Quizzes & Puzzles1 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.
The link isn't working, but presumably it's just based on his book, which itself is based on an outdated interpretation of the fossil record. Darwin's views, and the evidence he had available, aren't the be-all and end-all of the discussion on Evolution. Since then, over 150 years' worth of extra evidence has been collected, and anyway at a much faster rate than before.
https:/
any better?
any better?
Oh, that Stephen Meyer! Yes, I've seen him and his mates often in Youtube debates. He's a member of the mischievously named Discovery Institute. This institution has neither discovered anything, nor has contributed anything to scientific research or discourse. Its principal aim is the promotion of Christian fundamentalism and the stultification of science education in the States by the promotion of Intelligent Design ("Teach the controversy"). As has often been pointed out, there are Nobel prizes galore for any "scientists" from DI (or its more honestly named stablemate Answers in Genesis) who can refute: the 150 years of evidence in support of the theory of natural selection; or the invalidity of radiometric dating; or the age of the universe as revealed by cosmic expansion. All of which MUST be false if their interpretation of Genesis is true.
Look up Meyers, Dembski and co. on Youtube. Also, Kenneth Miller (an RC) who's an opponent of ID.
Look up Meyers, Dembski and co. on Youtube. Also, Kenneth Miller (an RC) who's an opponent of ID.
v-e not a very scientific response from you, as might be expected, attacking institutions and naming opponents of what he is saying.
The gas is that atheists attack him because they fear he is challenging beliefs - which he clearly states ( about 19 minutes in ) he isn't, and certain theists want to claim he is advocating a belief in a biblical God which he isn't either.
At least you watched it after your first post, for that I thank you.
The gas is that atheists attack him because they fear he is challenging beliefs - which he clearly states ( about 19 minutes in ) he isn't, and certain theists want to claim he is advocating a belief in a biblical God which he isn't either.
At least you watched it after your first post, for that I thank you.
The existence of complex organisms is not explained by invoking the pre-existence of even greater complexity. Complexity, no less that of an intelligent being with the capacity to design and create, arises as a product of the process of evolution within a universe that provides the means required of and for such processes to take place. The cart did not create the horse.
Intelligent design is like presupposing a watch prior to the existence of a watch maker.
The intelligence required for purposeful creativity is itself the product of an extremely complex highly evolved entity that has first acquired the means required to engage in the process of intelligent, deliberate action. Hydrogen and gravity are the precursors of that which through billions of years of evolution gave rise to intelligence and the capacity for rational thought . . . presuming the existence of the desire to put forth the effort required to engage in the process.
The intelligence required for purposeful creativity is itself the product of an extremely complex highly evolved entity that has first acquired the means required to engage in the process of intelligent, deliberate action. Hydrogen and gravity are the precursors of that which through billions of years of evolution gave rise to intelligence and the capacity for rational thought . . . presuming the existence of the desire to put forth the effort required to engage in the process.
I'll try to find the time to watch but if it is 'Intelligent Design' then I've come across that before. It is simple Creationism dressed up in smart clothes in the hope it'll be taken seriously. At best it points out areas of evolution still to be clarified and more often makes claim things are too complex to have been reached gradually when it turns out that is pure opinion and has no convincing basis.
You’re welcome, OG.
I would argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – which of course could be applied to the potential existence of an Intelligent Designer as well as to the Cambrian Explosion. However, it doesn’t seem to occur to the proponents of Intelligent Design, even pretty smart ones like Dr Meyer, that the vast intellectual leap they take in concluding that absence of evidence in one area of the evolutionary process necessarily supposes not only the existence of a supernatural creator, but moreover, of one they’re convinced they are aware of, equates to the abandonment of rational inquiry. Intelligent minds bridging the gap by determining that the mythical supernatural being they worship is responsible isn’t really that intelligent.
I would argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – which of course could be applied to the potential existence of an Intelligent Designer as well as to the Cambrian Explosion. However, it doesn’t seem to occur to the proponents of Intelligent Design, even pretty smart ones like Dr Meyer, that the vast intellectual leap they take in concluding that absence of evidence in one area of the evolutionary process necessarily supposes not only the existence of a supernatural creator, but moreover, of one they’re convinced they are aware of, equates to the abandonment of rational inquiry. Intelligent minds bridging the gap by determining that the mythical supernatural being they worship is responsible isn’t really that intelligent.
As I pointed out earlier the other flaw is that the "Cambrian Explosion" is a rather outdated description of the fossil record, although it made some sense at the time. More recent fossil evidence has changed the picture so that no longer does it look like a whole host of new species "suddenly" emerging out of nowhere. With this new evidence there is no basis for an argument against evolution and in favour of ID based on the Cambrian Explosion.
The crux of Stephen Meyer's argument is that some life forms appear to be [too complex] to have simply evolved into being, while in the same breath declaring something necessarily [much more complex] must have had a hand in its evolution with no explanation whatsoever of what that something might have been or where the hell it might have came from.
Call that whatever you like, but one thing it's definitely not is an 'explanation'.
Call that whatever you like, but one thing it's definitely not is an 'explanation'.
Latest Posts
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News4 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Looks Like Bob The Builder Has Done A...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 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.