“From wherever you stood, the opposing side offered respectable, credible views. In today's fractured culture the evening struck a blow for civility.”

- The Huffington Post

More praise for IQ2 US

Post-Debate: Science Refutes God

By IQ2US Staff — December 17, 2012

Last Wednesday night capped our Fall 2012 series, ending the season with a bang by tackling the motion “Science Refutes God.”

“I felt an energy in the audience tonight,” said Matthew Chapman, author and great-great grandson of Charles Darwin.
Debate winners Lawrence Krauss, director of the Origins Project, and Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, argued in support of the motion against Ian Hutchinson, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT, and Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About Christianity.

Author and NY Times writer Matthew Hutson praised the debaters in a post-event dinner at Boulud Sud: “It was a good choice in debaters and topic. All of them were very articulate but still had a good sense of humor with some nice banter. This topic could have gotten very heavy-handed.”

This sentiment was echoed by Don Daniels, Philanthropist, who said “this topic has a lot of passion, but civility and respect was established among the debaters right from the beginning.”

As always, moderator John Donvana also received praised for his performance. Bill Chapman,Executive Director of The Richmond Forum, called the debate “fantastic. Everyone stayed on topic and Donvan has got a great touch at respectfully taking control.”

 Photos below.


2033 IMG 4276

Robert Rosenkranz and Lawrence Krauss

2042 IMG 4288

Matthew Chapman

2021 IMG 4257

Martin and Ann Rabinwotiz, Alexandra Munroe, and Shelby White


2037 IMG 4282

Maricaye Daniels, Grant Hering, Don Daniels, and Natalie Stettner


  • Comment Link Jeff Wednesday, 02 October 2013 21:46 posted by Jeff

    Darwin's theory of evolution can be used as a "REASON" for the existence of God. If evolution is the cause of everything then it stands to reason that evolution is responsible for us thinking about God, therefore God exists.

  • Comment Link Tom Sharp Wednesday, 03 April 2013 14:31 posted by Tom Sharp

    It is puzzling how otherwise intelligent people lose all ability to think rationally when it comes to religion. No one has asked the obvious question. If Adam and Eve suddenly appeared and became the beginning of mankind, how do we account for Cromagnon and Neanderthal man? Absolute proof of their existence is undeniable. Where were the dinosaurs in religious teachings? Again, proof of their existence is undeniable. The most simple of all points has not been made. If we all are the direct result of Adam and Eve, we should all have the same DNA. We do not. On the other side of the debate, the Bible states that Jesus was the King of the Jews. If this is true, only the Jewish religion can be legitimate and it is strange that other religions can get around that fact.

  • Comment Link Eric Bresie Wednesday, 09 January 2013 11:37 posted by Eric Bresie

    I enjoyed the debate and its participants perspective.

    Up front I will say, I support belief and faith in science and in religion/God.

    My only concern is one I have had with many of these debates...the results while open to persuasion based the debate are often times biases based on the environment and audience.

    If you hold a religious vs science debate in an more academic environment (I.e. scientific environment) then they are more likely to be swayed in that biases of the environment. It would have been interesting to see how things would have ended up if hosted in a more religious venue.

  • Comment Link Sharon Sunday, 06 January 2013 20:21 posted by Sharon

    Seems that absolute belief in science and/or the Bible are both questionable, as they are equally "creations" by mankind...and we all know that mankind is fallible. Even "good science," peer-reviewed science, has it's failings...unless this is arguable. So in my opinion, a belief in "God" (in this case a Christian God) is a matter of faith...and if
    that is so, then what's the purpose of trying to prove/refute God...especially by yet another "god (science)?"

  • Comment Link I M Probulos Tuesday, 01 January 2013 01:20 posted by I M Probulos

    Krauss and the pro-team both made a good argument for the Statistical Theory of Everything (not to be confused with the Theory for Everything as exposed by Dr. Hawkings and others).
    Essentially, the material world follows a normal distribution of events whether it be the origin of the the universe, the origin of life or who wins the lottery or who recovers from cancer. Same with good and evil as was seen with the recent mass shootings. No deity or demons or supernatural agent is required.

  • Comment Link Jan van Hier Tuesday, 25 December 2012 05:55 posted by Jan van Hier

    I saw this debate on fora.tv for about 2 hours at X-Mas morning and I enjoyed it very much. Thanks!

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.