Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design advocate Stephen Meyer published in peer-reviewed journal
Discovery.org ^
| 8/25/04
| Stephen C. Meyer
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 ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-195 next last
To: Michael_Michaelangelo; betty boop
Thanks for the post! I look forward to reading it, once I am able to download (still waiting).
betty boop, this is the subject you and I have been discussing now for months. I look forward to your comments!!!
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is your peer reviewed journal?
Well, it's no Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Science, that's for sure.
To: microgood
Ockham no doubt meant that one day a bolt of lightning hit a bubbling pot of primordial soup and out popped a dinosaur with a 3 billion molecule long DNA sequence and an attitude. After all, lets keep it simple. I don't know about Ockham, but I much prefer that explanation to the one that states:
Something of unexplainable complexity one day caused a bolt of lightning to hit a bubbling pot of primordial soup and out popped a dinosaur with a 3 billion molecule long DNA sequence and an attitude. After all, of the two explanations, it is the more simple.
23
posted on
08/26/2004 8:58:53 AM PDT
by
laredo44
(Liberty is not the problem)
To: js1138; Michael_Michaelangelo; PatrickHenry; edsheppa; Right Wing Professor; laredo44
I've waited several minutes over a high speed connection, and no document. Could you post the abstract? It finally arrived here, and it wasn't worth the wait. And the paper contains no abstract, which is pretty sloppy.
It's just a wordier rehash of the usual creationist nonsense, including one of my favorites, the false assertion that genetic algorithms only work because "intelligence" is "preprogrammed into" them and they won't work without a pre-determined "goal".
The conclusion of the paper is a real hoot:
An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate -- and perhaps the most causally adequate -- explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the the higher taxa.
In short, he's saying, "because I'm most familiar with the products of human intelligence, my gut tells me that maybe something intelligent may have made life on Earth. This idea needs more work."
For that he needed twenty one pages of article and five pages of footnotes?
Hardly a decisive, earth-shattering, or original contribution to the field, eh?
24
posted on
08/26/2004 9:18:17 AM PDT
by
Ichneumon
("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
To: Ichneumon
Thank you for your expert opinion. I knew I could count on you, one of the more voracious posters and devout Atheists here at FR, to dissect the summary of the paper in such a concise and predictable way.
To: Alamo-Girl; Michael_Michaelangelo; marron; PatrickHenry
Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for the ping! Already downloaded, and 4 pages into it, I'm finding this article most engaging.... I like the distinction that Meyer draws between Shannon information ("complexity") and Dembski's "complex specified information" (CSI). The latter carries the idea of "necessary to function," where Shannon information is neutral on this point. If we speak of function, then in a way we are implying something about specific purpose or goal (
telos in the Greek sense).
I will enjoy reading the rest of this, and seeing how Meyer develops his thesis.
Thanks so much, Michael_Michaelangelo, for a splendid post!
To: betty boop
You're quite welcome! Please share your thoughts on the paper when you've had the opportunity to go over it.
FRegards! MM
To: Ichneumon
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. Not at all. "Modern science" is no longer simply interested in seeking the truth, but is actively engaged in propping up the philosophy of non-theistic materialism. The caterwauling of many atheistic scientists that ID (which simply proposes that life is intellegently designed, not that it all happened 6000 years ago or that no evolution has taken place) is just a back-door for creationism is one proof: If they were not actively engaged in trying to fiat out "higher powers," they would no more be threatened by ID than geologists are threatened when an archaeologist proposes that a weathered bluff shows signs of having been artificially constructed as a wall.
28
posted on
08/26/2004 9:58:28 AM PDT
by
Buggman
("Those who are foolish in serious things, will be serious in foolish things.")
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
So, he published a paper on the history of origins of life research in the biological sciences. Good for him. However, it does not appear that he's published anything supporting ID, which I know is the impression you were trying to convey.
29
posted on
08/26/2004 10:01:16 AM PDT
by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: betty boop
Thank you so much for the preview and the early insight from just four pages in! I've printed it out and will give it a thorough review this afternoon or evening. Once again, I'll be offline in the afternoon to assist in painting. LOL! I'm sooo looking foward to this.
To: laredo44
"Somehow, I don't believe Ockham intended that his razor carve away until nothing but ignorance remained."And it is the height of ignorance to simply dismiss the idea that 'God did it' because it doesn't suit one's idea of an what comprises 'free thought' or 'an open mind' or 'intellectuality'.
31
posted on
08/26/2004 10:10:05 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
To: Ichneumon
"Well, simple things for simple minds."So you are presuming that Ockham had a 'simple mind'?
32
posted on
08/26/2004 10:11:28 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
To: MEGoody
How do you propose science test for "God did it?"
33
posted on
08/26/2004 10:13:08 AM PDT
by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: Junior
However, it does not appear that he's published anything supporting ID, which I know is the impression you were trying to convey. I recommend that you read the paper before making this claim.
34
posted on
08/26/2004 10:16:39 AM PDT
by
Heartlander
(I am Heartlander and I approve of this post.)
To: Junior
"How do you propose science test for "God did it?"I never suggested that science could or should - I simply said it is ignorance to simply dismiss the idea that God did.
35
posted on
08/26/2004 10:17:06 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
To: MEGoody
So you are presuming that Ockham had a 'simple mind'? No....
36
posted on
08/26/2004 10:31:01 AM PDT
by
Ichneumon
("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
To: MEGoody
And it is the height of ignorance to simply dismiss the idea that 'God did it' because it doesn't suit one's idea of an what comprises 'free thought' or 'an open mind' or 'intellectuality'. You need to descend from your own mound of ignorance. I don't dismiss a "God did it" explanation at all. I'm merely stating that such an explanation is tantamount to a statement of ignorance. Answering the question, "How did the dinosaurs get here?" with the answer "God did it" is the same as answering, "I have no idea." The two answers contribute equally to the sum total of human knowledge of how dinosaurs got here.
37
posted on
08/26/2004 10:31:31 AM PDT
by
laredo44
(Liberty is not the problem)
To: Ichneumon
causally adequate Translation: God could have done it; therefore, that is the best explanation.
38
posted on
08/26/2004 10:41:50 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Speedy architect of perfect labyrinths.)
To: Ichneumon
I certainly hope that you don't think that that's in any way anywhere in the neighborhood of the actual scientific view.
Sorry, I just thought my explanation just highlights the absurdity of the theory of abiogenesis (which is not really a scientific theory but a religious belief similar to global warming) even though I know according to the religion of abiogenesis, the bolt of lightning hit the bubbling pot of primordial soup and out popped an amino acid, and so on.
To: Buggman
"Modern science" is no longer simply interested in seeking the truth, but is actively engaged in propping up the philosophy of non-theistic materialism.
Truer words have never been spoken. Home run.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-195 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson