Abandoning Darwinism: Three Scientists Discuss Why They Have

[Hank77]

Meyer has made a career out of not understanding biology.

Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?

 

[public hermit]

Yes that would be helpful.

Just for the record, I am not asking from a contrarian intention. I am truly curious (as I am sure you are).

 

[pitabread]

Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?

Only if they are saying something new or interesting that I haven't heard previously from the ID crowd. Judging from the video's title and description, it doesn't sound like that is the case.

Otherwise I don't have much interest in watching an hour long video about ID.

 

[pitabread]

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, I suggest checking out the Panda's Thumb articles which have reviewed a couple publications by Meyer (the latter two specifically cover Meyer's latest book, Darwin's Doubt).

Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part III

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you want some examples...

Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part III

"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?'

 

[Hank77]

"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?'

Are you referring to this discussion between these three scientists?

So you don't like Meyer's arguments, what of the other two?
I'm especially interested in someone giving their opinion of the what the computer scientist as to say.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm especially interested in someone giving their opinion of the what the computer scientist as to say.

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?

 

[pitabread]

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 against evolution (which creationists have been doing for decades).

Not seeing anything new there.

(Meyer also gets referred to as "the biologist" of the discussion. However, he's not a biologist. You'd think the participants would know that.)

 

[Hank77]

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 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.
If you have something to share about your thoughts on what they said that would be great.

 

[Hank77]

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

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?

 

[Hank77]

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 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.
If you don't want to take the time then don't.

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn't post this video to debate my thinking but only to share the arguments given by these three scientists.

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'm not going to try to express their views as I would probably make a mess of it.

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.

If you have something to share about your thoughts on what they said that would be great.

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.

 

[Hank77]

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.

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.
You obviously don't need to investigate what is being said in the video. So it isn't any help for you.
However, if you chose to watch it and comment that would be welcome.
If I could point out to you one or two places in the video that would only be about what I chose to discuss and not only that it wouldn't do justice to the whole conversation.

 

[Brightmoon]

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.

. 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 .

 

[Ophiolite]

I posted this video for people who want to investigate, learn, and decide for themselves.

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.

 

[SLP]

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 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.

I am unsure why I should care what a right-wing creationist computer scientist, a failed mathematician who actually claimed to have 'done calculations' indicating that more than 50,000 'trait changes' are necessary to get a whale from a cow (despite nobody ever claiming that this was a valid hypothesis on whale evolution) and a creationist philosopher have to say about why they "left" something they most likely never accepted in the first place.

 

[SLP]

Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?

No, it means that simply having a degree in one field and then pontificating on another - one that they have religious/philosophical objections to (or are getting paid to argue against it) - does not mean that they have any special insights. You are promoting the fallacy of the argument from (false) authority.

"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.”

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.

So why should I take him seriously on the subject of Evolution?

.....
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.

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?

Again, why should I care about his claims?

 

[SLP]

No doubt their being "scientists" is mentioned specifically to give them the appearance of authority that they simply don't have on this subject.

Especially since Berlinski is not even close to being a scientist.

 

[SLP]

I found the full discussion between these scientists compelling, not necessarily Meyers alone. They all have knowledge of the biology involved.

And what is your background such that your assessment of their banter has merit?
I have read many essays by Meyer and a few chapters of one of his books - I found his science dismal and his prose average. Berlinski is a buffoon who clearly has little knowledge of evolutionary biology. I saw a video of him giving his usual spiel followed by a Q&A - when asked a question regarding his evolution claims, he pulled a William F. Buckley - if you remember him, you may remember that when confronted with something he did not want to answer, he just vomited up a string of polysyllabic words to confuse people, topped it off with that condescending cockeyed grin of his, and never actually answered the question.

Actually the one I found had the most compelling argument was the computer scientist.

Imagine....