Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby hyksos on December 4th, 2019, 4:46 pm 

Stephen Meyer emerges as a rising star in Intelligent Design community. Meyer is taking up the empty throne left empty by Berlinski. Now Meyer spearheads the fruitless charge in getting Intelligent Design published in respected science journals.

User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 7th, 2019, 11:04 am 

hyksos » December 5th, 2019, 5:46 am wrote:Stephen Meyer emerges as a rising star in Intelligent Design community. Meyer is taking up the empty throne left empty by Berlinski.



Hyksos,

David Berlinski is not, and never has been, a proponent of Intelligent Design. Anyone familiar with his work would know this. He has stated it explicitly on innumerable occasions. If you want quotes, just ask.

Yes, you will find he has certain links to the Discovery Institute. You'll also find him on Youtube sitting on the ID side of the table in a fascinating exchange on Evolution vs Creationism.

What Berlinksi is, like myself, is a skeptic regarding the adequacy of neo-Darwinian theory. Also like myself, he abhors the nonpareil degree of dogmatism attendant thereon; no other branch of science comes remotely close.

Those familiar with their history of science will know that scientific theories tend to be here today and gone by next Tuesday. In the case of Darwinian theory, however, the putative scientific spirit of healthy skepticism is immediately forgotten; it might as well be carved in stone or lugged around in a Tabernacle. Rational people, it seems, are no longer allowed to express misgivings. To do so, almost invariably entails being labelled as deficient or defective in some way.

This is what Berlinski -- to his great credit -- courageously inveighs against.

And if the Discovery Institute coughed up the dough, I'd do it too.

For the record, I am not remotely religious. Saying it a million times has little or no effect, though. The high priests of evolution -- Dawkins et al -- have done their work well. Any skeptic, to quote Dawkins verbatim, must be either "stupid, ignorant, insane, or [wait for it....] wicked!

And the masses believe it too!
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 7th, 2019, 12:48 pm 

Those familiar with their history of science will know that scientific theories tend to be here today and gone by next Tuesday. In the case of Darwinian theory, however, the putative scientific spirit of healthy skepticism is immediately forgotten; it might as well be carved in stone or lugged around in a Tabernacle. Rational people, it seems, are no longer allowed to express misgivings. To do so, almost invariably entails being labelled as deficient or defective in some way.


Which scientific theories are here today, and gone by next Tuesday? Name one.

It is true that over time, theories are supplanted by better theories. But it is important to bear in mind that just because a theory is supplanted, it does not mean that the supplanted theory becomes invalid in its own domain of applicability. The best example of this is Newtonian physics. It was supplanted by relativity and quantum physics, but remains valid in its own domain of applicability. To chart the paths of spacecraft to other planets, all we need is Newton. Newton, in fact, works just fine in all workaday situations that do not involve high speeds or the microworld.

This suggests that if evolutionary theory is ever supplanted, it will continue to be valid in its own domain of applicability — not that it will be discarded wholesale. The chance of the theory being discarded wholesale is next to zero, because, contra Berlinski and others, there is a mountain of confirmatory evidence for evolution, and the theory makes bold and accurate predictions and retrodictions — everything you could want from a sound theory.

Now here, from Wikipedia, is a description of Berlinski’s “skepticism” about evolutionary theory:

In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.


Novel biological structures did not appear at once in the Cambrian. No biologist claims this. This is a strawman. What we do find, though, is that once multicellular organisms evolved — which took a very long time to happen — evolution got a jump start, which is entirely consistent with a retrodiction of evolutionary theory. Put simply, natural selection had a lot more material to work with.

There are a wealth of transitional fossils, including a complete reconstruction of how a land mammal evolved into a whale.

With respect to sharks, “recent” is a weasel word. What does he mean by it? Actually, we have a good understanding of shark evolution, and it turns out that the ancestors of sharks were very different from modern sharks. In any case, nothing in evolutionary theory predicts that populations must significantly change, rapidly or otherwise. Stable populations well adapted to their environments may persist relatively unchanged, phenotypically, over very long periods of time. Still, sharks today, like humans, do undergo continuous genotypic change.

The evolution of the eye is very well understood. It has been shown that the vertebrate eye could have evolved from a patch of photoreceptor cells in less than 364,000 years — no time at all, in the scheme of things.

