1. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11586 by RobS on December 5, 2006 at 6:02 pm

Conclusive disproof? You call yourself a scientist? Sheesh. It's bad enough "they" can't come up with a coherent, consistent theory. "We" shouldn't help them out by making unprovable statements akin to "This conclusively disproves God's existence."

The burden of proof is on the asserter of the theory. We only have to determine if the theory is consistent, coherent and if the evidence supports it.

2. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #11564 by RobS on December 5, 2006 at 2:15 pm

I also burned all to my hard disk and spent 4 days worth of free time sucking down the entire conference. What an amazing group.

1. I enjoyed the neuro scientists bringing a bit of experimental science to bear on the topics.

2. Harris and Dawkins remain prophets (though Dennett would be joining them if he were in attendance.) By prophet I mean "people discussing truths in a way that is SO far ahead of what the general populace is ready to deal with."

3. All the people who want to turn Sam Harris' basic point that "dogmatic, blind faith is not a virture and should not be taught, and assertions of its virtue should be challenged" into "you say you can disprove god and that all religion should be immediately abolished" ought to stay away from academic conferences and debates.

4. While thoroughly enjoyable, Tyson has some flaws. His finale was self aggrandizing performance, and his first comments (session 1? 2?) badly equate his concept of "intelligent design" with "The Intelligent Design Movement" in a way that I think gives cover to the anti-scientific folks in that movement.

5. Ann Druyan's gentle rebuke of the Job quoting believer was one of the most eloquent, impromptu statements I've ever seen.

6. The Templeton Foundation should be actively resisted by anyone who has a love of science, truth and intellectual honesty. The Templeton VP/apologist immediately took to attacking the motives of the other presenters, rather than dealing with their arguments. He called them naive and simplistic, but did not provide counter arguments. Pathetic!!

7. The guy who made a point about Dawkin's title as "Professor of Public Understanding of Science" may be on to something. Could Richard do more to publicly and cleverly illuminate the method, facts, peer review, logic etc. that support the scientific enterprise, in a more educational way, rather than in an attacking atheist way? Not that I don't like the attacking atheist approach, but there might be fertile territory to work in that area.

8. The fellow going on about quantuum states of consciousness was a waste of time (IMHO). When you have to resort to rhetorical tactics like saying (paraphrased liberally), "The truth I have is just too complex to be explained without jargon, in a short time, and to the likes of you lot" then you probably haven't really worked to expose your truths in a way that they will reach a general audience.

10. Continued hammering on Harris' central point that religion asserts a privileged realm of knowledge not accessible to reason is the path to success.