Thank You

Chris, I think you missed a chance at the very beginning when Wells characterized this as a left/right issue.

There is nothing inherent liberal or conservative in the definition of what is a science, and that's where the argument needed to be. The fact he immediately made a left-right distinction exposed his true agenda. I wish you would have called him on that.

You tried nobly to raise the issue that ID is not a science, but you were up against a guy who only repeated his main fallacious points: (1) ID is a science; (2) the evidence for Darwinism is weak. It's hard to argue those points in that format.

The audience, I'm afraid, found little enlightenment from either side this time.

I didn't expect Wells to get specific, and I also didn't expect you to be able to get specific enough, but I think you concentrated on a good angle: Illustrating just how intolerant Wells and the DI "Acolytes" actually are.

Good job, Chris. We all appreciate your efforts.

I'm disappointed, but not in the ways I expected to be.

In short:
--You never challenged the incessant use of "Darwinism" by Diamond and Wells
--You largely reacted and followed rather than take charge
--You never emphatically challenged Wells' claims regarding "The Evidence," nor moved the conversation towards said evidence (maybe not entirely bad)

In long:
First and foremost, you never challenged Wells' and Diamonds' constant use of "Darwinism." This is particularly relevant since Wells draws a distinction between that term and "Evolution." I'm pretty sure Diamond never even understood what he was getting at, and since he never really elaborated I imagine the average listener was confused as well.

You were mostly reacting to Wells' and Diamonds' comments, you never seemed to take the lead in the discussion. Diamond especially wasted (in my opinion) a lot of time talking about his theory that ID is the spearhead of a much larger conservative/theocratic agenda. I don't entirely disagree with that, but I think he gives it more importance than it deserves, and I was hoping for a debate about the merits of ID, not its agenda.

Wells regularly stated that there was overwhelming evidence for ID, and that the evidence for "Darwinism" was pathetic. You were appropriately disagreeable in demeanor about that, yet I don't think you ever actually stated that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and that there is literally no evidence for ID. You missed several opportunities to state that and bring the conversation to a discussion of the evidence, including some pretty good openings to call out and shoot down the ID movement's claims and methods for the testability of design. His opening remark about becoming an ID creationist during his (apparently?) disillusioned-with-liberalism 1960's flight to the country and subsequent awe at nature surrounding him was a great crack to pry into, but all I recall are a few repeated comments you made about that being an argument from incredulity, and that such is the basis of ID (though you didn't actually even say "argument from incredulity.")

I don't think Wells was wrong to call you on responding to his claims, early in the debate, by pointing out some of the theological issues with ID/Creationism (who designed the designer, etc.) They're not bad points, but again, they're a distraction from addressing the claims he repeatedly made about "The Evidence."

Perhaps there's a silver lining in not getting to "The Evidence." The program was already short enough that I suppose Gish Gallop would have been almost assured.

Sorry to seem so down, because overall I wasn't horribly disappointed. I would be utterly terrified to do a debate such as this, and would probably screw up royally. All things considered I'd call it nearly a draw, except that in this environment a draw is a loss for us.

Y'know, I forgot the point jbruno made...that's true. One major positive of this debate was the way Wells appeared in his insistence that "Darwinism" and religion weren't compatible. And you definitely spotted that and exploited it.

is there a better link to an archive so I don't have to view that web page? I feel like I need a shower.

Best,

D

Guess I'm an idiot, but I can't find a link to the specific audio program Chris was on.

Folks the problem is that I don't think the show is archived...so you had to catch it live or not at all.

As for whether this is a left vs. right matter: It's extremely interesting to see the threads on www.freerepublic.org . That's about as rabid a right-wing forum as you'll find, but there's robust support for teaching evolution.

See, for example, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676754/posts
then check out the KEYWORDS just below the post

Folks,
Here's an overview of the debate as well:
http://fightingforscience.com/2006/08/24/id-vs-evo-on-fox-news-radio-gu…

I wouldn't archive it either, Chris.

Face it, you lost.

A comment you may think helpful for the next time: you were not audible enough. I mean, for a non-native English speaker like me, it was a bit hard to hear. The other guys had voices very easy to listen to.

This was the first Evo-Creo debate I ever heard, and more than ever, I wish to thank you for your take on it.