I can’t even … why does Berlinski think that if evolution were true, then human women should have tails? I’ll tell you why: because he said that he thinks tails would make women more attractive (!) Even if that were true, which is, um, debatable to say the least, evolution is a mindless, contingent process that should not be expected to maximize attractiveness, or any other trait. Indeed, organisms are jury-rigged, precisely what we would expect from a stochastic process of descent with modification.


Yes, people, rational or otherwise, are allowed to express their misgivings about evolution. What scientists object to, and fight vociferously against, are arguments from total ignorance — exactly the “arguments” propounded by Berlinski, Meyers and others.

Any biologist would love to find a genuine flaw in evolutionary theory, and then go about creating a new theory to supplant it. Such a biologist would be guaranteed the Nobel prize, fame, fortune, and — if a straight man — all the straight women that he wants, albeit without tails, alas.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 7th, 2019, 2:16 pm 

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby TheVat on December 7th, 2019, 2:51 pm 

JFC, not the same bleeping thread AGAIN? We've had the Berlinski debate here (often with the same members, making the same rebuttals), what, a dozen times now? Ok, I'm going to spell this out for the last time:

The focus of SPCF is science, as its name subtly hints at.

The Net has places to discuss ID, Creationism, Panpsychism, and other nonscience ideas. Thousands of them. So no one is censored: you are free to go there!

But this website is sticking with its original purpose and form, and the user guidelines you read when you joined still apply. Science section, part D, is the one you may want to review. ID is neither science nor, in any coherent sense, philosophy. At best, it's a mystical conjecture. We allow a small wiggle room, as part D indicates, by directing all ID to the Religion section, a section largely added for the purpose of keeping brushfires out of the rest of the website.

If you don't like that restriction, feel free to move on. I can't promise you'll much like the turbulent cesspools of Unreason and superstition that most ID friendly websites offer.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 7th, 2019, 6:14 pm 

Yabbut, neither Reg nor Berlinski support ID, so … ;-)
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Forest_Dump on December 8th, 2019, 10:19 am 

Well if we can agree thatID has nothing to offer other than some vague opinions that Darwinian theory may not be fully adequate to explain everyone's questions, there may be avenues forward. Personally I have not yet seen anything solid in terms of critiques other than either 1) science hasn't found all the answers yet or 2) no one has tackled my favorite question to my idiosyncratic satisfaction (it seems mostly because "they" are too busy doing the research "they" want to do. But critiques do come along and I tend to find they simply fall flat. By way of example, I will refer to a book I read a while ago that purported to over throw Darwinian theory but I found to be pretty vacuous.

I bought "Lamarck's Revenge: How Epigenetics is Revolutionizing Our Understanding of Evolution's Past and Present" (Peter Ward 2018) hoping to at least find out more of what epigenetics is. I suppose that much was achieved in that it appears that epigenetics often refers to chemicals that can act as mutagens. All well and fine. There was certainly some discussion how epigenetic processes can impact on the phenotype in various ways including thought and behaviour as well as (sometimes) how epigenetics can impact the genome. Sometimes things got fuzzy on differences between changes to the organism in its ability to adapt to specific environments and the differences that would/could be passed on to offspring (i.e., chemical processes that would effect the genome of gametes). But the author seemed to want to make a case that since these epigenetic processes come from the environment, they are non-Darwinian - an argument I can't even remotely see. We have always known that mutations can be derived from the environment as is the adaptive response. So what? Some environments, broadly writ, produce more genetic diversity (i.e. more and more varied mutations) and more opportunity for more variants to survive (i.e., finches colonizing a cluster of islands where there is a lot of open niches for them to exploit). In short, what the author really summarized is that epigenetics is a kind of catch-all for our increasing understanding of the processes that can lead to phenotypic diversity and sometimes genotypic diversity. Is there anything in this book that should lead anyone to toss out Darwinian theory? Not at all. The key points of Lamarck's ideas "demnstrated" are those that were never really in dispute while the "teological" aspect of Lamarck is barely referred to and certainly not demonstrated. I don't know if Dawkins or anyone else has critiqued this book but I hope not because IMHO it makes an easy exercise for anyone who has even a smattering of knowledge on evolutionary theory and, in the end, perhaps somewhat "feeding" Reg, this book arguing to overthrow Darwinian theory does pretty much the exact opposite - NDT seems to get stronger through refuting another challenge.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8739
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 8:03 am 

@ Forest

I could name a few books.

