He must be a rocket scientist.
Posted on 10/07/2009 8:18:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.
“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer. “Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.”
In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?
Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”
“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”
According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.
>> Are you a dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic like I am? <<
I am not dyslexic, though my keyboarding tends to be that way, I am not an insomniac if I take melatonin 1/2 hour before wanting to go to bed. I am a bit of a mix between absolute skeptic / doubting Thomas and agnostic.
Macro-evolution is not neutral. Thanks for playing...
[[He is smart in a dishonest sort of way, because he knows what happens to Temple of Darwin fanatics who dare to debate Creation and ID scientists:]]
Precisely! He’s afraid of the very science he abuses to ‘support’ his assinine comments on evolution, and knows that the scientific evidence does NOT support his idiotic claims, and is afraid to have the impossibilities of his hypothesis exposed for all to see- He knows that he can’t defend himself, and so he’s takign his ball and goign home like a spoiled rotten little brat!
Posting dated Monty Python clips in response to another’s post is not as clever or witty as you seem to think it is, I’m afraid.
Why would a scientist bother to debate a theologist? Apples and oranges.
Fighting evolution is a loser’s game and I don’t play.
I don’t spend much time on it either because macro-evolution is a loser’s game. But irrespective of our preferences regarding time allocation, macro-evolution is not neutral.
Well seeing how revolutionary evolutionists were the genesis of the modern Islamist terror network, I really don’t see why you would have any problem with it.
IDers to employ theology. Perhaps you should spend some time learning the difference between Creation and ID scientists.
(fixed) IDers do not employ theology. Perhaps you should spend some time learning the difference between Creation and ID scientists.
[[Fighting evolution is a loser’s game]]
Not when it might cause soem young person to actually question the impossible hypothesis of Macroevolution instead of just taking everythign they are handed by big government agendists as fact- The truth is never a losing game- exposing hte serious problems associated with Darwinism at least gets the word out to others that Darwinism isn’t nearly as ‘settled science’ as the macroevolutionists claim in their propoganda classes
Well, I lay awake at night wondering if there really is a doG.
Are you saying Dawkins is a scientist? Who knew?? The guy sure does not ever come across as ground in science, scientific knowledge and scientific methodology.
Yes there is a doG and it is outside barking it’s head off which is why you are not getting enough sleep.
|
Dawkins is a coward. He says he does not debate creationist or intelligent design advocates, yet takes opportunity to ‘dry gulch’ cretionists and intelligent design advocates in his appearances and his writings. He know Dr.Meyer would eat his launch. Meyer’s credentials are impeccable to the secularist, atheist. Beyond that he is an expert debater. Dawkins snivels and retreats beneath the rock he believes is his mother. Dawkins reminds me of Obama out in San Francisco referencing Pennsylvanians as clinging to their guns and Bibles, with antipathy towards the government. Damnable coward.
A god completely provable by physical evidence would not be god as defined by the vast majority of religions.
We simply do not know if there is a higher being in charge of every minor change or not.
Depends on your epistemology. We "know" a great deal that cannot be proved by science alone. Science is, by design, the firmest and therefore smallest set of knowledge. No one limits themselves to only that which can be known by science.
I wouldn't put stock in any attempt to prove God scientifically. It is an error either way - to say that science proves there is no God, or can prove God exists.
He must be a rocket scientist.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.