2008 at 4:55 am

   I’m not sure who I’d like to punch in the neck more for being an arrogantly ignorant schmuck: David Berlinkski or William F. Buckley.

   Buckley’s facial contortions are maddening! It looks like his face has undergone plastic surgery by Arrogance herself! What pomposity!

   Of course, not to be outdone, Berlinski takes the cake with his greedy, radical skepticism and baseless bullsh*t. What a complete inner ring of an assh*le! Take THAT you conceited, smug, ostentatious, turgid turd!!!!

   Reply
7. 

   MonkeyMan on September 8, 2009 at 2:54 pm

   The ID side won because they have nothing to lose.

   The Science defenders where all excellent, especially Ken Miller. But even though none of the ID side had anything substantive to say (Behe stammered and sweated when asked to explain his “revolutionary” “theory”),… well, they proved that it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Basically Phillip Johnson and Berlinski had nothing to offer, but looked confident nonetheless. Berlinski repeatedly could not and would not answer any questions, but when he asked the ridiculous question of how many genetic changes it would take for a land mammal to become a whale (It’d be like trying to debunk astronomy by demanding on-the-spot the distance between two random stars). Eugenie Scott was unprepared while Ken Miller gave a perfectly good answer. But Berlinski acted all tired and annoyed as if he was struggling to maintain his patience as the pro-evolutionists kept dodging his “legitimate” questions.

   In the end, to the public, it looked like both sides were debating opposite but equal points of view. That’s why I have to say that ID won. Twelve years later and people still think there’s a scientific debate.

   Look forward to the next “Dark Age.”

   Reply