But one little known, and seems to me very well researched, is "Beyond Natural Selection" by Robert Wesson.

No idea who he is. Does it matter if he's a closet Creationist or not? Matters not a jot to me: all I care about is whether he's making sense or not.

I'd love to hear your response. He sounds quite compelling to me, but I think you know more about this stuff than me. As always, I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.


As a side note: seems I'm not the only one in these forums who has noticed that davidm habitually distorts what other members have said. Just for the record, you guys in charge.

I hereby, in respect of TheVat and his cat, refuse to engage one who cannot (= Davidm) adhere by the principles of intellectual honesty.

So there! Don't come crying to me when he runs away with George Clooney.
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Forest_Dump on December 10th, 2019, 9:14 am 

i would be more interested in hearing key ideas in order to decide whether a book is worth buying and reading. The one I mentioned above, for example, I do NOT really recommend. Based only on the title, I could guess that the book you mention argues that some place too much weight on natural selection alone which is something I could agree with. One of my criticisms of Dawkins and some like him is that they place too much weight on natural selection and not enough on other evolutionary forces like drift. gene flow, etc. I certainly place a lot more weight on things like pure chance.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8739
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 9:41 am 

Well, Forest, here's a thought to ponder...

That certain organisms have only, or almost only, features which are conducive to survival is an interesting theory.

And almost certainly false.

Do you agree?

That certain organisms have NO features conducive to survival is... er, a bad joke.

That organisms have some features conducive to survival is certainly true, but entirely uninteresting.

Ever seen a fish up a tree?


Was it alive?

Get the point?

For this "adaptive" crap to be interesting at all, they would need to have a lot of them.
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 9:49 am 

By way of analogy... think of a ship.

Ever seen a ship with no traits conducive to its seaworthiness?

Neither have I.


Ever seen a ship with some features conducive to its seaworthiness?

Yes, all of them.

Every seen a ship with all, or almost all, of its features conducive to is seaworthiness?

Not much of a pleasure cruise. I demand a refund!!
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 9:51 am 

The point being: that organisms which have adaptive traits is entirely uninteresting.

What do you expect? A flourishing cabal of lemurs with no vital organs?
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 9:55 am 

To put it another way: moderate natural selection is utterly vacuous.

Do you mean to say organisms need some stuff conducive to survival to get through life?

Cmon now.
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Forest_Dump on December 10th, 2019, 9:55 am 

I definitely agree that there can be attributes that are/were not all that relevant to survival and appeared and survived entirely by chance. There are differences in the degree of selective pressure, the amount of mutagens creating diversity, etc., and these need to be taken into account. I suppose one of the examples I would pose is actually the intelligence of humans. I just don't think there was that much selective pressure and/or enough time for it to come about so I suspect that a lot more pure chance was involved. I can't predict whether you or anyone else might find that interesting or convincing but for me the ultimate judge is the empirical data of the fossil record perhaps supported by experimental or other observational data but I am also not always sure that will be found.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8739
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
Reg_Prescott liked this post


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 9:59 am 

Forest_Dump » December 10th, 2019, 10:55 pm wrote:I definitely agree that there can be attributes that are/were not all that relevant to survival and appeared and survived entirely by chance.


Then, sir, would you agree that the less of a role natural selection plays, the more the theory of natural selection dissolves (can't think of the right word) into triviality?
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 10:07 am 

One of my criticisms of Dawkins and some like him is that they place too much weight on natural selection and not enough on other evolutionary forces like drift, gene flow, etc. I certainly place a lot more weight on things like pure chance.


Yes, this is a perfectly valid point, and was the basis of a heated online discussion between Dawkins and the biochemist Larry Sanders at Sanders’s Sandwalk blog. Sanders thinks evolution is largely accidental — drive by drift, chance, etc. Dawkins, an adaptationist, disagrees.

