Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How is Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt doing now?

Denyse O'Leary
November 10, 2014
Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin's Doubt

In other news, If anyone cares, Biologos (Christians for Darwin) will now actually review Darwin’s Doubt instead of just trashing it first.

Never ceases to amaze some of us why some organizations exist, unless the whole point is, some people need a job.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
it shows the past year was a great year for thinkers to reach the thinking public on ID/YEC conclusions. I think the public is waiting for more books etc to bring smarter ideas to origin issues. including the crazy rejection or ignoring of god in creation and evidenced by nature. I think there is room for a blockbuster of creationist books done just the right way. The bad guys are afraid as they show by their campaigns like THE COSMOS and general censorship. They fear a revolution will overthrow their ideas. They are right.Robert Byers
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer's Argument for Intelligent Design Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k Stephen Meyer explains why the use of cladistic analysis -- stem groups, crown groups, cladograms, ghost lineages -- fails to satisfy. "In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don't think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it." Stephen Meyerbornagain77
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQbornagain77
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
podcast: Dr. Richard Sternberg presents evidence that refutes the myth that the human genome is full of junk DNA. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/#more-26791bornagain77
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
keiths asserts that ID is incompatible with the evidence for common descent when he's not busy asserting that ID is compatible with the evidence for common descent. But don't let that confuse you.Mung
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Sirius, This all comes from the discussion we are having (across at least eight threads now) of my argument showing that ID is literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence. This section of Douglas Theobald's excellent "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" explains both the objective nested hierarchy and its production by a Markov process. jerry writes:
We are within about 20 years of saying yes or no by genome sequencing.
We already know that it does. The cladograms of the 30 major taxa match to a pheonomenal accuracy of 1 in 10^38, whether generated from morphological or molecular data.keith s
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Thanks to jerry! I'm afraid that people here know a lot more than I do.Sirius
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Markovian ONH
I believe it means objective nested hierarchies formed by random formed by random processes but am willing to be corrected. I am not sure what "objective" means in this because do we actually know that life actually forms a nested hierarchy. It appears that it does in many areas but totally? We are within about 20 years of saying yes or no by genome sequencing. If there is indeed a natural process for the developing of new species it will show up in the genomes. What Meyer showed was that a lot of life essentially poofed into existence with no known natural process able to explain it. This would destroy the thesis of ONH. Subsequent differentiation was downward and not upward as Darwin proposed. Some would say that the mechanism that creates new species is built into the original cell architecture and take it back several levels before multi-cell organisms existed. The original architecture certainly contains processes that differentiates offspring from parents. It is an elaborate process that seemed to be in the cell from the beginning.jerry
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
#2, pray tell, what is Markovian ONH? Nothing is more annoying than writers who use mysterious acronyms and assume the whole world know what they are talking about.Sirius
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
RexTugwell at 3, shows the topics are hot, the authors are considered experts.News
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
FWIW, happily Darwin's Doubt moves in and out of the #1 spot in Paleontology and Organic Evolution. Then again, Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing was #1 in Physics recently. That is mystifying.RexTugwell
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
I haven't read the book, but I do have a comment to make based on what others have said here. If Meyer makes a case against biological evolution fitting into a Markovian ONH, I don't really think that argument is necessary. In fact, I think that if life did fit (more or less) into an ONH, it significantly supports the claim that ID is at the root of life on Earth. Outside of the subject of abiogenesis, the only known generator of ONH's is design. Only designers are known to instantiate Markovian progressions into inanimate matter. Unguided natural forces, as far as I know, never do so. It seems to me that an evolutionary ONH is exactly the kind of search system a designer implements to acquire specified target characteristics in a vast search space.William J Murray
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Dr. Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design - video - (lecture delivered at Faith Bible Church - May 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0 If anyone has not read Darwin's Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter 'cliff notes' video series on the book here: Darwin's Doubt - Paul Giem - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t Of particular interest from the video playlist is this segment: Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Conversations with Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw71sAizuCQ Steve Meyer vs. 'peer-reviewed' critic Charles Marshall (audio of debate) - Dec. 1, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-vs-hostile-reviewer-charles-marshall-audio/bornagain77
November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply