Video: ‘Intelligent Design: The Most Credible Idea?’ — A Lecture by Dr Stephen C Meyer

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 29, 2012

News}

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

Comments

Without admitting this semantic point at the outset, the ‘intelligence’ behind intelligent design would be mysterious and useless to science.” – Steve Fuller
So what? The design is NOT mysterious and is NOT useless to science. As I said earlier it is all about cause and effect relationships. We know what nature, operating freely can produce and we know what agencies can produce.Joe_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

So now Alan Fox is saying that computer programs are imaginary? Earth to Alan, computer programs are examples of FSCI.Joe_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Since Steve Fuller addressed Steve Meyer directly at Cambridge after Meyer’s presentation shown above, I went back to the Fuller video to be reminded of what happened. The exchange between Meyer and Fuller starts at 47:50, with Meyer saying to Fuller: “Steve, this is just terrific.” The back and forth between them carries on again at 54:00 and then 59:40–1:02:10. In my view, Fuller is well ahead of Meyer with where ID is headed and worked Meyer over wrt ‘uniformitarianism.’ Let’s look at this more closely. Uniformitarian principle: “causes which are known by our experience to explain the effects in question” – Meyer Meyer focuses on materialism, gradualism and methodological naturalism. But Fuller says you can use uniformitarian principles *if* you endorse univocal predication, instead of classic orthodox theology in the A-T Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Fuller speaks of the IDM’s approach as:
“the literalness with which it wants to use intelligence/Intelligence to explain things” … “you [Big-ID advocates] make an extrapolation to God from human intelligence, iow, the idea that God differs from us by degree and not kind, at least with regards to Intelligence/intelligence.”
This is important because it shows whether or not Meyer and the IDM are using ‘Intelligence/intelligence’ as an analogy or univocally. (And you can see how difficult it is to write about this, since I feel compelled to distinguish Big-I ‘Intelligence’ from little-i ‘intelligence’ – because I don’t consider myself a god!)
“Intelligent Design does kind of require, if we’re going to take this intelligence/Intelligence argument further into the question of divine agency, that there be univocal predication, iow, Intelligence in God and intelligence in us is using Intelligence/intelligence in the same way, but there’s a difference of degree.” – Fuller
This is a very important distinction regarding what Big-ID is claiming to be and do. This same recognition is behind Edward Feser’s Christian philosophical rejection of Big-ID as inconsistent with A-T thought. Feser quite rightly notes Big-ID’s “univocal application of predicates both to God and to human designers” (e.g. StephenB’s usage above), while the analogical argument Meyer uses is between human-made and non-human made things as both ‘designed’ (past tense use of verb). The Catholics at UD should pay more attention to this subtle difference, if they want to be rigorous thinkers who follow the evidence and the arguments where they lead and not just fanatical IDists who dismiss anti-Big-ID philosophy when it suits them. It is therefore quite important that a supporter of Big-ID like Fuller recognises this challenge. It’s best then to let him have the final word in this post from his recent book Humanity 2.0:
“I have been quite open about identifying the ‘intelligence’ of intelligent design with the mind of a version of the Abrahamic God into which the scientist aspires to enter by virtue of having been created in imago dei. This claim implies – in a way that has been very controversial in theology but crucial for the rise of modern science – that human and divine intelligence differ in degree not kind. In terms that medieval scholastics of the Franciscan order, notably John Duns Scotus, would have approved, a univocal sense of ‘intelligent’ is attributed to both God and humans, the only difference being that the former possesses infinitely more than the latter. Thus, to say that God ‘intelligently designed’ reality is to implicate the deity in a process in which humans, however very imperfectly, also engage. Without admitting this semantic point at the outset, the ‘intelligence’ behind intelligent design would be mysterious and useless to science.” – Steve Fuller
Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

