"Signature in the Cell" on C-SPAN's BookTV This Weekend (fascinating book on Intelligent Design)

Evolution News & Views ^ | September 3, 2009 | Stephen Myer, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

If you weren't able to join us for the official Signature in the Cell book release party at the Seattle Art Museum, you can still watch author Stephen Meyer's presentation this weekend on C-SPAN2's BookTV:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

About the Program
Stephen Meyer argues that our DNA provides evidence of an intelligent designer and helps explain how life began. He spoke at the Seattle Art Museum during an event hosted by the Discovery Institute.

Future Airings
* Saturday, September 5th at 7pm (ET)
* Sunday, September 6th at 7am (ET)
* Monday, September 7th at 12pm (ET)
* Tuesday, September 8th at 12am (ET)

[freedumb2003]

The study of ultimate origins includes many spheres of study. Both scientific, philosophical, theological etc. They may at times overlap where lines become blurred and cause conflict. But that's life.

Not in scientific circles. The lines are only blurred to people who want to blur them.

Science has very defined methodologies that allow expansion of itself and to ensure the expansion is useful and applicable.

We are no longer in the middle ages.

Pursuit of KNOWLEDGE may (and does) cross lines, but that is a different domain that science.

Things like multiverses, parallel timelines and the like are certainly interesting and may have cross-applicability in the science realm, but to be considered science they must meet the proper criteria. And there are scientific pursuits in these areas (quantum theory) but the results and analysis methods still meet scientific muster.

By definition, it is impossible for ID to ever meet any (much less every) scientific principle. Unless the designer gives a press conference and makes itself available for testing.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Not in scientific circles. The lines are only blurred to people who want to blur them.

Darwins diciples e.g. Huxley blurred the lines.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Not in scientific circles. The lines are only blurred to people who want to blur them.

Tell that to Dawkins.

[freedumb2003]

He is drawing a different line. He says that which cannot be measured cannot exist.

It makes no difference inside the science realm and is of no consequence outside of it.

You wouldn’t be silly enough to conflate understanding science to supporting all views of those who do, would you?

[freedumb2003]

Hitler was a Christian. Thus, all Christians are like Hitler.

Your attempt fails on simple non sequitur basis alone.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

He is drawing a different line. He says that which cannot be measured cannot exist.

Dawkins lifted that from physicist Niels Bohr and was called the "The Copenhagen Principle". Now in disfavor.

It makes no difference inside the science realm and is of no consequence outside of it.

?

You wouldn’t be silly enough to conflate understanding science to supporting all views of those who do, would you?

Dawkins is a scientst....no?.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Hitler was a Christian. Thus, all Christians are like Hitler. Your attempt fails on simple non sequitur basis alone.

The blurring of lines came from idiots in the "scientific" community. After the Scopes Monkey Trial religious people had no choice but to engage them on their terms.

[aruanan]

Dawkins is a scientst....no?.

Sorta kinda.

[freedumb2003]

It makes no difference inside the science realm and is of no consequence outside of it.

?

Res ipsa loquater.

Dawkins is a scientst....no?.

Hitler was stated Christian.

You really don't want to run that non-sequitur now, do you?

[freedumb2003]

The blurring of lines came from idiots in the "scientific" community. After the Scopes Monkey Trial religious people had no choice but to engage them on their terms.

So, you dont even try to address my argument.

And I assume you mean "the clarifying of the lines." Religion teaches that which is believed. Science teaches that which can be measured.

You don't know much about science, do you?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

And I assume you mean "the clarifying of the lines." Religion teaches that which is believed. Science teaches that which can be measured.

Catholic doctrine is based on that which is revealed. Some things cannot be measured. We are finding that out in quantum physics.

double slit experiment

[freedumb2003]

And yet, there is no ID in Quantum Physics either.

[whattajoke]

By definition, it is impossible for ID to ever meet any (much less every) scientific principle.

This is refreshing and honest. Thank you. hundreds of thousands of scientists agree with you.

Unfortunately, your (correct) statement would be met with anger and derision at the Discovery Institute and I'm surprised our resident ID'ers (though most here are YEC's) haven't shouted you down yet. I know they give a lot of leeway to their "own," but still; this is a very upsetting idea to most creationists here.

In fact, the entire ID industry tries to fight this notion. GGG's threads are weak attempts to dispel this notion. Court cases (Kitzmiller) destroyed ID because of this notion. And teaching ID in science class will/should never happen precisely because of this notion.

This doesn't mean the faithful shouldn't accept ID/creationism. More power to them... Just please stop trying to pretend it's anything more than it is. Again, thank you.

[erman]

I came to Christ through patience of a friend and science. The funny thing about the world just "happening" without God's hand is that a friend of mine who is a physicists said to me... "It's all really quite simple to counter the argument that we 'just happened" but everybody is looking at complicated things. If you are a scientist and hold that the second law of Thermodynamics is true then there is really no other conclusion that can be made other than God made the heaven and the earth."

My epiphany came while on a lake looking at my daughter's ear and realizing the complexity of the inner ear and how the semi-circular canals are made, the method they transmit balance to the brain and the body's ability to stand upright.... then looking up to the stars and seeing a sky full of stars, each millions of light years away... the vastness of it all and then the absolute delicate balance of my child's ear...... randomness just doesn't quite seem logical. At least to me. Others may disagree, free country....

[freedumb2003]

There can be no question God created this wonderful Universe. But he made it a rational Universe, with rules to be discovered by His humble children.

To do otherwise would make God the trickster.

His wisdom and ability is Vast beyond our ken. But he used physical processes to create it all.

To suggest otherwise makes God merely Gandalf writ large. The Universe is a large and complex place.

The awe of the Universe is the awe of God’s science.

[erman]

well written and I agree

[UCANSEE2]

The Universe is a large and complex place.

Larger than it is even possible to imagine.

[UCANSEE2]

BTW, note the time stamp on my post #37.

I have a time machine, and I’ll rent it out for the right price.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

This leads us to the absurdity that if evolution is false but scientific and creation is true but unscientific. Then inorder to avoid the "cop-out" it is better to espouse a false belief that is scientific than a true doctrine that is unscientific.

Good point. According to them, "God did it" is unscientific, but "the Accident Fairy did it" is scientific.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Tell that to Dawkins.

Or T.H. Huxley...

"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church." —T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.