Epigenetics is not a significant driver of evolution, and certainly does not suggest, as some have argued, that we ought to be revisiting Lamarck. Google “epigenetics” and “P.Z. Myers” for more info.

@Reg, I have never “distorted” a single thing you wrote — or anyone else, for that matter. I challenge you to name a single thing that I “distorted” in my response to you in this thread. You can’t do it, because the alleged distortion does not exist.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 10:15 am 

The point being: that organisms which have adaptive traits is entirely uninteresting.


No. What is interesting is why they have adaptive traits. Natural selection is one of the reasons — rendering it the opposite of “vacuous.” It is explanatory.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Forest_Dump liked this post


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Forest_Dump on December 10th, 2019, 10:17 am 

Well no I think that natural selection plays a lot of roles and provides an explanatory mechanism for a lot of things and can be tested against observations in the fossil record as well as in various lab and field settings. But I don't think that it can provide the only or best explanation of everything. We can certainly debate whether sexual selection fits in ere but, as I mentioned, I think other evolutionary forces can sometimes play a bigger role and sometimes it may be pure chance. Sure I think that some like Dawkins place too much weight on selection but that by no means should be taken to argue that natural selection is bogus or that the whole thing crumbles. Far from it. I think that as we find more mechanisms and more complex cases, the edifice of evolutionary theory gets stronger. And when you get down to it, the reason why it sometimes does appear to be a dogma is because it is the only game in town.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8739
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 10:26 am 

That is Larry Moran, not Sanders.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 10:28 am 

davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 10:31 am 

davidm » December 10th, 2019, 11:07 pm wrote:
@Reg, I have never “distorted” a single thing you wrote — or anyone else, for that matter. I challenge you to name a single thing that I “distorted” in my response to you in this thread. You can’t do it, because the alleged distortion does not exist.


You did, did did did

You accused me of being an atheist when you know full well I spend my days handling rattlesnakes.

Oh, who gives a shit?

Merry Xmas to all.
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 11:03 am 

Reg_Prescott » December 10th, 2019, 8:31 am wrote:
davidm » December 10th, 2019, 11:07 pm wrote:
@Reg, I have never “distorted” a single thing you wrote — or anyone else, for that matter. I challenge you to name a single thing that I “distorted” in my response to you in this thread. You can’t do it, because the alleged distortion does not exist.


You did, did did did


Where? I knew you couldn't name where, because I "distorted" nothing you wrote. So you are reduced to retorting, "did so, nyah, nyah nyah!"

You accused me of being an atheist when you know full well I spend my days handling rattlesnakes.

Oh, who gives a shit?

Merry Xmas to all.


And you wonder why it's so difficult to take you seriously.

As to ID, if you say you are not a supporter of it, I will take you at your word. Same with Berlinski. But that is what is so puzzling. What, then, is your explanation (or at least hypothesis) of what happened? And what is Berlinski's? It's all very well to sit back and play the armchair skeptic, while conveniently refusing to commit, even speculatively, to some alternative, however tentative, to both evolution and ID. I have merely noted (this is NOT a distortion) that you and Berlinski, in attacking evolution, repeatedly regurgitate long-discredited ID talking points. But then you say, "But wait! I don't support ID." I'm sorry, but that strikes me as pretty disingenuous.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 11:21 am 

To elaborate further, lateralsuz, in the thread he started, invokes an author who certainly seems to be implying that intelligence goes right down to the molecular level, and that life is consciously self-assembling — hence the example of the “walking” motor protein. This is, admittedly, a third way to evolution and ID, and of course in responding to him I did not distort anything that he, or the author that he invokes, wrote. In fact, I quoted the author’s own words. The problem with this hypothesis, as I explained, is that there is no evidence to support it.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby Reg_Prescott on December 10th, 2019, 11:53 am 

Oh, how I want to respond.

You've no idea how hard I'm biting my tongue, Vat.

Haha!

Goodwill to all men. Even the idiots.
User avatar
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 408
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 12:03 pm 

If you have any case to be made that I have distorted your views, or any case to be made why you and Berlinski repeatedly invoke discredited ID tropes against evolution while at the same time saying that you do not support ID; if you have any case to be made at all against
what I've written in this thread or others, I am sure you're perfectly able to make your case without violating any board rules or having to "bite your tongue."

