ID Video

[OrdinaryClay]

I ordered the book today. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Good video on the new book Signature in the Cell: DNA Evidence for Intelligent Design from Stephen Meyer.

 

[philadiddle]

I ordered the book today. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Good video on the new book Signature in the Cell: DNA Evidence for Intelligent Design from Stephen Meyer.

So, he has a degree in geology, and worked as a geophysicist. Then he got a PHd in the history and philosophy of science. Yet somehow, without having worked in biology, and without having a degree in that field, he is able to provide biological evidence for ID that everybody in that field seemed to miss. Interesting....

I also wonder why he starts by dividing evolution from God in a classic false dichotomy that creationists always use to appeal to people's religious convictions, instead of simply looking at the evidence and seeing where it goes.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So, he has a degree in geology, and worked as a geophysicist. Then he got a PHd in the history and philosophy of science. Yet somehow, without having worked in biology, and without having a degree in that field, he is able to provide biological evidence for ID that everybody in that field seemed to miss. Interesting....

I've finished the book. Very good book. I highly recommend it.

Your reasoning is faulty. Sound arguments are where you find them. To assume that only a person degreed in a subject can understand and discover in that subject is nothing more then an appeal to authority and on its face bogus.

I also wonder why he starts by dividing evolution from God in a classic false dichotomy that creationists always use to appeal to people's religious convictions, instead of simply looking at the evidence and seeing where it goes.

He presents no such false dichotomy.

 

[MattLangley]

Your reasoning is faulty. Sound arguments are where you find them. To assume that only a person degreed in a subject can understand and discover in that subject is nothing more then an appeal to authority and on its face bogus.

It's called specialization. The author clearly did not specialize in biology, hence for him to make claims that DNA points towards ID (unlike every respected specialist on the matter) is a very weak thing. It's like going to a orthopedist (foot, muscle, or bone doctor) for cancer instead of an oncologist. Sure the orthopedist might find something new, but in the end the multiple oncologists will know much more about cancer than an orthopedist can hope for (unless he became an oncologist of course).

I program and manage game development tools and technology. I know a lot about art in games. In the end if I think I learned a new art aspect I would need an artist to really be sure. That doesn't mean I can't contribute to the art side, just that I need a specialist when I want to really address something or be sure of something.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It's called specialization. The author clearly did not specialize in biology, hence for him to make claims that DNA points towards ID (unlike every respected specialist on the matter) is a very weak thing. It's like going to a orthopedist (foot, muscle, or bone doctor) for cancer instead of an oncologist. Sure the orthopedist might find something new, but in the end the multiple oncologists will know much more about cancer than an orthopedist can hope for (unless he became an oncologist of course).

I program and manage game development tools and technology. I know a lot about art in games. In the end if I think I learned a new art aspect I would need an artist to really be sure. That doesn't mean I can't contribute to the art side, just that I need a specialist when I want to really address something or be sure of something.

Yes, I understand what specialization is. This does not change the truth of what I said. His reasoning is faulty and amounts to nothing more then an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, I understand what specialization is. This does not change the truth of what I said. His reasoning is faulty and amounts to nothing more then an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

It is a dead give-away for weak criticism.

Creationism is a better system when it "appreciates" evolution -- when it gets the clever, innovate parts -- even when it rejects it as untrue.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Here is a list of Stephen C Meyer debates and appearances.

 

[philadiddle]

Yes, I understand what specialization is. This does not change the truth of what I said. His reasoning is faulty and amounts to nothing more then an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

Stephen Meyer will never be held accountable for his views. He doesn't work in a lab where his opinion makes a difference. He isn't being financed by a company who's success depends on accurate scientific results. The specialists in the field do have to be held accountable for their model of genetics and the evolution of them. They do work in labs where their opinions matter.

For paleontologists who search for fossils their funding depends on their success. They use the model of evolution and biogeography to locate potential fossils. If there was a better model (like flood geology) then they would use that because that is what would lead them to fossils. To search for oil, researches use stratigraphy and not a flood model. Guess what, they find oil with the gradual formation model. When new diseases strike us they are matched genetically to their closest ancestors based on their genetic makeup. If there was no nested hierarchy this wouldn't be possible. There are many examples of how the old earth and evolution models are practical in the field, and the people who emplore the use of these models are held accountable because their jobs depend on accurate scientific results.

