Casting doubt on the theory of evolution (macro that is) is exactly what he’s doing. He believes it is wrong, and is making an honest attempt to present his reasoning. Are you saying that he should not challenge evolution? If evolution is wrong, then his action is justified, maybe even noble. Would it be a good thing to talk someone down from jumping off a tall building? For our discussion, Meyer’s motives are not the issue. His hypothesis and reasoning are.
I would think that the issue before us is the explanatory power of design vs. evolution. That’s certainly my goal. I’m listening to both sides, and I won’t condemn either side until I have looked at their reasoning carefully. Meyer is presenting an argument that shows the evolution argument requires embracing things that are highly unlikely. Is it wrong to point that out? Meyer is trying to convey the notion that random changes to the whole network of interactive signaling molecules is more likely to be destructive than beneficial. Since you haven’t read the book, here’s a quote from pg 264-5 in “Darwin’s Doubt” that shows his point: (emphasis is mine)
Another line of research in developmental biology has revealed a related challenge to the creative power of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Developmental biologists have discovered that many gene products (proteins and RNAs) needed for the development of specific animal body plans transmit signals that influence the way individual cells develop and differentiate themselves. Additionally, these signals affect how cells are organized and interact with each other during embryological development. These signaling molecules influence each other to form circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuit board. For example, exactly when a signaling molecule gets transmitted often depends upon when a signal from another molecule is received, which in turn affects the transmission of still others—all of which are coordinated and integrated to perform specific time-critical functions. The coordination and integration of these signaling molecules in cells ensures the proper differentiation and organization of distinct cell types during the development of an animal body plan. Consequently, just as mutating an individual regulatory gene early in the development of an animal will inevitably shut down development, so too will mutations or alterations in the whole network of interacting signaling molecules destroy a developing embryo.
Meyer, Stephen C… Darwin’s Doubt (pp. 264-265). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.
The reason I find Meyer’s argument appealing is that it’s consistent with my assertions about Systems Engineering principles. INCOSE calls it “rich interdependence.” If a random change to a nucleotide happens which affects the protein specified by it, and there are many other proteins that depend on the one that changed for their correct function, they may fail unless the change is non-critical or all the other dependent proteins are insensitive to random changes to others. You claim that the cell is robust enough so that that change is tolerated, and you claim that testing has demonstrated it. How many proteins are there, and how many have been tested? Has the testing included all possible nucleotide changes and determined that all proteins are robust to all changes? Or are there certain nucleotide positions that are more critical and thus cause the corresponding protein function to be more sensitive? If the latter, does Meyer have a point? Have all protein coding genes been tested? If not, is it reasonable to generalize the results of those you have tested to conclude that all proteins are robust and insensitive to random nucleotide changes?
I think Meyer has some good points that are not being answered by evolutionists like yourself. Instead of giving carefully reasoned responses, you just dismiss them as Meyer’s deceitful attempts to trash evolution.
You claim this recent example regarding Davidson’s work is an example of bad tactics from the ID folks. I read your excerpt from Davidson’s paper and see nothing wrong with Meyer’s quote of it. Maybe I’m missing something. You’ll have to explain it if I did.