I believe you, although I don't think another particular poster who felt obliged to chime in can make that claim.
I'm not going to waste my time rebutting the entire thing, but if you'd like to point out the one or two parts you feel are most supportive of ID, I'll explain what's wrong with them.
The funny thing is a good bit of Meyer's article involves arguments long batted about here on crevo threads. Of course, now the points are peer reviewed :-)
One thing for you to consider is how neo-Darwinism fails completely to account for the Cambrian explosion.
Another point is: "Natural selection can favor new proteins, and genes, but only after they perform some function. The job of generating new functional genes, proteins and systems of proteins therefore falls entirely to random mutations. Yet without functional criteria to guide a search through the space of possible sequences, random variation is probabilistically doomed." This is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments.
Meyer addresses design in a fairly philosophical way but the arguments against considering design are basically philosophical rather than empirical so that's not unfair. He notes, however, that it is not arbitrary to consider design, and basically says why not consider it since it makes more sense than the other claims.
The funny thing is a good bit of Meyer's article involves arguments long batted about here on crevo threads. Of course, now the points are peer reviewed :-)
So? That means nothing more than that a handful of reviewers decided to give it a green-light to be printed in an issue of the journal.
One thing for you to consider is how neo-Darwinism fails completely to account for the Cambrian explosion.
I'd be glad to "consider" that if you could actually make a case for such a claim. But neither Meyers article nor anything you've posted here actually supports such an assertion. So why should I consider your empty assertion?
Another point is: "Natural selection can favor new proteins, and genes, but only after they perform some function. The job of generating new functional genes, proteins and systems of proteins therefore falls entirely to random mutations. Yet without functional criteria to guide a search through the space of possible sequences, random variation is probabilistically doomed." This is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments.
ROFL!! Look, the first quoted sentence is true in a sense (although "perform some function" is remarkably vague and probably misleading). The second sentence is moderately correct but leaves out other parts of the process. The third sentence, however, is flat wrong. So please explain how "this is a pretty good criticism of non-design arguments".
Meyer addresses design in a fairly philosophical way but the arguments against considering design are basically philosophical rather than empirical so that's not unfair.
No, the "argument against design" is that there is no theory *of* design, and no evidence *for* it.
He notes, however, that it is not arbitrary to consider design, and basically says why not consider it since it makes more sense than the other claims.
He's entitled to his opinion, I suppose, but until there's some sort of actual theory of design, and/or evidence in favor of that theory *specifically*, it's just a philosophical bull session.