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

Gregory:
I must be lying simply because I disagree and have good arguments to back it up.
You must be lying because what you say is false. What is worse is that having watched the video, you know it's false. Your "arguments" are not "good" because they attack a straw-man. My question is, why do you feel the need to lie?Mung_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I don’t think ID has ever merited scientific consideration.
Well it appears that you don't know what science is. Ya see, unlike Darwinism, ID can be tested and either confirmed or falsified. So that is what has you all confused.Joe_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

What is "natural" science? Science is science- and all it cares about is reality. And reality says that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because natural processes only exist in nature. That said if God Created the universe and us then science can say something about that. And it matters. Also, Gregory, 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? IOW how do we find out about designers we have never observed and can never observe? And what claims regarding Big ID are easily proven false? Please tell us or just admit that you are a troll.Joe_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB, It appears you are a fake who is attempting to derail this thread. It's not about me, but about claims made regarding Big-ID which are easily proven false. We're best to await dialogue with/from people who are geniunely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer's speech at the Tyndale event.Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

--Gregory:
But since you asked so politely, actually yes, during a recent scientific internship I shared ‘lab’ space with evolutionary biologists!"
So, you have never taken a course in science at the university level, either at the graduate or undergraduate level. Thank you for that concession.
Big-ID theory is supposed to be natural science-only.
Right.
But StephenB “know[s] that the designer is God.
Right.
That sounds like a contradiction.
Why?StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Yes, back to the main problem of this thread, which is Stephen C. Meyer's presentation at Cambridge: It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself. Big-ID theory is supposed to be natural science-only. But StephenB "know[s] that the designer is God." That sounds like a contradiction. But since you asked so politely, actually yes, during a recent scientific internship I shared 'lab' space with evolutionary biologists! Now, shall we hear about StephenB's qualifications please?Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

SB [I know that the designer is God] Gregory
Welcome to ‘natural science-only’ Big-ID! -
Is that supposed to be some kind of refutation or are you arguing by insinuation again? Meanwhile, back to the problem of preparation: Which science courses have you taken at the university level? Physics? Chemistry? Have you ever been in a lab?StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

It is false to suggest human beings have “uniform repeated experience” of using our ‘intelligent agency’ to create life itself. Quick, call in Timaeus for help!!Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

I want to rephrase my last question to Gregory: What science courses have you taken at the university level?StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

"I know that the designer is God" - StephenB Welcome to 'natural science-only' Big-ID!!Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

--Gregory: "I’m quite sure the ‘Detective’ in StephenB’s fantasy dialogue (#12) *wants* to identify the designer/Designer. Doesn’t everyone here think so? But no, not StephenB. He doesn’t CARE who the designer/Designer is. It’s just not part of his pseudo-scientific, pseudo-theological theory." Obviously, that is a silly response. Of course, I care who the designer is, just as the detective cares who the murderer is. I know that the designer is God because regularity in the universe requires order, which in turn, requires someone to do the ordering. That would be God. Unfortunately, we live in an irrational academic environment that doesn't accept this obvious fact because the specialties of theology and philosophy have been corrupted by modernist and post-modernist skepticism. Our first task should be to go back and rehabilitate philosophy by assuming a Thomistic superstructure, but no one wants to do that, least of all, Gregory and Steve. If they were to take part in the real solution to the problem, they would no longer have their own gig. Meanwhile, we have to work within a scientific framework because too few will submit to a responsible philosophical framework. The best solution to naturalism is Thomistic philosophy, but that option has been taken off the table. The second best approach is big ID or the empirical methods of scientific inference. This brings me back to the original point. The method by which the detective distinguishes murder from accidental death is different from the method of questioning witnesses, taking fingerprints, or checking alibis. Those processes cannot be integrated into a single process, but each process can be used in concert with the other. Since you think otherwise, Gregory, I am prompted to ask you once again: Which science and math courses have you studied at the university level?StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Yes, I watched the video and took notes, a few of which are quoted above. Mung's #17 is a typical Big-IDist ploy. I must be lying simply because I disagree and have good arguments to back it up. As usual, Mung makes no attempt to face the challenges. Just ad hom accusation. So unscientific! ; ) IDist people are obviously fanatical when they talk this way at UD.Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Gregory, it would appear that you watched the video, so why do you feel like you need to lie about Meyer's argument?Mung_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

