Ronald Numbers vs Paul Nelson on BHTV

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21107

An historian of science and creationist pseudo-scientist walk into a dialog. Cordial and informative chat ensues. Mostly they talk about how to approach finding the truth rather than what we should think is true, which is a bit too meta for my tastes. I'm more interested in arguing for or against metaphysical naturalism than hearing arguments about methodological naturalism versus fideism. Nevertheless, I've got to credit both speakers for being gentlemanly and seemingly well-informed.

Thunderf00t vs. Comfort

http://youtu.be/N2FskTKrx40

Seriously, now, who the f*ck is this guy? I mean the guy on the left. Who is he, really? He is obviously intelligent and well-read and well-spoken, but I've no idea who he really is. I assume he is a grad student in biochem or something like that.

At any rate, this debate outright sucked as far as debates go, but totally rocked for sheer entertainment value. The preacher guy kept changing the subject and making seemingly random off-topic assertions (possibly engaging his magical powers of metaphyically libertarian free will) while the other guy kept trying to get him to back up, calm down, and carefully examine the meaning of his words. It was sort of like a philosophical comedy routine dialog, with a wacky clown playing off a straight guy. Worth watching while sharing a bong and a laugh, but don't expect too much depth.

Overall rating: 2.5
Believer rating: 1.0
Unbeliever rating: 4.0

Hearty vs Williams on the radio (UK)

In this episode of Unbelievable, Peter S. Williams debates Peter Hearty on the subject of intelligent design. The first quarter hour or so provides a reasonably accurate and concise summary of the ideas usually put forth by cdesign proponentsists intelligent design theorists. Hearty counters at first by reducing ID down to its core, saying that you cannot so blithely make the jump from "we don't know how this happened" to "God must have done it." I'm afraid, however, that Behe's core argument is never fully outlined and analysed here, as has been well done elsewhere. They get down into the weeds pretty quickly, but are often sidetracked by phone calls and e-mails which generally don't help them dig into the core of the argument. There are a couple exceptions, notably the caller from around one half hour into the show. There is also a doozy of a call in almost an hour into the show which makes me feel just a bit better about being American instead of British. She says that the show needs a Ken Ham to keep things balanced, since both debaters are old-Earthers who accept common descent. That actually sounds like a fun idea for a reality show. A young earth creationist, an intelligent design theorist, and a scientist walk into a studio... At any rate, it was a decent conversation. They manage to cover a good deal of ground and provide the listener with a pretty good sense of the scope and depth of intelligent design theory. This one is worth hearing.

Myers vs Alexander on the radio (UK)

First off, I cannot believe that this episode turned out to be the most downloaded of the entire show run, as it is not a particularly shining example of the show. Usually, it is both more informative and more like a debate in which the guests go back and forth trying to prove or disprove some particular proposition. From the get go, the presenter is clearly struggling to provoke PZ into saying something provocative. Thereafter, Alexander keeps trying to drag Myers off the subject of science generally and biology in particular, while PZ repeatedly call him out on it, continually dragging the conversation back to scientific means and methods. Around 42 minutes in, the interlocutors finally get into something like a geniune disagreement, but not for very long. Overall, the discussion was too meandering and random. Both men sounded intelligent and well spoken, but neither one did not came out strongly for or against any particular position or built a case for their position. They both agree on some crucial points, such as whether theology has any place in the laboratory, and how people arose biologically, among other things.

Cave vs Robertson at Gunnersbury Baptist (UK)

http://www.gunnersburybaptistchurch.org/events/opentoquestion.php
(Scroll down to 13 June 2009)

Peter Cave characterizes humanism as he sees it and tries to give us reasons to believe that life isn't completely pointless even in the absence of a supervening intelligence who ultimately controls all events and severely punishes every soul who doesn’t precisely follow his plans, whatever they may be.

David Robertson, for his part, colours humanism in several and various ways, and somehow manages to mischaracterize someone or some idea at each and every point, but he does this quite smoothly and confidently. He also pulls out the Atheism = Maoism/Stalinism/Kimism idea, an old canard one which invariably triggers my gag reflex. He tops this absurdity by calling the Scandinavian nations thoroughly Christian, despite their noteworthy competitiveness for the title of most godless and secular nations on the planet, at least according to the professional demographers of religion.

They then go back and forth for awhile, in a friendly and lighthearted manner, using a direct cross-examination format (my personal favorite). Cave asks some tough questions, although not quite the right ones, and Robertson stalwartly and expertly defends his faith.

Overall, both men did just fine, however, they don’t quite drill down into the fundamental differences between faith-based and reason-based modes of thinking, not even during the protracted Q&A.

Orton vs. Robertson on the radio (UK)

This episode of Unbelieveable was yet another debate over where might get one's moral ideas if not from stone tablets carved out on Mt. Sinai. Honestly, I wonder why Christians think this question is such a stumper. If you define morality to mean absolute commands which come down from above, then of course you'll need to have a god up on high giving out commands.

The atheist in this show is a layman and a bit of a try-hard, he barely gets a word in edgewise, much less a decent argument, though he is constantly being prodded by the host to do so. The Christian apologist, by contrast, rambles on and repeatedly claims that everything good and pure comes from Christianity while discounting any harms it caused along with the moral values of every other culture. Such old school cultural imperialism ought not be too shocking from a British minister and True Scotsman.

This one is not worth your time, even when played at 2x.

Humphreys vs. Holding on the radio (UK)

In this episode of Unbelievable, James Patrick "JP" Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/) debates Ken Humphreys (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/) on the question of the historical Jesus. I should wrn you that they don't really get into anything like substantive debate until after 25-30 minutes have gone by.

On his website, Holding defends extravagant miraculous and theological claims about what Jesus actually said and did in his life on Earth, but in the course of framing of this particular debate he manages to stake out a far more defensible position, essentially that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual rabbi who was alive during the early first century and had disciples and a wider following. Humphreys, by contrast, actually tries to defend the same position that he advocates on his website, namely, that Jesus was never an actual historical figure but merely and emergent mythic figure like William Tell or King Arthur.

Since Holding abandons his own actual position and defends the moderate middle ground of agnostic leaning scholars such as Bart Ehrman, he manages to come off as the seemingly more reasonable interlocutor in this discussion, but not without some cost to his reputation as a forthright and stalwart defender of the whole gospel.

Humphreys comes off as well-informed and passionate, thought (alas) a bit more of the latter than the former. He tries to show that the gospels and other source materials are "late and fake" but does not make nearly so strong a case as someone like Richard Carrier or Earl Doherty could have done. He should have focused more on the appearances of more and more biographical details of Jesus later and later in the game.

The only particular point that I'd like raise about this debate is that Holding is treading on very dangerous apologetical ground when he brings up the "edifying fiction" defense around 39:30 or so, because it plays right into the myther hypothesis that all of the gospels were also created in precisely the same way, and that they would be shelved under devotional fiction to this day if only we knew all the details of their origins.