- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,642
- 15,693
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?Meyer has made a career out of not understanding biology.
Just for the record, I am not asking from a contrarian intention. I am truly curious (as I am sure you are).Yes that would be helpful.
Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?
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.
If you want some examples...
Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part III
Are you referring to this discussion between these three scientists?"After brief nods to Shannon and algorithmic information theory, Meyer leaves the realm of established and accepted information theoretic work entirely."
Reminds me of the other recent thread on 'what is meant by the word 'information' in ID?'
It would be easier to address his observations in relation to their impact on your thinking. Which remark(s) of his did you find most telling and why?I'm especially interested in someone giving their opinion of the what the computer scientist as to say.
I didn't post this video to debate my thinking but only to share the arguments given by these three scientists. I'm not going to try to express their views as I would probably make a mess of it.It would be easier to address his observations in relation to their impact on your thinking. Which remark(s) of his did you find most telling and why?
LOL, these three scientists have very different reasoning and don't always agree with Meyer's. Meyer's and his reasoning is not the main focus of the discussion. He doesn't get any more time than the other scientists.FWIW, I watched the first 10 minutes of the video. It's just a rehash of Meyer's writings which centers on using the Cambrian explosion as an argument for ID.
Not seeing anything new there.
(Meyer also gets referred to as "the biologist" of the discussion, but he's not a biologist.)
LOL, these three scientists have very different reasoning and don't always agree with Meyer's. Meyer's and his reasoning is not the main focus of the discussion. He doesn't get any more time than the other scientists.
I already told you there a three different arguments and that I would probably make a mess out of them if I tried to explain and frankly it's not my place to explain them when they can speak for themselves.Then what do they say? I really don't want to have to slog through the rest of the video.
Can you provide a summary of their arguments?
I don't wish, or intend to debate your thinking, but without some focus my reply will be valueless and could even be construed as hostile.I didn't post this video to debate my thinking but only to share the arguments given by these three scientists.
I don't quite understand that. If you simply quote the statement you found most thought provoking, or direct me to the specific time interval on the video there is minimal opportunity for error.I'm not going to try to express their views as I would probably make a mess of it.
Sure. They seem misguided.If you have something to share about your thoughts on what they said that would be great.
I posted this video for people who want to investigate, learn, and decide for themselves. Not for me or to make an argument for my thoughts.I don't wish, or intend to debate your thinking, but without some focus my reply will be valueless and could even be construed as hostile.
I don't quite understand that. If you simply quote the statement you found most thought provoking, or direct me to the specific time interval on the video there is minimal opportunity for error.
Sure. They seem misguided.
Did that help? I suspect not. I'm willing to invest time, considerable time if necessary, in commenting on what I think about some of their specific thoughts that intrigued you and why I think what I do and to answer any follow on questions you may have. I am not willing to spend any time to make random remarks on elements of their pitches that may or may not be of any interest to you.
You have asked for input. I am asking you to help me provide that input. I don't, currently, understand your reluctance to do so. I hope my explanation here will overcome that reluctance.
. Basically the idea of Intelligent Design is , we don’t know how this happened so we’ll blame God . The problem is that it’s a God of the gaps argument . Once we figure something out then God-did-it becomes unnecessary. ID basically says that human ignorance is God. It’s theologically unsound . It’s also used as a device to teach Christian creationism in the American public school system which is illegal .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.
Since this is, as I understand it, a discussion forum and you don't wish to discuss your thoughts on the content of the video, thank you for your time, but I imagine I'm done.I posted this video for people who want to investigate, learn, and decide for themselves.
I would pay exactly ZERO cents to listen to three pompous blowhards that have never performed any research related to evolutionary biology discuss the topic - what a silly proposal.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
Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?
How strange - by profession and experience, he worked in "digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation" and then became interested in the Philosophy of Science, and in particular Origin of Life research (which, by the way, he did not actually do). I have to wonder what happened that spurred this interest. I am curious since the ranks of the creationists are littered with many that sought higher degrees for the sole purpose of being able to argue 'as an authority' - Jonathan Wells, Jon Sarfati, Steve Austin, etc. - and now, apparently, Meyer."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.”
I'm sure you've read the reviews of his books and the criticism of his paper for the fact that it was essentially a bunch of his online essays cobbled together and shepherded through the review process by creationist Sternberg as the parting act of his run as editor of a journal in which the subject of Meyer's paper was inappropriate?.....
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.
Especially since Berlinski is not even close to being a scientist.No doubt their being "scientists" is mentioned specifically to give them the appearance of authority that they simply don't have on this subject.
And what is your background such that your assessment of their banter has merit?I found the full discussion between these scientists compelling, not necessarily Meyers alone. They all have knowledge of the biology involved.
Imagine....Actually the one I found had the most compelling argument was the computer scientist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?