Stephen C. Meyer — WORLD MAGAZINE’s Person of the Year

_{William Dembski

December 5, 2009

Culture, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Meyer on Cover of WORLD Terrific News about Steve Meyer making the cover of WORLD MAGAZINE as their person of the year for 2009.# Much deserved! Steve has considerable visibility in the ID movement, but I’ve known him over the years as well for his indefatigable work behind the scenes to make ID into a thriving intellectual and cultural force. Many of the initiatives and projects that have signally blessed the ID movement have been at his instance (for instance, it was his vision that propelled the video UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF LIFE, which has spawned a host of other videos).

Stephen C. Meyer

#Meyer is the second ID proponent to receive this award. Phil Johnson did in 2003.

Comments

Thanks very much for the post on Crick, ShawnBoy. By the way, the link to the article you cited is here: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/10/26/sir-francis-crick-dna-and-id/ (Your link had a '%20' in it.) PaulBurnett: Opposing creation science and recommending that its adherents should see a shrink is perfectly compatible with being an ID proponent. Do the words "big tent" mean nothing to you? You rightly point out that ascribing the origin of life on Earth to aliens begs the question of who designed the aliens. Nevertheless, even if there were no other options on the table except for (i) undirected natural terrestrial processes and (ii) aliens, it would still be rational to choose (ii), in the following circumstances: (a) scientists were broadly familiar with the entire range of undirected physical and chemical processes that take place on Earth and in the vicinity of Earth (e.g. meteorite impacts); (b) there were no good reasons to believe that physical and chemical processes taking place on and in the vicinity of the early Earth were fundamentally different from what they are now; (c) among these physical and chemical processes, scientists could identify and enumerate the ones that were most likely to have generated terrestrial life, if any of them did; (d) computer modeling showed that these "best candidate" processes were woefully inadequate for generating anything as complex as a DNA molecule, RNA molecule or functional protein, during the time available (the 600 million years between the cooling of Earth's crust and the appearance of the first known life); and (e) there were no good reasons to suspect that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the computer models. If these conditions were met (as I would argue they have been), then it would be perfectly rational for a scientist to say: "According to our best models, no undirected physical or chemical process occurring on Earth is anywhere near capable of generating complex structures that contain digital coding, such as are found in all life-forms on Earth. However, we do know that intelligent agents (such as ourselves) are capable of generating these structures, by virtue of their intelligence. Intelligence is not a planet-specific quality: we can easily suppose that it might be found elsewhere in the universe. I therefore propose that extraterrestrial intelligent agents must have created life on Earth, four billion years ago. Of course, we have no idea how, when and where these extraterrestrials originated, but we don't have to figure that out right now. For the time being, let's put those problems in the 'too hard' basket and come back to them in a few centuries, when we have more data. In any case, for those of you who still have qualms, there's nothing to rule out the possibility that in some other corner of the universe, natural conditions might have been more favorable for the spontaneous generation of life than they were on the early Earth. What I'm saying is this: in the light of what we now know, the alien hypothesis makes a lot more scientific sense than the hypothesis of abiogenesis having occurred on or in the vicinity of the early Earth."vjtorley_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

"ShawnBoy" (#15) wrote: "The modern I.D. movement was founded on the shoulders of secularist Francis Crick, whose co-discovery of the genetic code was immediately recognized as the product of intelligence." Crick was hardly a believer in ID - he proposed a hypothesis that life on earth was seeded by space aliens ("panspermia"). While this is technically a sub-set of ID, it is not ID and it simply begs the question of who intelligently designed the space aliens. "It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept." Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick "ShawnBoy wrote: "Crick’s discovery of the genetic code is what ignited the I.D. revolution..." That's absurd - Crick is not even mentioned in the "Wedge Document," and Phillip Johnson certainly had nothing good to say about Crick - see, for instance, http://www.slate.com/id/33241/entry/33326/ Here's a couple of quotes from Crick - see if you think they support ID: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - from What Mad Pursuit, 1988 - and "One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist."PaulBurnett_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

PaulBurnett: Does this award illustrate that there is no connection between intelligent design and religion?
The modern I.D. movement was founded on the shoulders of secularist Francis Crick, whose co-discovery of the genetic code was immediately recognized as the product of intelligence. This led to Crick's belief that Earthly life was intelligently designed by advanced extraterrestrials and then "seeded" on our planet. These views were revealed in his book Life Itself. More on Crick's founding of Intelligent Design can be read about here. Crick may have rejected I.D. prior to his death, but that's certainly due to non-scientific, political and philosophical reasons (as all reasons for rejecting I.D. seem to be). The undeniable facts remain as plain as day: Crick's discovery of the genetic code is what ignited the I.D. revolution, which was further sparked by his own belief in alien's intelligently designing life. This proves that I.D. theory is in no way religious in nature, but entirely secular. It may be attractive to believers (and conversely unattractive to non-believers), sure, but the method behind the design inference is entirely scientific (further verified with S.E.T.I.) and thus must be dealt with accordingly. In other words, screaming "religion!" whenever or wherever I.D. is mentioned will get you nowhere in refuting it. Instead I'd suggest that you start working on legitimate refutations, because it continues to grow in public acceptance, and I.Dists like Stephen C. Meyer and Jonathan Wells continue to humiliate Darwinists in debates across the country.ShawnBoy_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