No, I meant the 'you're' instead of 'your' typo, when you tried yet again to put words in my mouth. Bad form! Just sloppiness on your part. What you now admit was wrong re: 'in' vs. 'him' I willingly overlooked. The other mistake seemed more intentional or sloppy. I’m quite sure the ‘Detective’ in StephenB’s fantasy dialogue (#12) *wants* to identify the designer/Designer. Doesn’t everyone here think so? But no, not StephenB. He doesn’t CARE who the designer/Designer is. It's just not part of his pseudo-scientific, pseudo-theological theory.Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Gregory: "Yes, your methods are a joke. It must be ‘designed’ because it is!! (wink) Go back to the lab, StephenB, though you are not a scientist, and instead take a course in Communication. You designed the bad grammar in your message, didn’t you? Or was it just poor execution?" Oh, you mean the "in" typo that should have read "him." Touchy, touchy. I must have hit a nerve. I am curious, though. You claim to be an expert in the philosophy of science. Which philosophers have you studied formally. What science courses have you ever taken at the academy? At what level did your education in mathematics end, or did it ever begin?StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

@ Alan #10 "I’d like answers, sure!" What would you do to find them? 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. "the yearning for explanations is strong in humans." Again, what are you prepared to do? Will you read Tolstoy, Max Weber, Berdyaev, Husserl, Dostoevsky, Guardini, Charles Taylor, Everyday Saints - the most popular book in post-atheist Russia? Dare you even try to consider theology rationally, scientifically or do you merely wish to ridicule believers as if they have something you never will? Please don't depend on Meyer's neutral scientism as if Big-ID has an answer that can be meaningful for agnostics. I don't for a moment think they have come up with a suitable apologetic to counter your agnosticism. Some of them will agree that Big-ID is not such an attempt, while others in the 'big tent' will claim that is their primary objective. "I have to confess my interest in ID is more sociological than philosophical. I don’t think ID has ever merited scientific consideration. But the cultural aspects are fascinating." Yes, I can identify with that. The socio-cultural aspects are interesting, which is why I wrote my master's thesis several years ago partly on the IDM. Meyer was less prominent then, but his peer-reviewed-Sternberg-shepherded article and recent book has changed that. Still, as I indicated above, there are many features of his approach that leave much to be desired. small-id, otoh, is still accepted by the vast majority of Abrahamic believers, and nothing Big-ID has done with its 'scientistic' approach has changed that. I would listen to Fuller over Meyer 99 times out of 100. This is said after having heard them both. At least Fuller is honest in openly speaking of ID as a science, philosophy, theology dialogue first and foremost. Meyer has yet to reach such a level of public honesty.Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

"Someone purposefully stabbed in 27 times." - StephenB Gee, that's not an Origin(s) of Life question, so it doesn't qualify as a legitimate Big-ID theory! Right guys, wink ; ) Real 'design theory' - a small-id legitimate field of scientific study, involving thousands of scholars worldwide - differs significantly from the so-called singular Big-ID 'design inference method' preferred by StephenB. I'm quite sure the 'Detective' in StephenB's fantasy dialogue *wants* to identify the designer/Designer. Doesn't everyone here think so? But no, not StephenB. He doesn't CARE who the designer/Designer is. Why not? Because the IDM told him not to care or be scientifically curious. By fiat - don't think about it! StephenB: “You’re methods are a joke.” Yes, your methods are a joke. It must be 'designed' because it is!! (wink) Go back to the lab, StephenB, though you are not a scientist, and instead take a course in Communication. You designed the bad grammar in your message, didn't you? Or was it just poor execution?Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