F/N: As for the no provided operational definition talking point [which ignores the provision of a flowchart procedure to identify FSCO/I and the related derivation of an equation that provides a metric based in standard work in information theory], operational definitions depend for their significance on ostensive definition, as do precising definitions and genus difference definitions. In short you have to first know what you are dealing with by example and concept formation before you can address other ways to characterise it. And of course, the talking point by AF just above is yet another side-track from the point that FSCI is adequately defined and instantly accessible by example, AF providing yet another case in point by making his objection. Not to mention, he fails to acknowledge that there is a little material factual matter of a provided link to a discussion that grounds the concept at 101 level, in light of the work from Orgel and Wickens forward, including that of Dembski, Durston et al and so forth. Nor is there any evident willingness to engage the OP's pivotal issue that we have good grounds to infer to design on reliable sign, FSCI. Including in the case of OOL. As is typical, the objections are not serious.kairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Here BA77Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

AF: FYI, KF is my consultancy personality. It is not the ripping off of the web moniker of a legitimate Calculus professor for purposes of playing rhetorical games. There is thus plainly no moral equivalency between the two, but of course that will not stop those who have every reason to avoid dealing with matters on the merits from making assertions without regard to truth, warrant or fairness, hoping to profit from such misrepresentations being perceived as truth. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Gregory,
When Meyer says the IDM is trying “to get scientists to see that agency, mind, conscious activity is a part of reality; it’s part of the cause and effect structure of the world,” he is playing a practical joke on reality. There already are many, many scientists who see this!! Why does Meyer not understand this?
So now you've jumped from claiming that Meyer believes we make Life in our spare time, to claiming he doesn't know that there are fire investigators, criminal detectives and social scientists who take agency seriously. Great.
When Meyer admits to promoting Big-ID, “which I know if for no other reasons, [than] from my own introspective experience of being a quasi-intelligent designer,” one might ask why he labels himself as only a ‘quasi-intelligent designer.’ What does Meyer lack that could potentially qualify him as more than just a ‘quasi-’ intelligent designer?
Geez. In this video, when Meyer calls himself a quasi-intelligent agent, he accentuates the phrase, quickly smiling at the person he's speaking to, as a modest attempt as self-deprecating humour. And here you are with your shackles and chains at the ready. As an observer engaged in the study of behavoir between members of the species, you are a complete failure.Upright BiPed_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

repeat question: Gregory, with not much interest I’ve been barely following your posts, as I have been busy doing other things, but this comment of yours caught my eye: "Theology or worldview studies. Just don’t call it ‘natural science’ and pretend to want to be taken seriously." Pray tell, what is this ‘natural science’ you are referring to? Methodological naturalism?bornagain77_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Two questions that have not been addressed from #2: When Meyer says the IDM is trying “to get scientists to see that agency, mind, conscious activity is a part of reality; it’s part of the cause and effect structure of the world,” he is playing a practical joke on reality. There already are many, many scientists who see this!! Why does Meyer not understand this? When Meyer admits to promoting Big-ID, “which I know if for no other reasons, [than] from my own introspective experience of being a quasi-intelligent designer,” one might ask why he labels himself as only a ‘quasi-intelligent designer.’ What does Meyer lack that could potentially qualify him as more than just a ‘quasi-’ intelligent designer? Iow, what would it take for Meyer to be (i.e. to consider himself) not merely a theoretical ‘quasi-intelligent designer,’ but instead a ‘real intelligent designer’?Gregory_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

PS Isn't Patrick May's pseudonym "Mathgrrl" equivalent to Mr. G. E. M's "kairosfocus"? The original meaning of a sockpuppet with respect to the internet was the creation of additional commenters in order to fake an impression of support. Parallel not serial pseudo-anonymityAlan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

I think I am a bit tired this morning.
Sorry to hear that, Mr. M. That explains why you didn't actually give an operational definition for "functionally specific, complex information" in your comment.Alan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

PS: Sorry, 1.0263 * 10^354. I think I am a bit tired this morning.kairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: The exchange recorded by Mr Fox at 45 above is sufficient to expose his trollish misbehaviour:
KF: Do you know what functionally specific, complex information (FSCI) is? AF: Me, please! An imaginary concept that has so far proved impervious to any meaningful definition!
Of course the very first point is that in order to make the dismissal he just did, AF -- as he knows or should know, necessarily provided a sample of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information. (Thus, his position is patently self-referentially absurd. Not that those bent on trollish misbehaviour care. This is a looney tunes world [or worse, we are dealing with the neo-Marxist Saul Alinski's devilish well poisoning and cultivation of chaos], to them so willful insistence on patent and often corrected absurdity seems a reasonable response on a serious matter.) Indeed, the clip, 168 ASCII characters as typed by AF, comes from a space of [2^7]^168 = 1.236 * 10^354 possibilities. The entire atomic and temporal resources of the observed universe, to date, working away at the fastest possible rate of interactions, i.e. using the grossly generous Planck-time unit as a clock-tick, could not reasonably sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the cluster of possibilities just enumerated. That is, on the sign of the FSCI involved, we have every good reason to infer that the text, though utterly unwise in its semantic substance, comes from an intelligent agent. As can be discussed in more details, the threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits is a reasonable threshold for making such an inference on observed FSCI. (And if you have been taken in by the sock-puppet Mathgrrl's attempt to deride FSCI as ill-defined, I suggest you read the 101 here on in context.) This has been pointed out over and over again, but it is obvious that we are here dealing with the willfully closed, deeply indoctrinated and smugly hostile mind. So, we can note that where the sort of ideologically driven objections we are seeing comes from, is that the DNA of life forms shows the same basic phenomenon, and credibly starts out at 100,000 - 1 mn bits of such information, and so we may overwhelmingly reliably infer to design as its best explanation. But to those committed to a priori, question begging materialism and associated redefinition of science in support of their materialist worldview, that is utterly forbidden. The sort of trollish stunt above is therefore only to be expected as a means to deflect unwelcome facts and reasoning. AF's willful irresponsibility therefore stands exposed for all who have ears to hear and eyes to see. Let us hope that he will one day wake up and have the courage and common sense to rethink. KFkairosfocus_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

It can be demonstrated to you that there is a singularly unique material condition found at the core of living systems.
I knew it! Why not get a new thread posted. Better yet, publish a paper!Alan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

KF:
Do you know what functionally specific, complex information (FSCI) is?
Me, please! An imaginary concept that has so far proved impervious to any meaningful definition!Alan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Oops Missed a rather important "not" there!
...philosophy has not recently had much impact...
Alan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
You have recently denied and talked down to philosophy here at UD. What else do you expect but ridicule? Quite frankly, you’ve given no reason for people to trust your will on this topic. And will is much more important than mere reason when it comes to topics of origins, meaning and destiny.
I think we disagree fundamentally on whether it is possible to reason to enlightenment. Without observing, testing, accepting what is useful, discarding what is not in interacting with our environment, there is no likelihood of avoiding delusion. No-one here has said much to gainsay my opinion that pure philosophy has recently had much impact on the advancement of human society and knowledge. I can only think of Marx (opinions on whether his legacy is positive may differ!)and I'm struggling to think of anyone more recent.Alan Fox_{December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