"T. lise" wrote: "...Im disappointed to see this type of hijacking the debate from the real issue." The real issue of this thread is congratulating Steve Meyer for having World Magazine name him Person of the Year. That is a praiseworthy achievement in and of itself, but in my humble opinion publicizing such praise is a tactical error in the context of the continuing effort to increase the connectedness of intelligent design and science, and decrease the (visibility of) the connectedness between intelligent design and religion. World Magazine states that it is "committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God" - this seems to imply that the magazine supports creationism (probably Young Earth Creationism - anybody know?) as opposed to science. The real issue here is does this award increase the acceptance of intelligent design in the science community, and in the larger community of fence-sitters? I argue that it does not, and it is therefore inappropriate to celebrate the award here, as it gives further aid and comfort to the enemies of intelligent design.PaulBurnett_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

"Upright BiPed" (#11) asked "Does Paul Burnett ever have anything to say that is not 100% religiously motivated?" Only if you define science (including evolution) as religion - which I don't, and which the majority of pro-science folks don't. (It seems the majority of folks who think science is a religion are religious - maybe that's the only paradigm they understand.) My point has been that for anybody who knows about the ID founders' meetings in 1992 at Southern Methodist University, in 1993 at Pajaro Dunes, in 1996 at the former Bible Institute of Los Angeles and culminating in the 1998 "Wedge Strategy" it's readily obvious that intelligent design is 100% religiously motivated. (Read the first sentence of the "Wedge Document" - does it sound like it's about science or religion?) If Steve had been designated "Person of the Year" in Science magazine or Nature or Cell or Genetics, it would have lent credence to the "scienciness" of ID. I was simply pointing out that to have a biblical literalist magazine designate Steve as Person of the Year does not lend credence to the "scienciness" of ID - quite the opposite. (And I still maintain that publishing "Signature in the Cell" at a religious publishing house (HarperOne) didn't help the "ID=science" cause either.) "Upright BiPed" asked "Hey Paul, how about a debate – all science….wanna give it a go? No, but thanks anyway - I'm not that good a debater. I've debated creationists a few times and find that the Gish Gallop (see http://everything2.com/user/rootbeer277/writeups/Gish+Gallop ) sabotages the debate beyond recovery.PaulBurnett_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

@Upright BiPed: your words "Hey Paul, how about a debate – all science….wanna give it a go?" sounds great. Next year "Daniel award" should be for you :-) Yeah! Me too Im disappointed to see this type of hijacking the debate from the real issue.T. lise_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

Does Paul Burnett ever have anything to say that is not 100% religiously motivated? Every single comment I have ever read by this ideologue is religiously motivated. Without fail, every single one. And they are all exactly the same: he wants to shout from the rooftops how this and that, and this person and that person are nothing but religiously motivated. It's the biggest damn head-shaker on this blog. Is it possible that he never reads his own words? Hey Paul, how about a debate - all science....wanna give it a go?Upright BiPed_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Those who try and conflate ID with religion are just admitting that they nor anyone else have anything to say in support of their own beliefs nor against ID. They are just admitting they have nothing and must use this approach in lieu of any science or logic or reason. It is a strictly emotional approach based on weakness.jerry_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

But Darwinian evolution is not atheistic. Just ask Richard Dawkins.jerry_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

But ID isnt (sic) religious. Thanks for pointing that out. You are correct: ID is not religious but it is friendly to theism, just as Darwinism is friendly to atheism. The question is, What is true, design or no design in living systems? Based on what we now know from modern science it seems clear to me that the no-design hypothesis is a catastrophically absurd holdover, based on 19th century scientific ignorance about the nature of biological reality. As a former atheist I would suggest that the most obvious contemporary manifestation of blind religious faith is atheism and its Darwinian creation myth.GilDodgen_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Congrats Meyer. And I see that there are some who have a problem with WORLD MAGAZINE because it is a Christian magazine. Well, we have something for everybody. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2009/11/signature_in_the_cell_named_on.htmlT. lise_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

The World magazine ?, as in: Today's News | Christian Views ? But ID isnt religious. Oh no.Graham1_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Congratulations to Dr Meyer! I am enjoying reading his book and one day I would love to have him autograph it.Nakashima_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

A hearty congratulations to Dr. Meyer for this recognition of his work.R0b_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

I second what Gil said, well deserved. Steve Meyer is a top-notch guy, always respectful and reasoned even when confronted by opponents who are not. Advice to those who disagree with Steve Meyer and ID in general: skip the insults and motive-mongering, etc. Instead, follow Steve Meyer's example: confront the argument with detailed, pertinent evidence, and respect your opponent. Or is respect for others only a Christian virtue?Gage_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

This would be more meaningful if World Magazine was a science magazine - but World Magazine is a "Christian news magazine," with a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is "To report, interpret, and illustrate the news...from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God." Does this award illustrate that there is no connection between intelligent design and religion?PaulBurnett_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Steve is simply superb. I especially enjoy watching him in debate. He remains calm and collected and talks about science, evidence, and reason while his opponents drone on about how God wouldn't do it that way, finch beaks, cheap tuxedos, and other silliness. His writing is always lucid, eloquent, and exquisitely reasoned. This award is certainly deserved.GilDodgen_{December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply