Intelligent Design advocate Stephen Meyer published in peer-reviewed journal

Discovery.org ^ | 8/25/04 | Stephen C. Meyer

[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.

[Alamo-Girl]

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!!!

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

[laredo44]

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.

[Ichneumon]

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?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

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.

[betty boop]

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!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

You're quite welcome! Please share your thoughts on the paper when you've had the opportunity to go over it.

FRegards! MM

[Buggman]

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.

[Junior]

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

[MEGoody]

"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'.

[MEGoody]

"Well, simple things for simple minds."

So you are presuming that Ockham had a 'simple mind'?

[Junior]

How do you propose science test for "God did it?"

[Heartlander]

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.

[MEGoody]

"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.

[Ichneumon]

So you are presuming that Ockham had a 'simple mind'?

No....

[laredo44]

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.

[js1138]

causally adequate

Translation: God could have done it; therefore, that is the best explanation.

[microgood]

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.

[microgood]

"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.