Dembski's visit could have been a warmer evangelical experience, if Campus Crusade for Christ had used a venue with fewer seats than the Lied Center. They could have packed the house with their soldiers, before the pesky people with questions could find seats. As for few questions from the campus wing-nuts, what's to be asked, if you are a true believer?
I was there, because I wanted to see for myself, knowing I would not be able to rely on the reviewers.
Your review is nothing but propaganda spin and basically is a lie.
There were some hecklers, especially one member or SOMA...I recognized him...who gave a maniac laugh in the middle of each of Dembskis responses starting about half way into the Q and A session.
But overall, the response was favorable and the listeners respectful.
The "insightful" questions were obvious plants and I saw a biology professor lurking in the balcony...what a pussy!
He had to go down to the microphones and hand a card to a student and have the student ask what was obviously the professors question. Intellecual coward, that's what he is.
The word will get around campus this week.
So know this...that recordings ARE available and you will be caught as liars.
Hm. "Randy"...I very much doubt that your version of events was anything close to the truth.
Just how DID Dembski answer the request for observational evidence that supported his view?
Hey, uh, "Randy," it's termed a "maniacal" laugh, not a "maniac" laugh as you described here, and at KCFS posting as "Christensen." Or Jim. Or whatever.
Randy, excellent Christian attitude on calling a biology professor a "pussy". I'm sure you and your brothers and sisters in Christ must be proud!
Seems DaveScot weighed in on this talk over at Uncommon Descent, and as usual, he provides great humor.
I blogged about DaveScot's post this morning.
"Randy" sounds like the same troll that was doing all the name contortions before. Must be off his meds again.
Randy: Oh no! How there be hecklers! This is America after all and we're not allowed the right to free speech.
While I would agree with you that the one person you mention would best be described as giving off "manicial laughter", he is not a member of SOMA, although he does frequent our events. However, it should also be noted that SOMAs president, Andrew, was the one that quieted him down after he attempted to have a debate with the person sitting in front of him during the lecture.
However, no matter how inappropriate the actions of one person, that still gives no merit to Dembski's argument. Furthermore, I'm not sure what your point is in saying a biology professor was doing there. Do you think that somehow validates Dembski's arguments either? And most questions asked on the stage left mic, were asked by SOMA members or members of the sciences department that I know. No intervention from professors necessary dispite your conspiracy theories.
It's of interesting note that you haven't mentioned a single thing on the claims Dembski made. Did you understand them, or were you merely like the other Christian gentleman I heard on his way out who said he "didn't understand a third of it" but still was convinced it was true? Or do you simply refrain from commenting because you're aware they bear no substance?
So glad to read of this. To most people in Canada (at least those of us that pay attention to the whole ID thing)Kansas was viewed as "quaint", to use a euphemism. I am pleased that your college students do think for themselves and that they won't put up with rubbish being foisted on them as education.
Woo-Hoo. Glad to see that Real Kansans aren't afraid to stand up for evolution.
I attended a Behe "lecture" here in the Northwest a couple of months ago. The only tough questions he got were from the YECs who attempted to convince him and his like-minded co-panelist that Ken Hamm has proven the world is not so old.
Randy,
Andrew Stangl, president of SOMA here.
The heckler being referred to is a gentleman who suffers from a severe mental disorder and currently resides in sunflower house, meaning he is homeless. This gentleman is equally disruptive at almost every function he attends and I believe requires more advanced medical treatment then he is receiving. I guess he wasn't so intelligently designed, huh?
I'm curious as to how a person could "plant" questions. If Dembski could be stumped so easily and have to evade every question posed to him, then it certainly doesn't speak well for intelligent design as a whole.
As for the lecture itself, I was looking forward, as the Campus Crusade advertised, to hearing the "evidence for intelligent design". Instead, we heard nothing but a critique of certain aspects of evolution from a person with no background in natural sciences but with obvious religious biases. Even if evolution was falsified one day, it wouldn't mean that intelligent design is correct. It's not one or the other, although Dembski and his followers would have you believe otherwise.
