In the growing movement known as intelligent design, Stephen Meyer is an emerging figurehead. A young, Cambridge-educated philosopher of science, Meyer is director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute — intelligent design’s primary intellectual and scientific headquarters. He’s also author of Signature in the Cell, a provocative new book that offers the first comprehensive DNA-based argument for intelligent design.I highly suggest reading the article but also I find the comments very telling. There are several comments made by people who embrace evolution form an atheistic worldview. Their attitude amazes me. It's like Evolution has to be so fundamentally true that only morons don't believe it or question it. At the same time they take the attitude that theists are biased because scientists are supposed to "question and test everything". It's also amazing that none of the critical comments I says said anything like "I read Meyer's book and he is wrong on a certain page and here is why." No, he's wrong because he challenges their worldview.
On May 14, Meyer gave a lecture at an event hosted by Biola's Christian apologetics program in Chase Gymnasium, where he made his case that the origin of the information needed to create the first cell must have came from an intelligent designer. Biola Magazine sat down with Meyer while he was at Biola and asked him to elaborate on evolution, the scientific merit of the theory of intelligent design and the uncanny similarities between DNA and computer programming.
The thing that amazes me about the people who hate intelligent design is that they expect us to believe that all of nature in its myriad of complexities, structure, and shape - awesome as it is - came into being without a mind behind it. I'm a computer programmer and no computer program comes into existence without a mind. Why would DNA or anything we see in nature be any different?
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? « Biola Magazine
You wrote "I'm a computer programmer"
ReplyDeleteYou're in the computer software business and you obviously know nothing about science. So why do you think you're qualified to write about the science of evolutionary biology? Have you ever seen this quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Everyone knows "intelligent design" are fancy code words that mean "A god fairy with a magic wand made creatures out of nothing." Even the professional liar for Jeebus Stephen Meyer knows this. So why does Meyer call magic "design"? Because he thinks calling magic by another name makes it less childish, but he isn't fooling anyone.
You wrote "Their attitude amazes me. It's like Evolution has to be so fundamentally true that only morons don't believe it or question it."
It would be more accurate to call evolution deniers "uneducated morons" because even a moron, if he or she bothered to study science, could figure out that evolution is an established truth.
Do you think you, as a computer software developer, know more about molecular biology than the Encyclopedia Britannica? Then you should go tell them why they were wrong when they wrote: "There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms."
"the theory of intelligent design"
"Intelligent design" are code words that mean "the magic man did it."
Magic could never be a scientific theory. Magic couldn't even be a scientific hypothesis. And it's ridiculous that I have to tell you these things.
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer?
Translation:
Can DNA Prove the Existence of a magic god fairy?
The answer is NO, and the question is idiotic and childish.
Undeniable evidence for evolution, explained by the Encyclopedia Britannica
Thank you for proving my point. I'm not the one displaying mu ignorance."Human Ape" just because I have chosen to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the Britannica doesn't make me wrong. Why would you argue from authority? Encyclopedias have been wrong in past. How do you know it's right in this case. There are expert biologists who would disagree with the quote you used. I am qualified enough to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. You obviously didn't read the interview. You obviously did not read Meyer's book. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Asimov's quote applies much more to you than it does me.
ReplyDeleteMarcus; I'm with you all the way. I can't detect much of the scientist in "human ape" (perhaps he needs a little more evolution). I can speak as a scientist ... a physicist specialising in the science of polymer molecules with over 100 scientific papers published and having served as a consultant to the Dow Chemical Company for 30 years. My qualifications include both a doctorate and a higher doctorate as well as professional scientific Fellowships. I have just published a book entitled "Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything" which argues the same scientific case for the design of the genetic code and the origin of life as does Dr Meyer, though my approach and style are quite different. See www.whomadegod.com
ReplyDeleteMeyer uses complexity and information theory to "disprove" evolution, but doesn't understand it himself. With a background in computer science you might have more luck. Though your assertion that computer programs don't come into existence without a mind, is ignorant of the entire field of evolutionary algorithms and their successes in delivering real world solutions to complex problems in field like fluid hydrodynamics.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI don't just don't have a degree in Information Technology I also hold a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley. I've had an occasion to study fluid hydrodynamics and I can say for sure I have never seen any success of "evolutionary algorithms" successfully
delivering real world solutions" to anything. Could you please site some examples of what you are talking about. Also where have you seen a computer program come into existence without a mind?
I only read Signature in the Cell late, and so reviewed it only a couple weeks or so ago. But don't worry, I found lots of places where Meyer was wrong, including some really dreadful quotemines.
ReplyDeleteHere's my review on Amazon
He really ought to do much better than he did.
Glen Davidson