EvC Forum: Online (via email) Phillip Johnson vs. Philip Kitcher debate

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Online (via email) Phillip Johnson vs. Philip Kitcher debate

subbie

Member (Idle past 1282 days)

Posts: 3509

Joined: 02-26-2006

subbie Posts Only

Message 1 of 4 (406436)
06-20-2007 12:06 AM

Here's one online (via email) debate between Phillip Johnson and Philip Kitcher. I shall leave it to the reader to determine who won.

This was message 62 at the "Discussion of John MacKay's Views" topic. I decided that it was significant enough to merit its own topic, rather than being buried in that other topic. Besides, it is questionable that it is on-topic there.

I've put this in "Links and Information", which is NOT a debate forum. If a real discussion breaks out it probably should be moved elsewhere.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Taz

Member (Idle past 3318 days)

Posts: 5069

From: Zerus

Joined: 07-18-2006

Taz Posts Only

Message 2 of 4 (406498)
06-20-2007 4:13 PM

From the other thread...

moi writes:

I find that debate completely useless in this issue. Why? Because if you're already on the side of science you will think Kitcher won and if you're already on the side of religion you will agree that Johnson won. Why? Because neither guy presented anything new, neither actually pointed out any specific, and neither had any clear advantage over the other.

Dr A writes: writes:

Did they have some sort of pre-agreed rule against citing anything?

Well, you have to look at what they are. The ID advocate is a law professor. The ID opponent is a philosophy professor. If you boil it down, neither actually has the background to discuss the issue on the technical level. I suspect that both of them knew this, which is why neither one was willing to cite anything specific or willing to discuss any detail on a technical level.

Basically, the debate was just an opportunity for these two guys to impress the easily impressed with their clever wordings and soundbites.

In fact, I would go as far as say that DWise1's message in the other thread sounds better than the entire johnson kitcher debate.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Replies to this message:
	Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-20-2007 4:27 PM		Taz has replied

Adminnemooseus

Administrator

Posts: 3976

Joined: 09-26-2002

Adminnemooseus Posts Only

Message 3 of 4 (406499)
06-20-2007 4:27 PM

Reply to: Message 2 by Taz
06-20-2007 4:13 PM

Link to dwise message in another topic

In fact, I would go as far as say that DWise1's message in the other thread sounds better than the entire johnson kitcher debate.

My guess is that the above is referring to message 72 at the "Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code" topic. This message got a "Post Of The Month" nomination.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
	Message 2 by Taz, posted 06-20-2007 4:13 PM		Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 4 by Taz, posted 06-20-2007 4:41 PM		Adminnemooseus has not replied

Taz

Member (Idle past 3318 days)

Posts: 5069

From: Zerus

Joined: 07-18-2006

Taz Posts Only

Message 4 of 4 (406501)
06-20-2007 4:41 PM

Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
06-20-2007 4:27 PM

Re: Link to dwise message in another topic

Thanks for the link.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

This message is a reply to:
	Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-20-2007 4:27 PM		Adminnemooseus has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

0 online now:
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/0