Intelligent design is not creationism (Stephen Meyer)

London Telegraph ^ | 01/28/2006 | Stephen Meyer

[VadeRetro]

Meyer doesn't mention the negative side of the Flew story. Flew, never a biologist, investigated further and became convinced he'd been had. He recanted his recantation.

I can't believe Meyer doesn't know that, but he doesn't mention it. Very like a creationist, I'd say.

[mlc9852]

Why does it matter what Flew or Darwin "believed" anyway? Science is not about who believes something. It's about who can prove something. Why would scientists be interested in someone's beliefs? Either there is evidence or there isn't.

[Filo]

Atheists usually THINK they are pretty bright and those who believe in God are ignorant.

I was talking about liberals, thanks. Don't put words into my mouth!

As DNA becomes better understood, scientists will begin to re-think the dogma of the evolutionists and maybe, just maybe some of them will be honest enough to admit when there are gaps.

So you are saying that you understand more about DNA than scientists even know yet. And with that you expect to be taken seriously?

Like I've said, there are gaps in the record, not in the theory. Just because we find that something went A->B->D->C instead of A->B->C->D doesn't invalidate evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Talk to Meyer. He brought it up, but only some of it. That's my problem.

My problems with ID is not so much that it "is" creationism as that it's argued the same way as creationism, by lying about the evidence.

[marine86297]

Thank you Dread, I'll pass these along to him tonight when I get home. He and his partner are preparing for State finals this week. They have been debating this topic for about 2 months now.

[VadeRetro]

He recanted his recantation.

Actually, he's still a Deist. He still likes anthropic principle arguments. He's no longer impressed with arguments from biological complexity.

[mlc9852]

Being wrong isn't a lie or scientists would really be in trouble. Think back over the years, even t what you were taught in school science class. Has nothing changed since then? Were your teachers liars?

The name-calling just shows how little people on here really know. Otherwise, facts would fight facts and the name-callers would be run off as they should be.

Don't get too bogged down in assuming because science says something is true today that it will still be true tomorrow.

[mlc9852]

"So you are saying that you understand more about DNA than scientists even know yet. And with that you expect to be taken seriously?"

Now, now - let's try to pay attention to the actual conversation. lol

[SirLinksalot]

He recanted his recantation.

Apparently Flew is still a believer in God. In the most recent interview, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions. A deist is by definition someone who believes that God created but does not intervene in the world. If this is not ID, I don't know what is. Therefore, Stephen Meyer is not untruthful in this sense.

[orionblamblam]

> You don't think that a theory that DNA is coded similarly to computer language is worth discussing in a science classroom ...

And what theory is that? Computer code is binary. DNA is not.

> my kids are going to find these things and other theories very exciting when they are old enough to study them.

I'm sure they will. They'll also be terribly excited about the theory that the Pyramids were built by aliens.

[VadeRetro]

ID, like creation, is always wrong about the existence of arguments against its position. That's why every thread looks the same, because we have to remind the "dummies" of all the same stuff we reminded them of on the previous fifty threads where they showed up dumb as a stump with the same arguments.

I never see an ID-er anticipate the argument that evolution can originate structures which appear irreducibly complex. Never. They always show up chanting the mantra that this is a thing evolution cannot do. Someone else always has to show that simple scenarios involving deletion and scaffolding effects will get you there. Then the dummy demands eyewitness accounts, or some other evasion. Etc. Repeat indefinitely.

This is not stupidity. This is dishonesty, practiced by stupid people.

[frgoff]

but he makes a lapse in reasoning when he effectively assumes that the flagellum was "always meant" to be a motor.

It's not a lapse in reasoning. He bases his argument on the reasoning that migrating the structure from one function to another eliminates selection pressure (bias in the probabilities) and you start dealing with random chance.

I'm pleased to hear biologists are looking to see if there is a selection pathway for the flagella to migrate. If nothing else, Behe is forcing some people to think.

It's probable that there's equivocation going on about the meaning of "strictly random", but putting that aside I'd like to see the quote from Dawkins.

The entire theme of the Blind Watchmaker is that directed chance is what drives evolution. He admits in the book that without direction evolution fails. Don't confuse the word direction with intelligence. What Dawkins is actually describing is bias (in mathematical terms) that skews a random process in a specific direction. The bias can be completely non-intelligent in source (such as the temperature of a mixture of NO2 and NO3), but the presence of the bias changes the outcome of a random process (in the case of NO2 and NO3, the ratio of one gas to the other through random collisions.)

[VadeRetro]

Therefore, Stephen Meyer is not untruthful in this sense.

As I amended later, Flew was initially persuaded in part by arguments from biological complexity. He has been dissuaded that there is any such argument to be made. He is still vaguely Deistic, seeing an impersonal, non-anthropomorphic God. The result sounds to me something like Einstein's near-metaphorical Deism.

But Meyer not knowing that Flew has moved away from ID is not good.

[frgoff]

Someone else always has to show that simple scenarios involving deletion and scaffolding effects will get you there.

And then folks like me have to come along and constantly restate that deletion and scaffolding models eliminate the bias pressure of natural selection and leave you to deal with random probabilities and monkeys typing complete plays of shakespeare. Even Dawkins admits that the bias of natural selection is THE pillar upon which evolution rests.

[VadeRetro]

Someone like you has to come along babbling nonsense, yes. Whatever you do, keep the smoke screen up!

[mlc9852]

So you think those who believe in creation demand an eyewitness account of evolution?

LOL - I missed that thread I guess.

[VadeRetro]

LOL - I missed that thread I guess.

All threads are like the first time for every creatinist or ID-er. As I say, that makes it hard to tell them apart.

[mlc9852]

You are so quick to point out other's nonsense yet don't seem to post anything that is actually scientific to defend evolution.

You're kind of like the Howard Dean of TOE.

[VadeRetro]

I haven't so far on this thread, no. Thus, in your world, I haven't ever.

[Shalom Israel]

He bases his argument on the reasoning that migrating the structure from one function to another eliminates selection pressure...

Unfortunately, that's a meaningless statement. Selective pressure doesn't have a sense of direction; it's opportunistic. A perfectly functioning excretory organ can develop under selective pressure, and if it happens to provide locomotion, and locomotion happens to be helpful, then selective pressure will reinforce a new use for an old organ.

The entire theme of the Blind Watchmaker is that directed chance is what drives evolution. He admits in the book that without direction evolution fails.

Like I said, you'll need to supply a specific quote. "Direction" is essentially synonymous with "selection"; it weeds out the bad ideas. However, selection is only "directional" in a local sense. It defines a notion of fitness at any given time, but it doesn't proceed toward a particular ultimate destination.

What Dawkins is actually describing is bias (in mathematical terms) that skews a random process in a specific direction. The bias can be completely non-intelligent in source

In other words, selection is synonymous with direction. It is a source of bias.