Yet another conversation about how to define the Intelligent Design perspective


(Patrick ) #1

I have read Meyer’s latest book Darwin’s doubt and it was not very convincing of ID. To me it was a masterpiece of pseudo-science.

Further you make the claim of numerous weaknesses and holes in modern evolutionary facts. What are they? Put a few out here and see if they survive scrutiny.


New Old-Earth Astronomy Text Now Available
#2

Hi Patrick,

If you don’t see any holes and weaknesses after reading Meyer, I don’t know what to tell you. I find him very poignant and convincing, and I’m not equipped to do a better job than he. Perhaps you might understand him better if you watch some of his debates on Youtube. He really can’t be beat.


#3

Just tell him ONE hole or weakness.


(Patrick ) #4

The only thing Meyer revealed was his lack of understanding of how genetics, evolution, and biological life on Earth works and has worked for billions of years. Truth is truth, and Meyer is pushing scientific falsehoods.


#5

Gosh, Beaglelady, only ONE?? They’re on virtually every page of this website, but if you’d like, just click over to Dr. Fugle’s recent article on Ted Davis’ blog.

First Dr. Fugle makes a claim that evolutionary theory can explain the smallest cell structures. Then when I challenged him on that he pointed to an enormously complex structure, e.g., ATP-producing bacteria! This is his idea of the smallest cell structure?

After challenging him again on that, he does finally admit:

Scientists don’t have good answers currently for many complex cell components and there is, in fact, a fair amount of speculation. So, what do we make of this? First, it is important to acknowledge that this is not at all positive evidence that God miraculous and abruptly intervened. The only thing we can make out from the situation is that scientists currently don’t have explanations

Thank you, Dr. Fugle, for your honesty.

You want weakness and holes? Just carefully read the evolutionists on this website. Line out all the speculation, extrapolation, and guesswork and focus on facts. Now you have your weakness and holes.


(Patrick ) #6

Clearly God of the gaps.


#7

I agree, a classic case of God of the gaps.


(GJDS) #8

How would anyone start with “scientists do not know” and science as it stands now does not have a valid explanation, to “god of some gap or such nonsense”. It is nonsense. Clearly some have such a commitment to a semantic hypothesis that, on closer examination, presents “gaps” in both hypothesis and data. Instead of admitting this, the odd view is to drag God into such an odd debate, and from this turn the argument into a religious disagreement. Worst case of straw man approach I have as yet come across.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Patrick ) #10

Yes, of course, Meyer’s book was very repetitive and factually incorrect. Why waste time analyzing his psycho babble.

I read it with 57 years of experience and reasoning. Yes, I learned something from Meyer’s book - he makes a factually weak argument for ID.

Pretty much. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Meyer’s claims had zero evidence.

Darrel Falk opinion of Meyer’s conclusions have no bearing on mine. I make my own assessment based on my own intelligence and reasoning. And my opinion of Meyer’s book is that it is nonsense.


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Patrick ) #12

Darrel Falk is certainly more qualified to assess a book in life science and write a review for public scrutiny. And I did read his scrutiny even before I read Meyer’s book. In fact I came across Falk’s analysis before I even heard of Meyer’s book. So yes, I am certainly pre-biased on ID going back to the 1980’s. I am amazed that it is still around. But I shouldn’t be as even Scientology is still around.


(Mazrocon) #13

It does seem like a bit of a double standard, Patrick. People accuse people like Henry Morris for talking extensively about geology when his training is in hydraulic engineering (and rightfully so). One shouldn’t take advice from him and critique others in the same fashion outside one’s field of study.

I’m not saying I agree with ID or not. But it makes more sense to consult other biologists and see what they think of Stephen Meyer’s work rather than ask say… A carpenter, engineer, physicist etc.,

-Tim


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Patrick ) #15

ID is not credible. What more is there to say?


(George Brooks) #16

@Patrick

“Intelligent Design” , in GENERAL OUTLINES, is identical to “Theistic Evolution”.

So … I really have no idea what you are talking about right now …

George


(Patrick ) #17

So it was made up in the 90’s, my mistake. It still around because people like you profess its truthfulness, which has not come close to being proved. It has nothing to do with science nor faith as it is really not much of anything but noise from a handful of people.


(Patrick ) #18

So Theistic Evolution and ID are the same thing? Then Discovery and Biologos should merge and pool resources together.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Patrick ) #20

really? how many? I bet you couldn’t come up with a list of more than 100 alive today.