I'm glad to hear the recording will be available. Nothing will hurt Dembski and the intelligent design movement more than having people remember his own words.
The article said,
"A number of other questioners pointedly remarked that Dembski's case for intelligent design was more a critique of evolution than a recitation of evidence supporting ID."
Exactly -- that is the way that I view irreducible complexity (I believe that Dembski's version is called specified complexity). And the opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover said essentially the same thing -- that irreducible complexity is a test for evolution theory rather than a test for ID. But what is wrong with that? Where is it written that a scientific theory may not be criticized unless a plausible alternative scientific theory is presented at the same time ?
Hi Larry!
trolling over here I see.
You don't show evidence for Intelligent Design by attacking evolution any more than you prove the existance of apples by attacking bananas.
Tell Dembski to stop 'attacking the bananas' Larry.
Tell him to 'show us the apples'!
Randy says recordings will be available. Does he mean good recordings from CCC? I'd like to know.
Thanks
Larry:
Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are not the same thing. If you are going to argue for your side at least learn your own arguments. Not that either are remotely provable or scientific.
Dean, that's the best analogy I've heard in a good while. I'm gonna write that one down... 
As mentioned Larry, you cannot support Theory A simply by attacking Theory B. Supporting Theory A actually means providing positive evidence for Theory A.
Has ID done this even once?
No, primarily because there is no "Theory" to "A" in the first place. That's why all you ever see is events like this, the ID guy attacking evolution, end of story. Making the attacks more convoluted and subtle doesn't change the fact that they are still just attacks on evolution and don't support ID.
Bananas and apples. That's great. Short. Sweet. Understandable.
And I doubt it really qualifies as an apple.
... actually if you want to know about apples first you need to find a talking snake...
Um, can you people read?
Larry is "on your side."
Real Threat:
You probably feel the way I do over at Panda's Thumb: 6-8 regulars re-hashing the same arguments over & over.
Larry is treated as a pariah over there, and I see his critics are many of the sames ones here.
His statement, taken by itself, stands on its own merits: IC and SC -are- criticism of ET.
What the responders should have said is that both IC and SC have been dealt with quite well, and cited the examples.
*************
In a separate comment, it should be noted that Dembski ignores the replies that have come from real live evolutionary biologists regarding irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Perhaps it was the fault of the CC4C, but if the event was billed as a support for ID, then Dembski should have done that, not trotted out his tired IC/SC ponies.
Well, there's a good reason why Larry's treated as a pariah. Doesn't do research, he's inclined to make statements about things he hasn't studied (but others have) and he refuses to admit he's made a mistake.
Other than that, he's an OK person.
Real Threat.
.. read Larry's thread again...
slowly...
out loud if it helps...
run your finger under the words...
get a grown up to explain the long and difficult ones...
Then you see that Larry thinks that attacking evolution proves ID.
He admits that this is Dembski is doing - and then says 'But what's wrong with that'
Larry is on 'our side' only by illustrating what a bunch of loons the ID crowd are.
.... and you'll find Larry is not a Pariah at PT - he is regarded with a lot of affection for his ability to stagger on even when his 'arguments' are shot full of holes. Some of us have a minor campaign to get him back - but he doesn't want to play any more.
You're welcome to play as well but I'm afraid you're likely to be called 'Real Treat', as in:
look at this one from 'Real Treat'! - asks if we can read - but shows the reading comprehension of a housebrick.
... any more 'Treats' in store?
"Some of us have a minor campaign to get him back - but he doesn't want to play any more."
The president is upset and dismayed that Larry FaFaFaFarman is no longer posting at Pandas Thumb.
The NSA had reported that there was a drop-off in production by LF but the analysts failed to determine that he had left.
Luckily I have this site monitored.
I finally got to listen to the recording of Demski's Q and A session.
Adam Stangl, the Pres of the Atheist club says that Dembshi was stumped and avoided answering.
Listening for myself, in my opinion Stangl is misrepresenting what happened...maybe he was too busy talking to the "mentally disturbed guy" who "happened" to be there.
Whatever...anyone interested needs to listen for themselves; the chances of getting real info here are close to zero.
Commenting by HaloScan
