I read it, I understood it, I'm underwhelmed.
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.
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.