“I don’t plan on fomenting an argument, but citing observations drawn from the Cambrian Explosion as evidence of Intelligent Design is like using a time machine to fetch dinner.”
Given that statement, Bob, I would venture to guess you haven’t read either book.
The thing that I liked a lot about Meyer is his thoroughness, intellectual honesty and brutal use of logic and attention to details and the fact that he keeps all of his arguments scientifically based. He never mentions the bible, Christianity or any other religion. His arguments are based on accepted evidence and logic.
What I found compelling wasn’t so much his hypothesis for intelligent design, but his dismantling of Darwinian theory as an explanation for the origin of life (Signature in the Cell) and for life’s subsequent progress (Darwin’s Doubt).
He doesn’t totally dismiss Darwin. He accepts that evolution does play some role in “micro” changes, but not in large systemic or morphological changes, and absolutely not in the origin of life.
For me the most convincing part of the book is his strong critique of Darwinism. I went from being sort of a passive believer in evolution (with some nagging doubts), to absolutely not believing that it explains the origin or the big changes of life.
And by the way, most conventional biologists have the same doubts. Even big names like Stephen Gould saw the problems that Darwin had with the Cambrian Explosion (Darwin himself had doubts!), and he came up with a modified theory called “Punctuated Equilibrium”, but it too was found wanting. So many biologists accept that random changes and natural selection are not sufficient to explain life and how it changes.
So criticizing evolution is not what sets Meyer apart, though he does the most devastating job of any that I’ve seen. What sets him apart and what engenders a lot of criticism from the “conventional” biologists is that he dares to present an alternative that seemingly falls outside the material world - i.e. an intelligent entity.
This is extremely threatening to the conventional scientist, who has been trained and indoctrinated into believing that only material things exist and therefore only material explanations have any place in science. They see the idea of an “intelligent entity” that might have created and/or directed life or the universe, or whatever as taking them right back to the dark ages, to the age of superstition and miracles, where everything can be explained as “God’s will”. And I can sympathize with that. After all material science and it’s methodology has been extremely successful over the past several hundred years, why reintroduce the supernatural?
Well, Meyer is not suggesting that we do away with material science. He’s all in favor of science and it’s methods. What he criticizes is the current assumption in science that excludes the possibility of a mind, of something that is more than simple material. He wants to include what we know exists in everyone of us (our minds) which has not been able to be explained as simple molecular interactions. So if we accepts the mind-body duality in us as individuals, why couldn’t there be a bigger mind-body entity in the universe. And all he asks is that this be included as a possible explanation and that it be investigated by science as any other theory would be.
He himself presents a pretty good case for it, but it’s mostly logic based. He doesn’t present any hard evidence, and that’s where scientific research is needed, as well as searching for other explanations.
So in summary...
1. Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain the origin of life nor the big changes in life. Meyer makes an outstanding case for this. Many “conventional” biologists also believe that Darwinism is lacking.
2. No other material theory exists that explains that
3. Logic and some analogical evidence suggests that a causal “mind” explains both the origin of life and it’s changes
4. Science should include this possibility in it’s investigations, as well as continue to search for other possibilities as evidence dictates.
I’d be interested in either of your take on these books once you read them. (Warning - they’re not easy reads - it helps if you have a biology and logic background)
As expected, you appear to be conflating the origin of life with the origin of species. You, and Meyer, thus destroy a strawman of someone else’s creation.
Darwin’s theory is that gradual changes accumulate, until they have reached a point that the original material is quite obviously distinguishable from its umpteenth-generation offspring. Scientists of all stripes accept this without argument, and must logically do so, because it is by definition necessary; two related species, if not the same, must have accumulated changes that then distinguish them from each other.
But it is always easier to refute or disparage a contention that Darwin never made; that life assembled itself here. I know someone who promulgates that contention, but it wasn’t Darwin.