Creationists can say whatever they want and as long as the donations poor in and the books sell, they'll never have to answer to anyone for their pseudo science. This is why I make the appeal to authority, because the specialists in the field need to be right, whereas Stephen Meyer can say anything he wants with no consequence to any scientific study.

And as far as the mockery of my appeal to authority, when you get in legal trouble you will find a lawyer who specializes in the area you need help in. When my baby girl had seizures we saw the pediactrics specialist in my area. When she ran out of tests she could do locally we were sent to Vancouver Children's hospital to see the Pediatrics neurologist. The point is, when the results acutally matter, we all seek out specialists.

And lastly, no major scientific breakthrough has ever been made by someone who is NOT a specialist in the related field. I.D. needs to have arbitrary court cases to plead their case because their pseudo science in meaningless in the lab. Can you think of any scientific discoveries that came to us by way of a legal trial?

 

[Siyha]

Didn't he write the Twighlight series?

 

[busterdog]

Creationists can say whatever they want

That is all I need to know.

Creationism rules.

S. Meyer is a genius with a great message.

 

[philadiddle]

That is all I need to know.

Creationism rules.

S. Meyer is a genius with a great message.

It is a great message for people who are concerned about their narrow understanding of scripture. Beyond that, there's nothing great about his message. He makes no predictions, never does an experiment, never adds to our scientific understanding of the world, heck, I can't think of a possible use for his message outside of selling books to the religiously insecure. Can you think of any practical use for his message outside of theology?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Stephen Meyer will never be held accountable for his views. He doesn't work in a lab where his opinion makes a difference. He isn't being financed by a company who's success depends on accurate scientific results. The specialists in the field do have to be held accountable for their model of genetics and the evolution of them. They do work in labs where their opinions matter.

He is held responsible by those who pay his salary - IOW his funders and the public at large, but who cares since science is not beholden to who pays. It would be a violation of ethics to be so.

Your point still says nothing about the validity of ID.

If you take the time to read the book you will see the following:
1) Meyer has several chapters on the nature of science, scientific reasoning and argument. This is where many attack ID. This is his specialty.
2) He has several chapters on the historical analysis of the theories of abiogenesis. This is his specialty.
3) All the chapters on subjects regarding the chemistry and mathematics of OOL he defers to other experts and has a large section of chapter notes and a large bibliography. 85 pages of notes and bibliography. So what he does is normal science.

For paleontologists who search for fossils their funding depends on their success. They use the model of evolution and biogeography to locate potential fossils. If there was a better model (like flood geology) then they would use that because that is what would lead them to fossils. To search for oil, researches use stratigraphy and not a flood model. Guess what, they find oil with the gradual formation model. When new diseases strike us they are matched genetically to their closest ancestors based on their genetic makeup. If there was no nested hierarchy this wouldn't be possible. There are many examples of how the old earth and evolution models are practical in the field, and the people who emplore the use of these models are held accountable because their jobs depend on accurate scientific results.

Creationists can say whatever they want and as long as the donations poor in and the books sell, they'll never have to answer to anyone for their pseudo science. This is why I make the appeal to authority, because the specialists in the field need to be right, whereas Stephen Meyer can say anything he wants with no consequence to any scientific study.

Flood geology and creationism have nothing to do with ID. This is a red herring.

And as far as the mockery of my appeal to authority, when you get in legal trouble you will find a lawyer who specializes in the area you need help in. When my baby girl had seizures we saw the pediactrics specialist in my area. When she ran out of tests she could do locally we were sent to Vancouver Children's hospital to see the Pediatrics neurologist. The point is, when the results acutally matter, we all seek out specialists.

I was not mocking. I was pointing out that you were using an invalid form of argument. You can not claim anything about the validity of an argument by appealing to authority. An argument stands on its own merit.

And lastly, no major scientific breakthrough has ever been made by someone who is NOT a specialist in the related field.

Another red herring.

There are many specialists working in the field of ID.

I.D. needs to have arbitrary court cases to plead their case because their pseudo science in meaningless in the lab. Can you think of any scientific discoveries that came to us by way of a legal trial?

Nothing scientific came to us as a result of the legal trial. So this is another red herring.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It is a great message for people who are concerned about their narrow understanding of scripture.

