Abandoning Darwinism: Three Scientists Discuss Why They Have

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from Stanford’s Hoover Institution?

I know, it's just too long for some people's attention span, they don't have time, etc.
For me, well I listened to the whole thing and found the arguments compelling, especially for Intelligent Design.

Abandoning Darwinism: Gelernter Talks with Meyer, Berlinski | Evolution News
 

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I note how none of them are biologists.

I couldn't help noticing the same thing.
Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?

"Meyer graduated from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science. He later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation. In 1986 as a Rotary International Scholar, he began his training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, earning an M.Phil. in 1987 and a Ph.D. in 1991. His doctoral thesis was titled “Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research.”
.....
Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion.

Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial."

Stephen C. Meyer

EDIT: Added quotation marks. Sorry, I usually italicize all quotes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,526
9,498
✟236,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?
Not necessarily, but then again having a degree in biology does not make one immune from mistakes. I hesitate to identify what caused Meyer to make the mistakes he presented in Signature in the Cell. I would need to re-read my copy to even make a stab at it.

I dare say others may wish to expand on your "proved extremely controversial" remark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I dare say others may wish to expand on your "proved extremely controversial" remark.
It isn't my remark, it is a quote from the article I sited. All of my remarks are in blue text.

Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to use quotation marks as I usually italicizes all quotes.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,940
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,545.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?
No, but none of them are experts in the topic that they are discussing, so why should their opinion be given any particular weight? No doubt their being "scientists" is mentioned specifically to give them the appearance of authority that they simply don't have on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,526
9,498
✟236,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It isn't my remark, it is a quote from the article I sited. All of my remarks are in blue text.
I understood it was a quote, so I should not have characterised it as "your" remark. (Sloppiness on my part.) Nevertheless I assumed, since you quoted it and since you found the videos arguments "compelling", that you had "taken ownership" of it. The bottom line is that Meyer's article's peer reviewed credentials have been seriously questioned.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from Stanford’s Hoover Institution?

I know, it's just too long for some people's attention span, they don't have time, etc.
For me, well I listened to the whole thing and found the arguments compelling, especially for Intelligent Design.

Abandoning Darwinism: Gelernter Talks with Meyer, Berlinski | Evolution News
I don't believe that I have ever seen a compelling argument for ID. Is there anything new in that video or is it just the same stuff the Discovery Institute has been pushing for years?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understood it was a quote, so I should not have characterised it as "your" remark. (Sloppiness on my part.) Nevertheless I assumed, since you quoted it and since you found the videos arguments "compelling", that you had "taken ownership" of it. The bottom line is that Meyer's article's peer reviewed credentials have been seriously questioned.
I found the full discussion between these scientists compelling, not necessarily Meyers alone. They all have knowledge of the biology involved. Actually the one I found had the most compelling argument was the computer scientist.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't believe that I have ever seen a compelling argument for ID. Is there anything new in that video or is it just the same stuff the Discovery Institute has been pushing for years?
I don't I've never listened to their stuff (lol) before.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jayem
Upvote 0

The_Barmecide

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2019
497
571
48
Idaho
✟14,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I note how none of them are biologists.

"Intelligent Design" is far more "philosophy" than it is biology. It's a fun little mental exercise that is, ultimately, unfalsifiable.

So it's probably best we have a mathematician and a philosopher (although I would think Popper's ideas of unfalsifiability would have put the kibosh on a philosopher of science backing something like I.D.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you saying that biologists are unintelligent?

Scientists are often no more intelligent than the average person when it comes to things outside their areas of expertise, and yet they sometimes believe they are qualified to speak authoritatively on those things anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLP
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?

Meyer has made a career out of not understanding biology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Would someone who disagrees with Meyer be willing to share one or two things that he clearly gets wrong in terms of the biology? I have read some of his work (it's been awhile). But, I am not a biologist, so any guidance would be helpful.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,828
36,129
Los Angeles Area
✟820,797.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
.....
Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion.

Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial."

Not so much controversial as 'retracted by the journal for not following the peer-review process'.

The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Intelligent Design" is far more "philosophy" than it is biology. It's a fun little mental exercise that is, ultimately, unfalsifiable.

So it's probably best we have a mathematician and a philosopher (although I would think Popper's ideas of unfalsifiability would have put the kibosh on a philosopher of science backing something like I.D.)
Did you listen to the video? If not you really can't comment on the knowledge or accuracy of these three scientists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Would someone who disagrees with Meyer be willing to share one or two things that he clearly gets wrong in terms of the biology? I have read some of his work (it's been awhile). But, I am not a biologist, so any guidance would be helpful.
Yes that would be helpful.
 
Upvote 0