= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Let Them Debate College Students - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
FWIW, I've tested out what it's like to debate random people (on YouTube) while taking the ID side. Even when I got people who were obviously intelligent and well-versed in biology, I had exchanges like this:
"If you reject evolution, what's your alternate theory?"
"Ignorance."
"Ignorance isn't a theory!"
"Considering that it predicts the data equally well [I had claimed evolution doesn't actually imply what we see] and has a lower Kolmogorov complexity, it most certainly is a theory, if for no other reason that its superiority to something you already deem to be a theory."
"What's Komogorov complexity?"
Note: the point is not that he hadn't heard the term, but that he felt qualified to talk about the epistemology of science without ever having encountered the term, and couldn't be bothered to look it up.
(Separate post to distinguish reasons for up/down voting.)
First, you devil's advocacy is actually considerably more articulate and thought out then even the least ignorant ID advocate. Second, the most K-complex theory of all is that some mind designed everything.
True. I should have clarified: in that particular debate I was simply attacking the science, not defending ID.
Attacking the science is WAY easier than defending ID. We should always make sure to distinguish between the two things when talking to creationists. Most of their "arguments" are exactly of this "have the cake and eat it too" variety (cake=attack evo, eating=defend ID afterwards).
Is it? You haven't seen me be a devil's advocate for ID yet, have you? ;-)