It seems you don't.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 10th, 2019, 12:05 pm 

Oh, and goodwill even to you, too. Funny that to you, the standard science I explain and promote, which after all is one of the goals of this board, makes me an "idiot." I guess the people that run the place must be idiots, too, in your view.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby hyksos on December 12th, 2019, 11:59 pm 

David Berlinski is not, and never has been, a proponent of Intelligent Design. Anyone familiar with his work would know this. He has stated it explicitly on innumerable occasions. If you want quotes, just ask.

Yes, you will find he has certain links to the Discovery Institute. You'll also find him on Youtube sitting on the ID side of the table in a fascinating exchange on Evolution vs Creationism.

Berlinski gave a television interview on some weird weekend talk show on Fox News (of all places). This was in the summer of 2018. He had heart surgery, and he looks very healthy now. He looked very strong, even tanned.

Although I knew exactly who he was and I was already fuming, the interview was surprisingly straightforward. Berlinski was mostly, if not entirely, reasonable. I think he has changed a lot since the 1990s. He is much more ... 'scientific' now. The host kept trying to derail him into the topic of atheism , but Berlinski kept his focus very narrowly on scientific topics.

He knows about Big Data approaches to genetics now. The stuff is really cutting-edge. He tried to talk about it but it was way over-the-head of the interviewer.


What Berlinksi is, like myself, is a skeptic regarding the adequacy of neo-Darwinian theory.

It may be possible today, to categorize Berlinski in the way you describe. (Perhaps not so much in the early 1990s). This would put Berlinski on the same shelf as

Stuart Kauffmann , Ricard Sole' , Brian Goodwin , Stephen J Gould.

This cluster of writers come from a tradition in which you contend that evolution proceeded in part by natural selection, but that NS alone by itself is unsufficient as an account of biology. In many cases, the additional culprit has something to do with thermodynamics and order. (I own hard copies of Goodwin and Sole's books. I was a huge Kauffman fan around 2009.)


In the case of Darwinian theory, however, the putative scientific spirit of healthy skepticism is immediately forgotten; it might as well be carved in stone or lugged around in a Tabernacle. Rational people, it seems, are no longer allowed to express misgivings.

The (now tanned and reasonable) Berlinski had some interesting things to say. I remember that he quoted the words of Max Planck "Science advances one funeral at a time." The implication is that entrenched scientists are never swayed from entrenched theories. They take their carved stones to the grave with them, as you say.

Another interesting insight from DB : Darwinism is actually being quietly overturned inside of the discipline of biology. That this is going on as we speak. While I found that wildly interesting, unfortunately this was said on a Fox News talk show, so there wasn't leg room for DB to elaborate.

Image
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby hyksos on December 13th, 2019, 12:55 am 

TheVat » December 7th, 2019, 10:51 pm wrote:JFC, not the same bleeping thread AGAIN? We've had the Berlinski debate here (often with the same members, making the same rebuttals), what, a dozen times now? Ok, I'm going to spell this out for the last time:

The focus of SPCF is science, as its name subtly hints at.

The Net has places to discuss ID, Creationism, Panpsychism, and other nonscience ideas. Thousands of them. So no one is censored: you are free to go there!

While I agree that this is a tragedy for your forum and you as admin, I would point out a more provincial tragedy taking place right in this thread.

Notice the the fact that not a single contributor in this thread has said an iota about the contents of the video that I linked. No discussion or even mentioning of the talking point raised by either table. That's a tragedy too.

In an attempt to ameliorate this thread I will briefly cover those parts which I found most interesting in the ID versus biologist video linked at the top. (The following notes do not indicate my personal agreement with points made by either side.)
  • The debate turned to the topic of why Intelligent Design is never published in any scientific journal.
  • Of course we all know what the ID table is going to say : They are being actively suppressed. No surprises there.
  • The right-side "Scientist Table" (lets call it) also hoisted their own explanation. At least in this debate, they said ID is never published because there is no scientific interest in it.
  • This begs the question as to what would compel scientific interest in ID, hypothetically speaking? (At least in this debate) one scientist said you have to give us The When and The Where. In other words, tell us when this intelligence acted, and tell us where the intelligence acted. He said that until the When-and-the-Where are provided clearly in writing, there will be no scientific interest in ID.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby davidm on December 14th, 2019, 12:05 pm 

hyksos » December 12th, 2019, 10:55 pm wrote:While I agree that this is a tragedy for your forum and you as admin, I would point out a more provincial tragedy taking place right in this thread.

