Concluded:Global Warming / Climate Change
Climate change scientist David Karoly and physicist William Happer are at the center of an ongoing controversy over the nature and extent of the threat posed to humanity by global warming (or climate change). When Karoly is unable to continue, contest winner Glenn Tamblyn contributes his counters to Happer.
- David Karoly/Glenn Tamblyn: Science has established that increases of atmospheric CO₂ will adversely affect humanity and natural systems, and that the burning of fossil fuels must be suppressed.
- William Happer: There is no scientific basis for the claim that atmospheric CO₂ increases will have any adverse effects on humanity and nature. In fact, burning fossil fuels limits real, harmful pollutants and the CO₂ released will bring major benefits to agriculture and other plant life.
Physiologist Denis Noble and anthropologist David Sloan Wilson discuss whether or not neo-Darwinism fully explains biological phenomena, especially function, purpose, and goal-directedness in virtually all biological structures and processes.
- David Sloan Wilson: The neo-Darwinian framework provides a reasonably complete and adequate explanation of biological phenomena, including the appearance of teleology in living systems. No new theoretical breakthroughs are either necessary or to be expected. Neo-Darwinism is enough!.
- Denis Noble: The neo-Darwinian framework, however necessary it may be, does not provide a complete and adequate explanation of biological phenomena, especially teleology. New theoretical breakthroughs are both necessary and to be expected. Neo-Darwinism is not enough!
- Rupert Sheldrake: Science needs to free itself from materialist dogma; science actually misunderstands nature when it is wedded to purely materialist explanations.
- Michael Shermer: Science is a necessarily materialistic enterprise: to look beyond materialist explanations betrays science and engages in superstition.
Biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona find themselves at the center of an ongoing controversy over whether the New Testament provides a reliable historical account of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. Indeed, the two have clashed on this question on more than one occasion.
- Bart Ehrman: The New Testament is not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus and provides no convincing evidence for Jesus’s bodily resurrection.
- Michael Licona: The New Testament is a reliable, historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus and provides convincing evidence for a bodily resurrection.
Wondering what this is all about? Here we describe the purpose, philosophy, and process behind the Focused Civil Dialogues we conduct here at TheBestSchools.org. Not only do we believe that incivility results in further polarization and entrenchment of opposing positions, we believe such discussions need to be focused and coherent. Read on to find out more about how we aim to accomplish that.