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.
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.
No document
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.
betty boop, this is the subject you and I have been discussing now for months. I look forward to your comments!!!
Well, it's no Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Science, that's for sure.
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.
Refering link:
Broken File id: 144
I wonder what the odds are that the only ID'er ever to get published in a peer reviewed journal gets a broken link?
I'll sneak around later and see if one of the folks here can find his journal article in the library.
He also has a very good article in The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.XI No. 1/2, 1999, PP1-38.
http://www.jis3.org/
Have a look here.
That should read "Biological"
Review of Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.
by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry
[The views and statements expressed here are our own and not necessarily those of NCSE or its supporters.]
“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.
Unfortunately, the ID movement will likely ignore the above considerations about how scientific review actually works, and instead trumpet the paper from coast to coast as proving the scientific legitimacy of ID. Therefore, we would like to do our part in the review process by providing a preliminary evaluation of the claims made in Meyer’s paper. Given the scientific stakes, we may assume that Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID, has put forward the best case that ID has to offer. Discouragingly, it appears that ID’s best case is not very good. We cannot review every problem with Meyer’s article in this initial post, but we would like to highlight some of the most serious mistakes. These include errors in facts and reasoning. Even more seriously, Meyer’s paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature. ...
Where's the abstract or the journal reference? When I click the link, all I get is a PDF of the Adobe, Inc. campus.
SPOTREP - !!!!
read later