I don't think you understand ID. He does not rely on scripture.

Beyond that, there's nothing great about his message.

Do you know what his message is?

He makes no predictions, never does an experiment, never adds to our scientific understanding of the world,

Based on this reasoning you must think that any research into the Cambrian Explosion is of no value. I disagree.

heck, I can't think of a possible use for his message outside of selling books to the religiously insecure.

It could be said that the insecure are those that can not tolerate miracles.

Can you think of any practical use for his message outside of theology?

Anthropology and astrobilology.

 

[philadiddle]

He is held responsible by those who pay his salary - IOW his funders and the public at large, but who cares since science is not beholden to who pays. It would be a violation of ethics to be so.

And those who pay his salary do not depend on accurate scientific results. They depend on donations from religious followers and on the sale on books and DVDs.

Your point still says nothing about the validity of ID.

If ID were valid then there would be a practical use for it in the field. There is no use for it outside of appeal to people's religious convictions to sell books. ID is not funded by organizations who need to use the information in the field where it counts, ID is funded by people like you who buy the book to use the information on a chat forum.

If you take the time to read the book you will see the following:
1) Meyer has several chapters on the nature of science, scientific reasoning and argument. This is where many attack ID. This is his specialty.
2) He has several chapters on the historical analysis of the theories of abiogenesis. This is his specialty.
3) All the chapters on subjects regarding the chemistry and mathematics of OOL he defers to other experts and has a large section of chapter notes and a large bibliography. 85 pages of notes and bibliography. So what he does is normal science.

If a long list of notes and an extensive bibliography mean it is real science then we better start teaching scientology as a legitimate science. There are books about scientology that meet that criteria.

Flood geology and creationism have nothing to do with ID. This is a red herring.

They have to do with evolution. I guess I better ask, what is your specific view when it comes to the age of the universe, age of the earth, and the origin of species?

I was not mocking. I was pointing out that you were using an invalid form of argument. You can not claim anything about the validity of an argument by appealing to authority. An argument stands on its own merit.

If 10,000 pediatric neurologists tell me with a common consensus what the problem is with my child, and a dermatologist tells me that it is something different, is it poor logic for me to make an appeal to authority and accept what the pediadric neurologists are telling me? The debate about ID and the appeal to authority isn't about choosing this guy or that guy, it's about accepting the overwhelming majority of specialists who have reached a concensus and apply their theory in practical ways vs the guy who basically just says "nuh-uh" and writes a book with a long bibliography.

And lastly, no major scientific breakthrough has ever been made by someone who is NOT a specialist in the related field.

Another red herring.

There are many specialists working in the field of ID.

And in what way have any of these specialists you are referring to ever added to our body of scientific knowledge?

Nothing scientific came to us as a result of the legal trial. So this is another red herring.

That is my point. Scientific discoveries never come to us by way of a legal battle, they come to us by empirical evidence. ID seems to try to advance their "theory" through court, they don't make predictions or do any experiments. That doesn't tell you anything about the validity of ID as science?

 

[philadiddle]

Based on this reasoning you must think that any research into the Cambrian Explosion is of no value. I disagree.

I'm sorry but I missed the connection between what I said and the Cambrian explosion. Please elaborate.

Anthropology and astrobilology.

Please explain how ID has contributed to these 2 fields.

 

[busterdog]

It is a great message for people who are concerned about their narrow understanding of scripture. Beyond that, there's nothing great about his message. He makes no predictions, never does an experiment, never adds to our scientific understanding of the world, heck, I can't think of a possible use for his message outside of selling books to the religiously insecure. Can you think of any practical use for his message outside of theology?

Telling evolutionists they are wrong is great.

Let's not pretend this is a dialogue, ok? Either appreciate a brother in Christ or give it a rest.

You accuse someone you don't know of publishing just for money?

Gee, there's a great practice for the Kingdom.

 

[Siyha]

While we can only speculate on the reasons why he wrote the book, I think its undeniable that its only value is to edify a view already held by its readers.

And its not "telling evolutionists they are wrong" because an evolutionist would never read it, not because they are afraid of whats inside, but because there is no reason for a biologist to read a book on biology written by a geologist. Its like Richard Dawkins writing a book on philosophy and religion when he is a biologist... oh wait. He did that. And what did the book do? Edified other athiests who knew nothing of philosophy and took credibility away from the ones who do.

