Big debate!

January 23, 2010 • 11:46 am

This promises to be good:  in one corner the New Atheist tag team of Michael Shermer and Sam Harris, in the other the New Ager tag team of Deepak Chopra* and Jean Houston. Topic:  Does God have a future?  Here’s the link.  If you’re going to be near Pasadena on that day, get yourself over there; tickets are free, and it will be broadcast on ABC’s Nightline.

*I hadn’t realized that Chopra adhered to a form of intelligent design, and is a severe critic of modern evolutionnary theory.

27 thoughts on “Big debate!”

  2. The quantum woo will no doubt flow freely from the mouth of Chopra. I wonder if Harris/Shermer will somehow compel the other side to provide a definition of ‘God’ that is even debatable.

    Think I’ll set the DVR to record, so that I can fast-forward as necessary.

    2. I’ll be having a much, much, much better time at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne!
      With Dawkins, Myers, Peter Singer etc…
      You can keep your arch-fraud Deepak.

  6. If I recall correctly, Shermer doesn’t even like calling himself an atheist. He’s not uppity enough to get the prestigious title of New Atheist!

    1. He’s used the word atheist to describe himself before, both in print and in person.

      “As for atheism, there are no major or even minor tenets. Atheism is simply lacking belief in God, no more and no less. I don’t believe in God, so I’m an atheist. End of story.” – Michael Shermer (can’t find the original article I got this from)

    2. Shermer has a longish explanation of his non-theism in “50 Voices of Disbelief”. He is not very comfortable with the term “atheist”.

  7. oh jesus christ why oh WHY did i click through to that second chopra link… my brain hurts from the stupid.

    “2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations — those that lead to new species — and so few negative ones? Random chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones.”

    AAAAAAAAH!!! [brain explodes]

  8. Wow, Chopra argues the same straw-man that every other weirdo argues against evolution. “Natural Selection is a taugology”, seriously? I suppose the “invisible hand in the market” punished us for greed too by manipulating the GFC.

    It would actually be interesting to see those who oppose evolution give legitimate criticisms of the theory. One thing that helps this layperson have confidence in the theory of evolution is that critics never even grasp what evolution actually is and are content to argue against a misunderstanding of the process. It’s not intellectual dishonesty, it’s just stupidity.

    1. Well we can’t recreate the “Big Bang Theory”. We now know thanks to new studies that cells are a lot more complex than what Darwin thought. A single cell contains loads of information. The theory that some how a cell could mutate into another cell that is completely new is almost impossible (mathematically anyways). Let aloone billions of cells changing. The fact that we find animals that were believed to be extinct millions and millions of years ago and it turns out they haven’t evolved at all.I’m not saying that Evolution is completely wrong I just think there are some big flaws in it. Hopefully one day we will have all the answers.

      1. yes, “Me”, a good impression. That sounds just like the inane doublespeak that Chopra uses.

      2. First, since we did create the the Big Bang Theory once, I imagine we could probably do it again if we really needed to. Incidentally, I understand you were probably referring to the Big Bang itself, and you’re right, we can’t recreate that, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant here.

        Second, while it is true that we know much more about the complexity of cells now, it doesn’t matter, because Darwin’s theory never predicted that “a cell could mutate into another cell that is completely new,” if I understand you correctly. Natural selection is based on gradualism. A cell will copy itself a number of times. Errors may occur in the process, resulting in offspring that are just slightly different to their progenitor. Individuals whose slight differences are adaptive will likely out-compete other individuals without such an advantage. Over time these adaptive mutations accumulate, and the improbability of complex new features is distributed over many generations.

        Third, modern evolutionary theory predicts that species will evolve at different rates. It all depends on the selection pressures that may apply. If a species is well adapted to an environment that doesn’t change much over a long period of time, that species isn’t expected to change much either. I’m also curious what extant animals you’re referring to “that were believed to be extinct millions and millions of years ago and it turns out they haven’t evolved at all.”

        Unfortunately, you have provided another good example of an argument against evolution that misunderstands modern evolutionary theory. There are genuine gaps in our knowledge, but those specific gaps just aren’t there.

      3. The complexity of the cell has been known for over 100 years, it’s not anything revelatory despite what ID proponents say. Though I have a question about that, why is it that when our bodies have trillions of cells arranged in a very meticulous fashion that isn’t a problem for evolution, but the cells themselves (that had billions of years to evolve before becoming part of multicellular organisms) are too complex? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

        The “mathematical impossibility” is again misleading, it’s based on calculating the odds for current structures and looking at how improbable that structure is. If you want an example of why this is flawed, roll a die about 20 times. Write down the results: the sequence you generate is a 1 in 3656158440062976 chance. And that’s only 20 rolls, make a 100 rolls and the chance of rolling what you did was 1 in 6.533*10^77. The evolutionary process belies such thinking as what structures form are based on cumulation of advantageous mutations over time, what structures come about are contingent on what mutations that came before. The mathematical impossibility that ID proponents talk about would be lime me looking at your 100 sequential rolls and concluding that it’s so improbable that you would roll that particular combination that you couldn’t have done it.

        As for animals that have existed for millions of years, bacteria has been around billions. Evolution is not a ladder, if a form is successful then why wouldn’t it be preserved through time?

        The flaws aren’t in evolutionary theory, merely the understanding of those who rally against it.

  9. I would like to know, have Dr Coyne and Michael Shermer gotten over their recent disagreements?
    I sincerely hope so.

  10. Before anyone else wastes their time readong Chopra’s article, allow me to summarize it. ALL of it:

    “If evolution is true, why don’t I understand it better”?

    There, I just saved you all much pain. You’re welcome.

    I had to supress the urge to whack my head against my desk when I reached the part where he asked “How does evolution know where to stop?”

    1. “If evolution is true, why don’t I understand it better”?

      Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. All his objections could be whisked away by reading a popular account of evolution, it’s really pathetic that he thinks he’s disproved the cornerstone of biology with such simple observations.

  11. Grant, that pretty much sums it up. His article doesn’t raise any valid questions, it simply illuminates his ignorance about evolutionary theory. Ugh.

  12. Pitting a Shermer/Harris team against Chopra/Houston is like pitting the Colts against the St. Ignatius Middle School flag football team.

    Too bad Paul Tillich and Ludwig Feuerbach are unavailable. That would be worth watching. This is so inhumane it suggests atheists have no compassion.

Comments are closed.