UB: we agents have a unique faculty when it comes to matter, in which we can create the same unique material conditions as those found at the critical core of living systems. Gregory: Yes, exactly. This is because Meyer believes we (anthropos) are created imago Dei. That Meyer believes this should not be in question here; this is what he personally believes.
I hate to pop your balloon, but it doesn’t matter what Meyer believes subsequent to the material evidence – which would obviously encompass whatever he personally believes about divine creation. If their writings are of any guidance, the vast majority of ID proponents and opposition believe that the only thing that matters is what can be materially substantiated by systematic observation. These systematic observations are exactly what you’re motivated to refuse. So you do.
And of course Meyer requires no ‘material evidence’ to believe this, unless one counts Scripture as ‘material evidence.’
Material evidence for what Gregory; that the man personally believes there is a transcendent being, or that there is identifiable evidence of agency involvement in nature? If it’s the former, then your accusations are hollow precisely because he doesn’t make his argument based on religious text. Not only can you not demonstrate this otherwise but you also know it’s dishonest to imply he does otherwise. If however, it is the latter you are referring to, then this is precisely the subject matter which you refuse to engage. What is the actual value of your comments on subject matter you refuse to engage? Is it precisely zero? It can be demonstrated to you that there is a singularly unique material condition found at the core of living systems. It can be demonstrated that whenever this unique material condition is found elsewhere, there is a singular association with an act of agent involvement. These things can be demonstrated without ambiguity at the material level. You refuse these demonstrable facts, preferring instead to promote false images of ID proponents of your disliking, and attacking those images in place of their actual arguments. You won’t be leading any intellectual movements Gregory. Not like this.Upright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