ID books edifiy Christian's who know nothing of evolutionary science and take credibility away from the ones who do.

We can only speculate on Meyer's reasons for writing the book, but it can't be denied that the only value of this book is to edify people who already believe in ID.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

And those who pay his salary do not depend on accurate scientific results. They depend on donations from religious followers and on the sale on books and DVDs.

It is still an empty line of criticism of the argument. Appealing to motive is just as bogus as appealing to authority.

If ID were valid then there would be a practical use for it in the field. There is no use for it outside of appeal to people's religious convictions to sell books. ID is not funded by organizations who need to use the information in the field where it counts, ID is funded by people like you who buy the book to use the information on a chat forum.

You are grasping at straws with no understanding of ID. See my reference to the Cambrian Explosion below.

If a long list of notes and an extensive bibliography mean it is real science then we better start teaching scientology as a legitimate science. There are books about scientology that meet that criteria.

I never said it meant real science. I was responding to your claim he was an illigitimate source. He quotes and cites which is done all the time in science and is normal methodology in science. Also, he is a specialist in what constitutes a scientific argument.

They have to do with evolution. I guess I better ask, what is your specific view when it comes to the age of the universe, age of the earth, and the origin of species?

The universe is about 13.5 by, earth about 4.5 by, consensus is life was first apparant about 3.8 by, blah, blah, blah ... I'm not a YEC.

If 10,000 pediatric neurologists tell me with a common consensus what the problem is with my child, and a dermatologist tells me that it is something different, is it poor logic for me to make an appeal to authority and accept what the pediadric neurologists are telling me? The debate about ID and the appeal to authority isn't about choosing this guy or that guy, it's about accepting the overwhelming majority of specialists who have reached a concensus and apply their theory in practical ways vs the guy who basically just says "nuh-uh" and writes a book with a long bibliography.

Appealing to authority is till appealing to authority no matter how many authorities you appeal to. You at the very least have to relate an authoritative position to the argument in such a way as to understand and describe why a quoted authority's argument has warrant as a refutation. IOW, you at lest need to understand the subject and why the authority's counter claim has relevance.

And in what way have any of these specialists you are referring to ever added to our body of scientific knowledge?
...
That is my point. Scientific discoveries never come to us by way of a legal battle, they come to us by empirical evidence. ID seems to try to advance their "theory" through court, they don't make predictions or do any experiments. That doesn't tell you anything about the validity of ID as science?

They did not advance anything in the courts. You are misinformed. The courts are irrelevant with respect to ID.

See my explanation and comparison of the Cambrian Explosion(2nd to last paragraph) (do you know what this is?).

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I'm sorry but I missed the connection between what I said and the Cambrian explosion. Please elaborate.

The Cambrian Explosion is a one time historical event (just like the origin of life). We can not recreate it. Our explanations can not be tested in the lab. We can not falsify our explanations in the normal sense. When faced with these situations it is normal to postulate plausible solutions. This is valid science.

Please explain how ID has contributed to these 2 fields.

In anthropology we could use ID to infer if a stone tool was indeed the result of human actions or not. In astrobiology SETI can use a design inference to infer whether or not an ETI is the source of a signal.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

While we can only speculate on the reasons why he wrote the book, I think its undeniable that its only value is to edify a view already held by its readers.

And its not "telling evolutionists they are wrong" because an evolutionist would never read it, not because they are afraid of whats inside, but because there is no reason for a biologist to read a book on biology written by a geologist. Its like Richard Dawkins writing a book on philosophy and religion when he is a biologist... oh wait. He did that. And what did the book do? Edified other athiests who knew nothing of philosophy and took credibility away from the ones who do.

This is an incorrect assumption. The quality of the book is such that his opponents would read it to understand his reasoning. The strong efforts to counter the ID movement via scientific argument is a tacit admission by the opponents that there are truly scientific principals at its roots.

ID books edifiy Christian's who know nothing of evolutionary science and take credibility away from the ones who do.

We can only speculate on Meyer's reasons for writing the book, but it can't be denied that the only value of this book is to edify people who already believe in ID.

No, this is wrong. I understand evolutionary science extremely well and I can assure you I was edified by the book. Whether it will convince anyone is for them to decide.