Notice the the fact that not a single contributor in this thread has said an iota about the contents of the video that I linked. No discussion or even mentioning of the talking point raised by either table. That's a tragedy too.


What tragedy?

I mean, what’s new here, that tragically is not being addressed? This was first published on YouTube nearly six years ago. Who knows how long ago the discussion itself took place?

I watched the first 12 minutes or so, and found nothing new in it. The biochemist talks knowledgeably about exaptations, and how they relate to Behe’s flagellum. He points out the progress being made in understanding exaptations. Then Behe comes on and simply denies that any such progress has been made, without explaining why he denies it, and then he invokes his beloved mousetrap analogy, which he first mooted in Darwin’s Black Box, published in the mid-90s. This is new? I stopped watching when he uttered the magic word, “Mousetrap.”

The mousetrap is an argument to analogy, and many such arguments are bogus, this one in particular. We know why a mousetrap is irreducibly complex — because it was designed. The illicit step is to assume that a flagellum, if irreducibly complex, must also be designed. Indeed, a further illicit step is to go from, “If a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, it must be designed,” to, “If x is designed, it must be irreducibly complex.” The latter is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Mousetraps don’t evolve. A flagellum, OTOH, does. If a flagellum is irreducibly complex, it is only so for its current purposes. But exaptation pathways clearly show that an IC biological structure could evolve by co-opting into its structure traits that previously had different functions. Again, what is new in this debate?

There are gaps in the fossil record! Therefore, ID! You can’t show the exact evolutionary pathway of the flagellum, therefore ID! There are gaps in knowledge about cellular evolution, therefore ID! They love these gap-style arguments, while failing to account for the giant beam in their own eye: the total gap in our knowledge of who or what the designer is, how the designer designed, and so on. At least we have a fossil record, which without a single exception points to unequivocally to common descent; at least we have exaptations, which point to plausible pathways for flagellum evolution, even though we may never know the exact pathway (transitional flagellum forms are not likely to fossilize). What has ID got to show for a designer? Nothing, except a bogus argument to analogy and an argument to ignorance. Talk about a gap in knowledge! Nothing is the ultimate gap!

If in fact there is something new in this video, let me know and I might watch on. But given that this is six years old, even if something in the video were new then, it isn’t new now.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Stephen Meyer and the status of Intelligent Design

Postby hyksos on December 14th, 2019, 3:01 pm 

ok..thanks for the exclamation-point-laced sarcastic tirade.

None of the scientists present on the right-hand side table made any of the "duh anyone can see that!"-type of points you made. Instead this particular group was unanimous on the topic of why Intelligent Design is never published. They did not throw their hands up and get combative and claim "Cuz it's stoopid".

Their (unanimous) answer was that there is no scientific interest in it. This is heads-and-shoulders above a claim that ideological atheists somehow "own" the journals, and are actively censoring I-D from publication with malicious intent.

Another really interesting exchange here was when the scientist asked a clear question: "Why should we abandon the Darwinian evolutionary synthesis and its research?" The I-D guys on the left-hand table totally answered this question wrongly.

The RIGHT way to answer that question is to start out with
"Well, we don't want you to abandon the evolutionary research, we just want this idea of intelligent intervention to be published alongside those papers."



Try to catch this exchange. They literally do not give the right answer. The scientist that asked this set a trap that the crypto-creationists walked right into. They totally do want science to abandon evolutionary theory in a sweeping and full-blown way. Like a full abandonment --- like declare a revolution, toss the theory out the window ; and start afresh with a creator, a designer.. an "intelligence" intervening in biology.

This really matters. The I-D people sitting at the left table are not just honest intellectuals who just want a voice in published journals and that's all they want (insert tiny violin). Oh no -- don't be fooled -- those guys at the left table are out to completely OVERTURN the entirety of the first and second Darwinian syntheses at the foundations of modern biology.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Next

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests