I’d be interested in your position on the veracity of Meyer’s sentence in SotC:
p.128 “A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”
[quote=“TimothyHicks, post:13, topic:3358”]
But it makes more sense to consult other biologists and see what they think of Stephen Meyer’s work
[/quote]You mean his rhetoric, Tim. He hasn’t done anything that I, as a working biologist, would call “work.”
I suggest you look into the statement I quoted above. It tells you all you need to know about Meyer’s competence and/or honesty.
I was under the impression that ID did not challenge evolution as a fact, but as a mechanistic theory.
Are you incapable of distinguishing between a fact and a mechanistic theory?
Don’t many ID leaders accept common descent? Don’t YOU, as someone who portrays himself as an absolute authority on ID, accept evolution, while calling it microevolution without ever explaining how that differs mechanistically from macroevolution?
I’m less qualified to make a comment here. I have not read Stephen Meyer’s book nor have I read much about him. My point was simply that one should not make such drastic remarks when critiquing another person’s work (field of inquiry) being a layman. That would be similar to a Buddhist making sweeping negative remarks against the Bible, without actually having study it.
Since YOU are a working biologist, I take more stock in what you say about Stephen Meyer versus someone who is not a biologist.
To achieve its US educational / legal goals, ID must forge an interfaith coalition (including, indeed, agnostics / atheists), to prove that its aims are not religious in nature.
To achieve its goals, BioLogos must work with laser focus within the (primarily USAmerican) evangelical milieu. This is the center of gravity worldwide of antievolutionary sentiment, and it’s furthermore the community to which BioLogos bloggers / speakers / readers belong. BioLogos doesn’t really need to appeal to folks of other faiths (or other streams of Christian faith), many of whom have little use for the science-faith-warfare tropes that we evangelicals so readily trade in. Most Catholics, for instance, accept some form of evolutionary creationism by default.
It just seemed weird to say that ID appeals more to non-Christians. Actually I think my non-Christian friends are pretty happy about the work of groups like BioLogos. They find ID offputting.
If I had meant “Old Earth Creationists” - - I would have said that. But there
is really an INSIGNIFICANT number of those.
I said “Old Earthers” to represent the vast majority of Christians who - - while
not being able to articulate exactly how - believe that God was involved in
the Evolution of Humanity.
But Tim, you don’t need to take my word for it. Look into it for yourself and you will be shocked. Incompetence or dishonesty, both are equally damning.
First, realize that Meyer touts himself as an expert on OOL science and that he devotes an entire chapter of the book to the RNA World hypothesis.
I was soft-pedaling it, brother. I hate internet arguments. Lots of things in this thread made me bristle but I practiced taking deeeep breaths and repeating my comment-reading mantra: “Not my circus… not my monkeys.” Let’s all say it together now…
Btw, you keep using this word “assume.” Maybe you don’t mean it this way, but if you intend to have irenic conversations and build bridges with the BioLogos community, you should know that it’s deeply insulting—at least to this reader. Most of us do not “assume” evolutionary creation to be true. Rather, we came to it by careful examination of the evidence and often over many years of study, reflection, and wrestling with the theological, professional and personal implications thereof.
So, instead, may I humbly recommend this: “People in the EC camp believe the evidence is sufficiently settled that evolution is an established scientific fact. People in the ID camp remain unconvinced.” Completely true, but minus the patronizing insults.
I really should have taken my own advice and stayed out of it.
Look, I honestly don’t care too much if Behe’s books sold a lot to non-Christians. I’m happy for him. I don’t understand why it matters when books written to convince Christians to stop alienating enormous swaths of their educated youth make non-Christians “uncomfortable.” But I don’t care to spend more of my life debating the point.
I realize in retrospect that I read your use of “assume” through the lens of other statements you made in this thread. It may be our first interaction here, and you’re right, I don’t have the benefit of having read the years’ worth of posts you’ve contributed here, but in the good bit of this thread that I did read, I saw you tearing down evolutionary creationists and their “flirtations with open theism” (sounds like a bogeyman) and their “at least very questionable Christian theological positions” and their abandonment of a “traditional doctrine of God’s sovereignty” (which is, of course, only traditional within certain traditions of the Church, and even only within the confines of certain traditions of Protestantism). I didn’t feel it was my place to respond to these points, but they predisposed me to read your later comments as hostile to proponents of EC. I started out my comment with “maybe you don’t mean it this way,” but I see that my use of “patronizing insults” at the end certainly moved away from that tone. I now understand the way you meant “assume,” and apologize for misunderstanding that one word.
Peace to you, Eddie, and have a great weekend and worship tomorrow. Apologies for coming out “guns blazing.” I hope I don’t end up spending too much time on these forums (for my family’s sake ), but if I do and we cross paths again, I hope I can be a bit more measured in my responses next time around.
I did write to Meyer under my own name. I didn’t “indicate an alleged error,” I simply pointed out that his statement was false and invited him to explain. Many others have as well. He did not respond to me, nor did he respond to anyone else AFAIK. So with the caveat that this is negative evidence, it overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis of deliberate deception.
And while you’re trying to pretend that this is an isolated error, how do you explain this second deception that conveniently reinforces the first?
“According to this [RNA-first] model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.”
p. 298
