Posted on 08/26/2004 7:41:29 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
Proceedings of the Bioligical Society of Washington August 25, 2004
Link to PDF only. No text.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
From Discovery.org:
Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle.
Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.
Dr. Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education with Michigan State University Press and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2002).
He has also authored numerous technical articles as well as editorials in magazines and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, First Things and National Review.
I've waited several minutes over a high speed connection, and no document. Could you post the abstract?
Ping
Uh oh... Eviloootion is in trouble now.
Well, you would have more credibility if you didn't feel the need to mock and belittle to make your point. Just the facts will do.
Orson Scott Card, a Science Fiction Writer who also happens to write great political op/eds that occasionally get posted here, once wrote in one of his novels that the ultimate application of Ockham's Razor is to simply say "God did it." Perhaps there is some truth to that in cosmology. The question for scientists then becomes "How did God do it?" and for the theologian "Why did God do it?" Modern science's outright rejection of higher power(s) is unscientific.
Bump to read later.
Well said.
No document
Saying "god did it" is in fact the exact answer that was offered for millennium. Somehow, I don't believe Ockham intended that his razor carve away until nothing but ignorance remained.
I have no credibility anyway. So I figure being an ass won't hurt me at all. ;)
I certainly hope that you don't think that that's in any way anywhere in the neighborhood of the actual scientific view. If so, sue your teachers. If not, why do you wave straw men around?
After all, lets keep it simple.
Well, simple things for simple minds.
LOL! Oh well go ahead then.
It doesn't take God to design such a device ~ just space aliens.
Eventually we will discover where all of these self-sealing ports are, and how to use them to fix everything.
One ping, and I return you a ping!
P.S. I agree, JDB has been on a roll for a couple of weeks. Thanks for the heads up Michael.
An even simpler scenario is to remove the grandiose overcomplication of an infinitely powerful, inifinitely old, infinitely knowing, infinitely etc. being, and just say "stuff happened", since that's as empty and sweeps as much under the rug as the "God did it" waffle -- both make a simple declaration and run away from the messy details of exactly how.
For that matter, even if one insists on including a sentient creator because one hasn't the imagination to envision any other kind of possibility, Ockham's razor would favor an advanced alien from the universe next door working on his Cosmogensis 101 term project, rather than the aforementioned inifinitely infinite being. "Sufficiently powerful" is closer to the spirit of Ockham's razor than "all powerful". After all, one doesn't automatically presume divine creation for a macaroni sculpture.
Perhaps there is some truth to that in cosmology.
And perhaps there isn't.
The question for scientists then becomes "How did God do it?"
Presumes facts not in evidence. One could equally well say that the question for scientists then becomes "How did the invisible pink unicorns do it".
Modern science's outright rejection of higher power(s) is unscientific.
It would be if modern science actually engaged in "outright rejection of higher powers", but since it doesn't, you're just revealing your misunderstandings about science.
While I'm waiting (and waiting and waiting) for this thing to come down, tell me where Meyer uses a design argument in the paper.
[Saying "god did it" is in fact the exact answer that was offered for millennium.]
....................
And after a brief Darwin/Marx/Freud (3 up, 3 down :o) insanity interlude, has been confirmed to everyone but a tiny band of the Faithful who roam the hills muttering quotes from Mencken & clutching a grainy black & white VHS of "Inherit The Wind".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.