Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why Are You a Christian?

You continue to embarrass yourself. Apparently you can't read either. Meyer's book was favorably peer reviewed and Sternberg lost his job over it because the unwritten rule is that anything scientific tending to favor ID must not be permitted a hearing EVER! This allows "science" to keep dissent from being peer reviewed then arguing "see, I told you its worthless. It hasn't been peer reviewed!" In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose". What is "science:" afraid of? Phillip Johnson once remarked that it was the way Neo-Darwinists defended their position that convinced him their enterprise was essentially intellectually and empirically bankrupt. It took about a year and half for any Neo-Darwinists to respond to "Darwin on Trial" and when Stephen J. Gould finally deigned to write a review it was little more than a thinly disguised hit-and-run ad hominem attack. Johnson was elated because it was then he knew for certain he was onto something: if the Darwinists had a real response to his arguments, they would have made it (instead of a hit-and-run ad hominem attack). Likewise, if they were secure in their theory they would permit criticism of it instead of conspiring to violate the norms of scientific inquiry to protect their theory from criticism.

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_in_the_Cell

The book has been well received by some within the conservative, intelligent design and evangelical communities.[2][3][4][5] It was not reviewed by scientific journals or popular science magazines.[6]

[6] Hoppe, Richard B. (24 April 2010). "Two analyses of Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell'". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 1 May 2014.

''Stephen_C._MeyerStephen C. Meyer (born 1958), a philosopher of science, advocates for intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organisation behind the intelligent-design movement.

Meyer has written the books:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009)
Darwin's Doubt: the Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013), "a masterwork of pseudoscience"[1]
The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God (2020)

Doctor Meyer has absolutely no qualifications within the fields of biology, cosmology, or chemistry; he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science[2] which has no relevance to evolutionary biology. ''

Then you should have no difficulty proving him wrong! So have at it! Once again, you show a complete lack of the grasp of simple logic because what his degrees are or are not utterly begs the question of whether his analysis is correct! For what its worth he matriculated at Oxford.

He's another aspect of Meyer's claims lost on Tarquin.

His claims are so absurd and non-scientific, real scientist don't see them worthy of a reasoned response. That only happens after a few years later after they get tired of hearing his non-sense continuously repeated by the ignorant.

You are making a laughing-stock of yourself. Real scientists have found them worthy of response because they have both responded and debated Meyer. But what if some "real scientists" don't debate him because they are afraid to? In any event, here is Meyer debating Oxford chemist Peter Atkins. Does he count as a real scientist?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZlPZvIOC0&t=3805s


And here is Meyers confronting his critics (who are afraid to debate him):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw&t=1680s

Intelligent design was proven wrong by those who are qualified in the field when both sides put their case before a court of law.

The reasons why ID failed is freely available. I could quote the relevant material, but I doubt that it would even even be considered.

Yep:



It's interesting to note why Stephen Meyer wasn't a witness for this case.
The plaintiffs decided that having the Discovery Institute was a bad idea, and would actually hurt their case.

So even in the world of creationist, they are known to have credibility issues.

You are an embarrassment to intelligent discourse and simple logic. Scientific truth is now decided in a court of law? Id was proven wrong because a Judge said so? Since when does the scientific proof for a proposition get refereed by a judge? Did it ever occur to you that courts often get it wrong? A jury acquitted OJ Simpson. Recently the US Supreme Court found that when the framers of the 14th Amendment attempted to outlaw discrimination based on race that they intended to legalize same-sex marriage not withstanding that the justification of the 14th Amendment is grounded in "the law of nature and of nature's god" which utterly denies the morality of homosexuality.

Here is a good critique of why Dover is a poorly reasoned decision.

https://www.discovery.org/v/the-truth-about-the-dover-intelligent-design-trial/

I purposely left out mentioning Spinoza,
highly suspecting some clueless xtian would
then put their foot in it...lol

quote]....

Baruch Spinoza (1632 –1677)
Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardi origin.
One of the early thinkers of the Enlightenment and
modern biblical criticism,..came to be considered
one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy.

No. They chose not to participate because they knew the fix was in; they knew Dover was not the right venue and they didn't like the plaintiff's case

Here is one response to Miller....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K_P7NQROmc

And here is another....

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/has_ken_miller/

And another....

https://www.discovery.org/a/response-to-kenneth-r-miller/

And another...

https://www.discovery.org/a/35062/

Fuller?

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fuller_(sociologist)

In 2008 Fuller's book on the intelligent design controversy, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism was published. Steven Poole of The Guardian wrote: "book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name."[45] Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science at Florida State University wrote in the journal Science that Fuller's book "is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever. In at least one case, Fuller makes his case by an egregious misreading—of something I wrote about the role of genetic drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory. For the record, Charles Darwin set out to provide a cause, what he called—following his mentors like William Whewell (who in turn referred back to Newton)—a true cause or vera causa. Darwin felt, and historians and philosophers of science as well as practicing evolutionary biologists still feel, that he succeeded…"[46] In a "book of the week" review by retired Divinity Professor Keith Ward in the Times Higher Education Supplement, the book was praised for providing often overlooked information and provocative interpretations, but was criticised for a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.[47]

A. C. Grayling, in New Humanist, wrote that the book contains a "mark of ignorance and historical short-sightedness on Fuller's part".[48] In response, Fuller wrote an online response saying "if Grayling's grasp of the history of science went beyond head-banging standards, he would realise that our current level of scientific achievement would never have been reached, and more importantly that we would not be striving to achieve more, had chance-based explanations dominated over the design-based ones in our thinking about reality."[49] To which Grayling wrote: "Steve Fuller complains, as do all authors whose books are panned, that I did not read his book properly (or at all)."[50] He continued, "I'll take on Fuller any day regarding the history and theology of the various versions of Christianity with which humanity has been burdened. […] The same applies to the history of science."[50]

He's searching for help, in proving his logic is wrong or right. He needs ratification of his belief.

Like the man on the roof of his flooding riverbottom house who refused all manner of help offered as beneath him until he drowned. He asked God why He didnt answer his prayers for help and stop the flood. HE said HE gave him help but he refused to accept it as it wasnt on his terms.

The definitive response to Dover...

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/06/IntelligentDesignWillSurviveKitzmillerv.Dover_.pdf

You still miss the point of justification through evidence, or the lack of it.

If there is no evidence for someone having committed a crime, it is not justified to be convinced that they in fact committed the crime.

You may or may not have grounds to suspect them of committing a crime, but that is not the same thing. You may pursue your suspicion but without evidence you have no case, or justification.

I think these unbelievers have blasphemed the Creator and committed the unpardonable sin.

They have no choice now but to hope they are right as they cant make it back to shore in their leaky boat. They are grasping for ratification of their disbelief, for it is their only hope they arent headed for hell. They keep returning to these threads to try to build a bit of comfomfort, even if it means they listen to their own preaching.

Too bad they cant pray to believe their unbelief is correct. Realization of their error and acceptance will only come when they bend their knee.

Great post. Thanks.

And that was written by which Court of Appeals?

Definitive in the eyes of the Discovery Institute doesn't count. They and their supporters suffer from an acute case of confirmation bias.