Cliff Palmer, who I deduce is either a member or officer in the Free@VT club, was kind enough to post a response to my prior post on the Creation/Evolution debate. You can read the original there, but I'll be quoting it here for response.
Well, the fact that you base your entire argument on a hearsay account (not to mention a very vague one) kind of negates your entire argument.
Excellent! I'm more than happy to correct any statements I've made in light of new evidence.
You've got a lot of nerve to make such statements such as "he's so full of shit his eyes were brown" when you didn't even attend the event.
As may not have been entirely obvious from my orignal post, it was impossible for me to attend to debate. I was working over 200 miles away on the day the debate took place. The implication is that I can't comment on something which I didn't experience first-hand. I hope we all agree that's a foolish sentiment.
A recurring theme in the rest of my response will be the fact that I was responding to HokiePundit's account of the event. I didn't have any first-hand information, and didn't find any other accounts of the debate (I did look). I am, however, happy to reform my statement in the face of contradictory evidence.
As a side note, if it's the colorful language that offends you, I assume we're all adult enough to deal with four letter words. Just censor them out if it's that much of a problem.
Dr. Pigliucci was personally recommended by the executive directors of not just one small regional Freethought group, but by the executive directors of the three largest NATIONAL groups in the country. Based on my personal experience, Dr. Pigliucci is one of the most knowledgeable, not to mention interesting individuals I've ever met.
My comments regarding the quality of Dr. Pigliucci were based entirely on the version of his comments cited in my original article. While I'm glad that the Freethinkers chose a highly recommended speaker, his reputation does not make his argument more compelling.
The actual statements he made were in response to Dr. Guiluzza's repeated comments that any science that didn't use a closed double-blind method (essentially the method used to prove physics theories) was not, in fact, a real science. Dr. Pigliucci made a point to refute that fact that saying that, in actual fact, there are MANY sciences that do not use this method, including and not limited to forensic science, geology, astronomy,and paleontology.
In this case, I absolutely agree with Dr. P, and retract my comments on the matter. Science requires the scientific method, but Dr. P is correct that there are many fields which do not require the use of a double-blind method to achieve meaningful results.
Dr. Pigliucci also never said that details were not given. The details are in fact published, although these details are not given when they are covered in the normal media, such as on the news, or even through "scientific" shows such as NOVA or on the Discovery channel because they are quite complicated. Dr. Guiluzza made repeated comments on why these details weren't shown on these media, and as a rebuttal, Dr. Pigliucci put not one, but two very complex equations which gave the details that Dr. Guiluzza were looking for. He even began to elaborate on them, but it soon became clear that those details would have taken the entire time period of the debate to spell out, and that it would take a true expert (i.e., a grad student or PhD) to immediately and fully understand them.
I personally believe that Dr. P's explanation is a credible explaination for the lack of detail in most mainstream press. Again, with the presentation of new information, I'll happily recant on my original remarks.
So you can see that your comments on Dr. P. are quite misguided, but had you actually attended the event you would have known that for yourself. Both speakers presented a very decent argument, altough Dr. Guliuzza arguably failed because his argument completely revolved around shooting down evolution rather than defending his own creation science, which he spent practically no time during the entire three hours talking about.
My comments were not misguided, although they were misinformed. Given the original context, I would say my comments were dead-on. However, as you have made clear, the original context was not valid.
I have a hard time judging anyone as a "winner" and "loser" in a debate like this. Much like abortion or gun control, the issue is so emotionally charged that it's unlikely that a debate will cause a significant shift in perceptions.
As for your comment about the Freethinkers being "the so-called Freethinkers were the most closed minded, spiteful people I ever met" then you are obviously talking about the wrong group. For being close minded--it is a given that perhaps a couple members of our group are of, shall I say, "firm beliefs" or nonbeliefs as it may be, but most of our group is comprised of people with different values and different beliefs who prefer to discuss and learn what others think and believe and the reasons they do so--perhaps to better understand them as human beings. And for being spiteful--for me at least, the only time I am spiteful is when people make accusations based on their own ignorance. I will never harbor any ill-will towards one who has actually taken the time to research the things they argue for.
Anyway, that's all I've got. I hope perhaps you got something useful out of it. If not, then perhaps others will.
So your ethic affirms spitefulness? Interesting. At any rate....
My comments were obviously aimed at the Freethinkers as they existed when I was interacting with them on campus (circa 1997-98). I'm glad to hear that they've reformed. I certainly hope you're not implying a willingless to spite me, as you've made it clear that you think I've been lax in my duties by not attending the debate.
I personally have a great deal of respect for rationality and the scientific method. My willingness to deal with the issue in public will hopefully testify to that respect. Naturally, I welcome any further clarifications on the content of the debate, and would be happy to post a transcript here if someone has a reliable copy of the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to engage in a public discourse on the merits of the debate.