F/N: At about 53:30, Meyer highlights that he is NOT reasoning by analogy but on explaining instantiations of the same phenomenon, FSCI as found in information technologies and in the living system. This is of course pivotal to the IBE, per reliable observed cause of a given feature. Gregory, in his discussion needs to directly address this specific point. If he fails to do so, on his claim to be responding on having watched the video, he is open to the charge of negligent or possibly willful misrepresentation and resulting tilting at strawman caricatures. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Gregory: Do you know what functionally specific, complex information (FSCI) is? Are you aware that for example it is embedded in the text of this post and those you have made? Specifically, digitally coded, functional information in English? Do you appreciate, that this is expressed through 7-bit ASCII characters (let's leave off Unicode, not relevant to our keyboards)? That, therefore 72 characters exceed 500 bits of info, and 143, 1,000 bits? That in the first case, across its conventionally estimated lifespan, the atomic resources of our solar system, if harnessed to a search process for the config space of 500 bits, could not sample (assuming blind search driven by blind chance and mechanical necessity) more than the ratio of one straw sized sample to a cubical haystack 1,000 light years on the side -- about as thick as our galaxy? Do you therefore see that once we have multiple part function dependent on well matched properly arranged parts (the island of function criterion) -- such as the ASCII symbol strings that make up posts -- we cannot credibly search enough of the space blindly to make it reasonable for us to find an island of function? Do you also see that for 1,000 bits, the resources of the observed universe (the ONLY observed universe . . . a criterion of being scientific is that ideas are constrained by observation) would similarly be overwhelmed by the needle in the haystack challenge? Are you aware that the DNA complement for the simplest observationally warranted model for primitive life would require 100,000 - 1 mn bits of coded info to make and regulate DNA? Do you therefore see why it is reasonable to conclude that DNA in life forms exceeds the reasonable FSCI threshold, and per the empirically tested and reliable cause for such FSCI, is credibly designed? On a strong induction not a vague analogy? Next, are you aware that cell based life uses a cluster of nanomachines that are very well organised and function in specific ways relying on information and organisation? Do you see how such organisation can be reduced to an equivalent info metric by laying out a description, much as how AutoCAD etc lay out strings that code for 3-D representations? Do you see that this too easily exceeds the FSCI threshold, and that the comkposite, FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design? Do you recognise that, absent those organised machines, cell based life collapses? (Think of the pricked and poured out cell exercise -- the cell never spontaneously re=assembles for the same reason million monkey at the keyboard exercises never produce text beyond the FSCI threshold.) From this we can easily see the argument by inference on well tested, reliable sign that the FSCO/I in the living cell, which we can reasonably project back to earliest living cells, points to design as best explanation. And therefore as best, empirically and analytically grounded explanation of the origin of cell based life. Where, such intelligent design of meaningful, coded, functional text strings and of complex, functionally specific systems, is a matter of empirical knowledge. Where also, design by intelligent, purposeful agents is as close to hand as the text of posts in this thread. so, I am afraid, it is quite plain that you have sadly misconstrued the nature of Mr Meyer's argument, and that you have therefore been tilting at a strawman. The inference to design on well warranted signs is patently an empirical, reasonable, inductive exercise. Onward debates over who are candidate designers, is secondary to such. On that I will simply join with Newton and Plato to name just two, that the origin of our observed cosmos points to an extracosmic, highly intelligent designer and maker of the world, who is exceedingly powerful. The God of the philosophers is a reasonable candidate for that designer, given that our contingent cosmos also implies an underlying necessary immaterial -- matter is contingent in a world of E = m*c^2 -- being without beginning or possibilities of ending as causal root. That is an exercise in philosophy, but is consistent with science. Bringing on board the observation that we find ourselves under moral obligation, i.e. that we are morally governed, opens up that ethical theism is a reasonable worldview, and this is compatible with the Judaeo-Christian tradition of our civilisation. In short generic theology is also in alignment with te results of science so it is not unreasonable or automatically a matter of ideological question-begging to think that he designer of the cosmos is the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Bring on board cosmological fine tuning that sets up a cosmos in which the first four elements get us to organic chemistry and the fifth in our galaxy, to proteins, and tothe warer for the processes involved, and we have good reason to think tha tsuch a God is the designer behind the evidently designed live in the cell. Thus, the root of the tree of life is evidently the result of design that traces to a designer who is rather consistent with God. But notice, again, the science came first the theology after, indeed there was philosophy between. I would suggest that your particular sociological assumptions, inferences and assertions should be revised in this light. Sociological influences do not determine the sort of chains of reasoning just outlined, nor do they affect the credibility of those chains on the merits. So, I would suggest that sociologising and/or pyschologising away the underlying case for design is an inappropriate and unwarranted response, not only to Meyer's lecture and book, but to the wider movement you have encountered here at UD and elsewhere. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Gregory @ 2 (emphasis omitted):
When he [Meyer] speaks analogically of “uniform and repeated experience of cause and effect,” obviously everybody here knows that not a single one of us has such “uniform repeated experience” when it comes to ‘origin(s) of life.’ That realisation, in and of itself, demolishes the ‘historical sciences’ rhetoric Meyer continues to employ. It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself.
Meyer isn't talking about creating life, he's talking about the origin of the information that is necessary to its creation. Human beings as intelligent agents use information to manipulate matter -- producing, for instance, the images on your computer monitor -- the same way that cells use information to manipulate matter -- specifically, Meyer talked about its roll in the folding proteins. No analogy needed. Which points to an intelligent agent as the origin of that information as the best explanation for a cause in the unobservable past.
Otoh, Meyer claims to be using a “standard scientific form of argumentation” and otoh, he claims that he sees Big-ID as a ‘scientific revolution’ in the making. So, which is it, since it cannot be both? Standard-Revolution; Tasty cake one cannot touch.
So you're saying that a scientific revolution must be based on non-scientific argumentation? Really? That is your position? Truly, that qualifies as the stupidest thing that I have ever seen written on UD. Quite an accomplishment.jstanley01_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

