Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Meyer responds to Books & Culture review of Darwin’s Doubt

arroba Email

Darwin's Doubt The reviewers, one gathers, didn’t like the book much of course. Such types never like anything that busts hell out of the Jesus for Darwin racket.

You’d have to pay to read what reviewers Bishop and O’Connor say so, for free, author Steve Meyer responds at Evolution News & Views:

It’s worth noting that none of the reviews of Darwin’s Doubt or Signature in the Cell have refuted (and few have even challenged) either of the two key empirical premises in my arguments for intelligent design as a best explanation — as, indeed, Bishop and O’Connor themselves have not done. For obvious reasons, critics have not disputed my claim that intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to produce functional information and information-rich processing systems. (Bishop and O’Connor merely claim — mistakenly — that I did not justify that assertion.) Nor, perhaps surprisingly, have critics attempted to demonstrate that standard evolutionary mechanisms can account for the origin of biological information and information processing systems. Indeed, biologist Darrel Falk, one of O’Connor and Bishop’s fellow theistic evolutionists (and with Bishop a BioLogos website contributor) has graciously conceded that Darwin’s Doubt correctly claims that the neo-Darwinian mutation/selection mechanism has failed to account for the origin of major macro-evolutionary events such as the Cambrian explosion of animal life. Falk further concedes that none of the other more recently proposed models of evolutionary theory has yet succeeded in this endeavor.

Though they do attempt a philosophical refutation of the main information-based argument of the books (as we have seen), Bishop and O’Connor conspicuously avoid offering, or even citing, an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of biological information during the history of life. Instead, in addition to their philosophical critique, they mainly attempt to deny my characterization of what needs to be explained. I will turn to this latter line of attack in the next installment. More.

What’s killing the Jesus for Darwin racket, if you ask O’Leary for News, is genome mapping. See What the fossils told us in their own words

Imagine, after all this time (June 2013):

See also: BioLogos will now actually review Darwin’s Doubt, as if anyone cares

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I read Meyer's responses as they were coming out on ENV. I was amazed at how utterly shallow the 'philosophical' arguments from Bishop and O’Connor were. Perhaps the arguments sounded convincing to them when they wrote them down, but Dr. Meyer made those supposedly highly educated men look like college freshmen debating philosophy at a keg party. This following link has hyperlinks to the entire series by Dr. Meyer Denying the Signature: Methodological Naturalism and Materialism-of-the Gaps Stephen C. Meyer November 21, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/denying_the_sig_4101081.html bornagain

Leave a Reply