Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News1 min ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yeah that doesn't really work does it. Been argued over since mankind could put thoughts together. A deity outside of time has to have either always existed, or always not, and thus can not have been made. But the universe starts at around the time of the Big Bang at whatever counts as time zero for it.
OG, //A deity outside of time has to have either always existed, or always not, and thus can not have been made.//
Not necessarily – and I take issue with the word ‘deity’. It assumes the existence of the supernatural. Perhaps the ‘spark’ that was the foundation of our universe was a natural phenomenon emanating from another universe, and that from another, and so on. No hand involved. That would of course mean that we’re back to the question of an original creator, but it would also mean that our universe, the subject of this particular discussion, wasn’t deliberately designed.
Not necessarily – and I take issue with the word ‘deity’. It assumes the existence of the supernatural. Perhaps the ‘spark’ that was the foundation of our universe was a natural phenomenon emanating from another universe, and that from another, and so on. No hand involved. That would of course mean that we’re back to the question of an original creator, but it would also mean that our universe, the subject of this particular discussion, wasn’t deliberately designed.
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
Ok, I did listen to it. He speaks fairly well. Over reliance on some things such as his interpretation of what "appearance of design" means and thus it's misuse to bolster his views instead of realising "appearance" means "not actual", in this case.
I remain unconvinced the best explanation of why there seems to be periods when life found a need to diversify quickly is that some alien arrived on the scene and fiddled with what was here, and produced a while load of new species, though. I'd be more inclined to believe that large change caused large stress and a large sorting of advantages/disadvantages in many species, various ones ending up diversifying to fill new niches.
And for sure the idea that all information comes from a conscious mind (and that ultimately that would be God) is, to my mind, and even greater act of faith.
His dismissal of random changes rapidly creating new proteins/data/whatever seems to be on shaky ground to me. It is an assumption that it can't based on the fact that a mutation usual degrades what you have. But under most circumstances you don't have such a large pool of changing things, thus ensuring what would otherwise be rare occurrences actually happen often. Nor the viscous sorting that occurs with evolution whereby new version individuals who aren't valid lifeforms/good matches to the environment, die off quickly, leaving those with improvements to spread rapidly.
It still seems to me to be a favoured belief being pushed. But ultimately if it has value this should become clearer with time.
I remain unconvinced the best explanation of why there seems to be periods when life found a need to diversify quickly is that some alien arrived on the scene and fiddled with what was here, and produced a while load of new species, though. I'd be more inclined to believe that large change caused large stress and a large sorting of advantages/disadvantages in many species, various ones ending up diversifying to fill new niches.
And for sure the idea that all information comes from a conscious mind (and that ultimately that would be God) is, to my mind, and even greater act of faith.
His dismissal of random changes rapidly creating new proteins/data/whatever seems to be on shaky ground to me. It is an assumption that it can't based on the fact that a mutation usual degrades what you have. But under most circumstances you don't have such a large pool of changing things, thus ensuring what would otherwise be rare occurrences actually happen often. Nor the viscous sorting that occurs with evolution whereby new version individuals who aren't valid lifeforms/good matches to the environment, die off quickly, leaving those with improvements to spread rapidly.
It still seems to me to be a favoured belief being pushed. But ultimately if it has value this should become clearer with time.
Never heard of Anselms PP, (or because my memory is, and always has been, awful, and I have to keep working out things from basics all the time, it's possible I've forgotten the name). It's just that some paths of thought seem fairly obvious to me. Well eventually anyway. Maybe I'll go look that up.
As we are considering a designer and asking who designed them, then surely that is a discussion of some kind of spiritual (supernatural if you prefer) entity outside of any single universe (since it is implied it made the universe). Deity seems as good a name as any for that entity.
If one considers the thought that one universe creates another then you have no designer at all, which nullifies the original question.
As we are considering a designer and asking who designed them, then surely that is a discussion of some kind of spiritual (supernatural if you prefer) entity outside of any single universe (since it is implied it made the universe). Deity seems as good a name as any for that entity.
If one considers the thought that one universe creates another then you have no designer at all, which nullifies the original question.
Other than the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics which result from competion for mates and seem to progress steadily in stable environments, most evolution seems to be driven by sudden environmental change which causes cascades of evolution through changing eco-systems. I think Dr. Meyer has an oversimplified view of evolution because of his preconceptions that result from the tunnel vision caused by his beliefs.
v_e; Encouraging post, I'm pleased your 40 guinea book investment seems not to be wasted. As you are the only one reading on our behalf so far, please keep us posted. I shall order a paper copy and I've already ordered similar of Michael Behe's 'Darwins Black Box' - 'used,good' and delivered here for 4 quid by Amazon, - has to be a bargain, though I'm not sure what the box contains.
Having looked at Anselms ontological proof on Wikipedia I can honestly say I don't see the similarity, I tried to read through it but is seems to be such a crock claiming dodgy stuff near the start I couldn't find the enthusiasm to read to the end and see what sort of castle can be built on quicksand.
The prologue to Dr. Meyer's book makes his stance (and that of the Discovery Institute) clear: he IS for the inclusion of intelligent design theory in the high school science curriculum. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and to argue for it; however this contradicts what he says in the interview posted by Khandro. In the interview he asserts that DI were opposed to ID in the classroom, and in the famous case Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District had advised the Dover school board County against it. In the interview he cites this as his reason for "refusing to give expert testimony" at the trial. As I showed in an earlier post, Meyer, Dembski and a third member of DI had originally agreed to be witnesses, but later withdrew. (Dr Behe - he of Darwin's Black Box and the bacterial flagellum - was a witness at the trial, by the way.)
The prologue then repeats the familar arguments in defence of his position, the principal one of which is (what I believe to be) the deliberate misrepresentation of arguments among evolutionary biologists as proof that "evolution is a theory in crisis". Here's a snippet from his book:
"A steady stream of technical article have cast new doubt on the creative power of [mutation and selection]....prominent evolutionary theorists must now periodically assure the public, as biologist Douglas Futuyama has done, that 'just because we don't know HOW evolution occurred, does not justify doubt about WHETHER it occurred'. [a group of scientists called the Altenberg 16 [who they? - VE] are openly calling for a new theory of evolution because they doubt the creative power of the mutation and selection mechanism".
Like all the creationists whom I've seen or read (I make a single exception in the case of the OEC astro-physicist Hugo Ross) he's fond of imputing dishonesty to his opponents. Here's a fine example which llustrates Dr. Meyer's tone and method:
"...opponents of the provision [to allow "teaching the controversy" in the classroom] shifted their ground. They attacked the provision by insisting that there was no need to consider weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory because, as Eugenie Scott, spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, insisted in the Dallas Morning News, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution". At the same time, I was preparing ... one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory...So I knew - unequivocally - that Dr. Scott was MISREPRESENTING [stress VE} the status of scientific opinion... I also knew that her attempts to prevent students from hearing about significant problems with evolutionary theory would have likely made Charles Darwin himself uncomfortable... Darwin openly acknowledged important weakness in his theory... Yet today's public defenders of a Darwin-only [!] science curriculum do not want these, or any other.. doubts ... reported to students".
It is impossible to believe that any scientist could make the "no weaknesses" comment ascribed to the saintly Dr. Scott. I couldn't trace the article to check the context, but I did find this Youtube link.
The prologue then repeats the familar arguments in defence of his position, the principal one of which is (what I believe to be) the deliberate misrepresentation of arguments among evolutionary biologists as proof that "evolution is a theory in crisis". Here's a snippet from his book:
"A steady stream of technical article have cast new doubt on the creative power of [mutation and selection]....prominent evolutionary theorists must now periodically assure the public, as biologist Douglas Futuyama has done, that 'just because we don't know HOW evolution occurred, does not justify doubt about WHETHER it occurred'. [a group of scientists called the Altenberg 16 [who they? - VE] are openly calling for a new theory of evolution because they doubt the creative power of the mutation and selection mechanism".
Like all the creationists whom I've seen or read (I make a single exception in the case of the OEC astro-physicist Hugo Ross) he's fond of imputing dishonesty to his opponents. Here's a fine example which llustrates Dr. Meyer's tone and method:
"...opponents of the provision [to allow "teaching the controversy" in the classroom] shifted their ground. They attacked the provision by insisting that there was no need to consider weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory because, as Eugenie Scott, spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, insisted in the Dallas Morning News, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution". At the same time, I was preparing ... one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory...So I knew - unequivocally - that Dr. Scott was MISREPRESENTING [stress VE} the status of scientific opinion... I also knew that her attempts to prevent students from hearing about significant problems with evolutionary theory would have likely made Charles Darwin himself uncomfortable... Darwin openly acknowledged important weakness in his theory... Yet today's public defenders of a Darwin-only [!] science curriculum do not want these, or any other.. doubts ... reported to students".
It is impossible to believe that any scientist could make the "no weaknesses" comment ascribed to the saintly Dr. Scott. I couldn't trace the article to check the context, but I did find this Youtube link.
v_e; I've read your post several times, and I've also watched the Meyer interview now 4 times, and whether ID is part of the American high school curriculum or not, or what he thinks about its inclusion or omission seems of little significance to his theory of intelligent design
Evolution of species is not in question, we are looking back further to the origin of life itself and the information required for it to begin.
Evolution of species is not in question, we are looking back further to the origin of life itself and the information required for it to begin.
Wife's watching this evening's Eastenders, so got the time to reply.
Darwin's Doubt is SPECIFICALLY about the (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory, Khandro. Meyer is at pains to point that out in his prologue (please read the book). The (scientifically unsolved) problem of biogenesis was the subject of an earlier book of his. In Darwin's Doubt he invokes ID to explain how what he calls "new information" has appeared in the development of life. Modern evolutionary theory, he argues, cannot account satisfactorily for "new information" (e.g. new body plans); the intervention by intelligent mid can. That is why the Cambrian Explosion is a central theme of his book.
I haven't made any secret of the fact that I dislike Meyer and most of his kind, viewing them as at best selective and tendentious in their use of the the current scientific literature. Those who care to read his slur against Eugenie Scott and then watch the video clip (both cited in my last post) may be inclined to agree with my assessment.
Darwin's Doubt is SPECIFICALLY about the (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory, Khandro. Meyer is at pains to point that out in his prologue (please read the book). The (scientifically unsolved) problem of biogenesis was the subject of an earlier book of his. In Darwin's Doubt he invokes ID to explain how what he calls "new information" has appeared in the development of life. Modern evolutionary theory, he argues, cannot account satisfactorily for "new information" (e.g. new body plans); the intervention by intelligent mid can. That is why the Cambrian Explosion is a central theme of his book.
I haven't made any secret of the fact that I dislike Meyer and most of his kind, viewing them as at best selective and tendentious in their use of the the current scientific literature. Those who care to read his slur against Eugenie Scott and then watch the video clip (both cited in my last post) may be inclined to agree with my assessment.
ve; // will we ever find out who that is? // Perhaps not 'who' but that does not mean God (for want of a better word) is beyond experience, as Thomas Aquinas believes, something unknowable, like the Tao, more of a verb than a noun, but that is another subject.
Regarding your Dr Scott, she - at least in your link - is talking about evolution of the species, something not in question here, you, I and Meyer all accept common ancestry.
What Meyer is addressing, as far as the interviews I have seen, is the origins of the information required by the atoms in a pre-Cambrian world to generate conscious life itself. Once that kicks in, I personally hand over the wheel to Darwin.
Regarding your Dr Scott, she - at least in your link - is talking about evolution of the species, something not in question here, you, I and Meyer all accept common ancestry.
What Meyer is addressing, as far as the interviews I have seen, is the origins of the information required by the atoms in a pre-Cambrian world to generate conscious life itself. Once that kicks in, I personally hand over the wheel to Darwin.
So Khandro, what you seem to be saying is that there is (was) a chemical complexity threshold below which evolution could not or did not occur and after which it progressed quite rapidly (as witnessed by the cambrian 'explosion'). Do you have any evidence for this? either factual or philosophical and if so where in the geological record do you think this threshold is positioned?
jomifl; Professor Khandro's theory is that some kind of material arrived on Earth with life-forming potential, such as amino acids, maybe by meteor, maybe even from an unknown dimension (yeah, I know it kicks the can down the road) I don't know how, but neither does anyone else. I feel that though Meyer may not be 100% right, he isn't 100% wrong either.
Why is there so much post-Cambrian fossil evidence, and very little before it and what there is pre-Cambrian, gives no evidence for supporting such an explosion of conscious life (I assume the trilobite was conscious of its own existence).
Why is there so much post-Cambrian fossil evidence, and very little before it and what there is pre-Cambrian, gives no evidence for supporting such an explosion of conscious life (I assume the trilobite was conscious of its own existence).
"Professor Khandro" may be right that the materials to help form life came from outside this planet. After all, all the other materials did, almost by definition. On the other hand, nothing complex can have arrived by random asteroid (on the logic that in the resulting collision, anything larger than a molecule would have been vaporised). So any such seeding material would not itself have been directly responsible for the Cambrian Explosion.
Meyer is wrong on several counts;
1. He seems to think that every form of life that ever existed has left a discernable trace in the fossil record.
2. He seem to think that every fossil trace has been found(because he bases his premise on the idea that lack of of fossil is proof of absence) yet new fossils are still being found.
3. He seems to believe that assembling evidence that supports his views (whilst it also supports other views) proves only his case.
4. Looking for evidence to support a conclusion is not just bad science it is no science at all.
1. He seems to think that every form of life that ever existed has left a discernable trace in the fossil record.
2. He seem to think that every fossil trace has been found(because he bases his premise on the idea that lack of of fossil is proof of absence) yet new fossils are still being found.
3. He seems to believe that assembling evidence that supports his views (whilst it also supports other views) proves only his case.
4. Looking for evidence to support a conclusion is not just bad science it is no science at all.
//anything larger than a molecule would have been vaporised//
Well, not according to NASA.
I'm tempted to say "It's life Jim, but not as we know it" but let it pass :0)
http://
Well, not according to NASA.
I'm tempted to say "It's life Jim, but not as we know it" but let it pass :0)
http://
Latest Posts
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News4 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.