*attack* not "attach"Collin_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Gregory, While I do not think that Meyer is actually arguing from analogy, even if he did, that is not necessarily bad. Scientists reason from analogy all the time. Scientists reason that a drug that harms a rat's brain will also harm a human's brain because they are similar or "analogous." The wikipedia article on analogy actually gives a way that Hume attempted to contradict the teleological (Paley's) argument by showing that the universe is UNlike a watch in many ways. Hume knew that the way to attach an argument by analogy is not to just label it an analogy and therefore invalid. Rather, he provided counter-analogies. You could try doing the same by pointing to poor design or something. And this is why both Darwinists and ID-ists have made such a big deal about junk DNA. The more truly junk DNA exists, the stronger the Humean argument that the cell is not analogous to the watch. And the more perfectly the cell seems to be designed, the more analogous it is to a watch. But, I reiterate: I do not think it is analogy. A horse is a horse and a machine is a machine. Machines are designed.Collin_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Gregory, Inteligent Design, Big ID, is about the DESIGN. And the design exists in nature and in that sense it is natural. We can study the design, Gregory. And THAT is where 'natural' science comes in. That said, archaeology is about designers we have never observed and can never observe. The point being is that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to say anyting about the designer(s), is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Ya see there are two different parts of an investigation- the first is determining whether or not agency was required- ie determine the cause. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help us with that. The second part would be to study it to figure out more about it. And if design is determined to try to figure out why and who. Those are separate questions from the questions ID asks. ID doesn't prevent anyone from asking them nor seeking the answers. They are just separate. Deal with it.Joe_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Gregory, with not much interest I've been barely following your posts, as I have been busy doing other things, but this comment of yours caught my eye:
Theology or worldview studies. Just don’t call it ‘natural science’ and pretend to want to be taken seriously.
Pray tell, what is this 'natural science' you are referring to? Methodological naturalism?bornagain77_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I think that your comments at 26 are quite ironic. Instead of focusing on the argument, you label the argument-maker (Big-ID) and study its motivations rather than its arguments. This assumes that those you have labeled are not rational because they are guided by sociological forces rather than by reason. This is not about "Big-ID" (a term I find unhelpful) this is about philosophy and science. And I think that we do actually do have experience with designing life. This science is still young, but it is being done. And we also have experience creating machines. Cells contain machines. I do not think that it is analogy to say that humans have experience creating things like life. Sophisticated machinery is sophisticated machinery, whether it is amino acids or electronics.Collin_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

“Not an analogical argument” – Meyer No risk. Read again #2: "he [Meyer] denies speaking analogically." This of course does not prove that Meyer does not actually use (read: heavily depend upon) analogy in his Big-ID arguments, even if he protests that he doesn't. "in the absence of direct observation or designer input, how do you suggest we find out stuff about the designer(s) of life and the universe?" Theology or worldview studies. Just don't call it 'natural science' and pretend to want to be taken seriously. "IOW how do we find out about designers we have never observed and can never observe?" Pray or have faith. Just don't call it 'natural science' and pretend to want to be taken seriously. "we agents have a unique faculty when it comes to matter" Yes, exactly. This is because Meyer believes we (anthropos) are created imago Dei. That Meyer believes this should not be in question here; this is what he personally believes. And of course Meyer requires no 'material evidence' to believe this, unless one counts Scripture as 'material evidence.'Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

"Not an analogical argument" - Meyer, 53:15. (contra Gregory) The explanandum: Not the origin of life. 32:13, 51:30, 52:11, etc. (contra Gregory) Why lie, Gregory? It's so easy to be called out. To be shown to be making false statements. Why risk it?Mung_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself.
Please direct us to the point in the video where Meyer asserts that we have "uniform repeated experience" of using our intelligent agency" to create life itself. You won't. You can't. Meyer never says such a thing.
We’re best to await dialogue with/from people who are geniunely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer’s speech at the Tyndale event.
People who are genuinely interested in discussing the video would have no need to lie about it's contents. See my question in #29.Mung_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Gregory: It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself.
Poor Gregory, do you really think someone is under the illusion that human beings have a uniform repeated experience of using our intelligent agency to create life? As powerful as your arguments are, in and of themselves, surely you haven't led a strawman out on the dance floor? What did Meyer say when you asked to see some of the life he'd created? Or do you think just perhaps (what Meyer and others believe) that we agents have a unique faculty when it comes to matter, in which we can create the same unique material conditions as those found at the critical core of living systems? (hint: the material evidence you ignore)Upright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply