tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1328122830933778728..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Me vs Peter Atkins on The Limits of ScienceStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64511913210566710542011-03-01T07:59:26.146+00:002011-03-01T07:59:26.146+00:00Silly question, I guess. I assume it wasn't re...Silly question, I guess. I assume it wasn't recorded.<br /><br />Pity, I would have been most interested.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1380392382361403752011-02-26T00:00:44.052+00:002011-02-26T00:00:44.052+00:00Hi Stephen,
Can you provide a link to your debate...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Can you provide a link to your debate?<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5734021319322580952011-02-25T10:40:32.748+00:002011-02-25T10:40:32.748+00:00what was argued by each person?what was argued by each person?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21028563922339484382011-02-25T10:27:18.757+00:002011-02-25T10:27:18.757+00:00Thanks Ollie - I enjoyed it. I also like Peter, ev...Thanks Ollie - I enjoyed it. I also like Peter, even if we disagree so it was pretty good natured. Though I felt slightly cornered what with Dawkins immediately in front of me and Atkins to my left both telling me philosophy is a waste of time.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71986993380881725512011-02-24T23:48:34.597+00:002011-02-24T23:48:34.597+00:00Really enjoyed listening to you speak tonight, I&#...Really enjoyed listening to you speak tonight, I'm convinced that you presented the most coherent case. Many thanks for such an engaging and funny debate.Ollie Capehornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08462685448420344083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49727048511472922382011-02-22T10:17:55.923+00:002011-02-22T10:17:55.923+00:00Calling ID a 'scientific abomination' is g...Calling ID a 'scientific abomination' is great name-calling but it doesn't address the argument. He's right in the sense that ID is effectively a 'God of the gaps' argument: it explains what we currently don't know, which is not at all scientific, but he makes the point rather obtusely.<br /><br />What Atkins doesn't say is that there's a hell of a lot that we don't know and that natural selection is not the whole story. We still don't know what causes speciation, which is fundamental to evolution. In other words, we can confidently say that evolution is a fact, but we can't answer all the questions it throws at us.<br /><br />He can say the universe is 'completely useless' yet it produced him, didn't it? Does this make Atkins completely useless? Science will always tell us that the universe has no purpose because indeterminacy is built in. But humans will always seek a purpose because that's a fundamental part of our nature.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.com