An unfortunate man was once found lying in the alley with 27 knife wounds in his back. In the process of drawing inferences about the cause, a detective on the scene considered one of two possible alternatives: [a] The man accidentally backed into the knife 27 times or [b] Someone purposefully stabbed in 27 times. Applying the design inference method, the detective concluded that [b] was the best choice. The man was probably murdered. As fate would have it, Alan and Gregory were at the scene: Alan: "Why are you being so coy? Are you afraid to tell us who you think was responsible for this crime? Gregory: "You're methods are a joke. You should be able to develop a single methodology that explains who committed the crime, how he did it, why he did it, and what it means for all humankind. Detective: -- "Alan, I am not being coy. I cannot identify the murderer by using design detection methods. We have ways of doing that, but they involve using a more in-depth analysis." -- "Gregory, a methodology is not a think piece or social commentary. It is a rigorous process by which a scientist observes data and tries to make sense of it. Quantitative methods cannot yield qualitative results. Alan: "That sounds like a gape of the gaps argument to me." Gregory: "People derive qualitative results from quantitative methods every day." Detective: --"Alan, It's not a gape of the gaps argument. It is an inference to the best explanation. --"Gregory, where has anyone derived a qualitative result from a quantitative method?" Alan: "Why are you being so coy?" Gregory: "You're methods are a joke." Detective: --"Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure to speak with you. I must get back to the lab. We have other methods, you know. Thank you for your input. I can tell that you really care. About what I have no idea."StephenB_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

I don’t think ID has ever merited scientific consideration. But the cultural aspects are fascinating.
Two peas in a pod. - - - - - - - - - - - ignore: 1: to refuse to take notice of 2: to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungroundedUpright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Actually, Alan, in this case we are ‘reading on the same page.’ What does Big-ID theory mean by ‘intelligent agent/agency’ specifically? Don’t ask, don’t tell? “What are you including in your set of intelligent agents?” is imo a fair question. Not sure about you, but I’m not an atheist and find that perspective self-nullifying and disheartening. As a theist, I agree with small-id – the idea that the universe was designed/created by a Creator (respect to Abrahamists). Don’t you, Alan?
I'm an agnostic, Gregory. I'd like answers, sure! But I'd prefer correct answers or even something along the right lines. Maybe humans aren't bright enough to ask the right questions, let alone work out possible answers. I don't deny the yearning for explanations is strong in humans. I just don't find the explanations on the table so far very satisfactory. I have to confess my interest in ID is more sociological than philosophical. I don't think ID has ever merited scientific consideration. But the cultural aspects are fascinating.Alan Fox_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

And "good luck" to you Gregory, bulding your movement based on material ignorance.Upright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Actually, Alan, in this case we are ‘reading on the same page.’ What does Big-ID theory mean by ‘intelligent agent/agency’ specifically? Don’t ask, don’t tell? “What are you including in your set of intelligent agents?” is imo a fair question. Not sure about you, but I’m not an atheist and find that perspective self-nullifying and disheartening. As a theist, I agree with small-id – the idea that the universe was designed/created by a Creator (respect to Abrahamists). Don’t you, Alan? The rightful and massive ‘alliance’ between people who reject Big-ID’s ‘revolutionary’ claims to scientificity, which holds across the theist-atheist divide, should no longer be surprising to Big-ID supporters, certainly not in 2012-2013. Joe writes wrong; he meant ‘tripe’ not ‘trope.’ But he’ll likely come back with something ever ‘cleverer’ trying to kick the anti-Big-IDist. = ) To UB: “Human beings as ‘intelligent agents’ simply DID NOT ‘design’ or ‘create’ or ‘construct’ or ‘build’ the Origins of Life or BioLogical Information.” Agree or disagree? There are many, many people who see clearly what Meyer doesn’t seem to want to see. Good luck fighting scientistically (#4) against your brothers and sisters, UB!Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Gregory deserves your alliance Alan...
I am not sure he would see it like that! Anyway, why so touchy? I asked simple questions. Choose another alternative if you need.Alan Fox_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Gregory deserves your alliance Alan; you ignore the same evidence and use much of the same rhetoric to do so.Upright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Uprighty Biped:
An intelligent agent...
Such as a person? A god? An imaginary being? What are you including in your set of intelligent agents? Or are we still being coy on the subject?Alan Fox_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Gregory, An intelligent agent can arrange matter in a discernable way which is unique among all other physical conditions. This fact detroys your "analogy" routine, and strips you of its use in your argument against ID as a scientific project. This is why you must be so diligent not to engage it.Upright BiPed_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Gregory, Do you really believe the trope that you post? Really?Joe_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

This video came out after Steve Fuller's talk, but now Tyndale has finally published Stephen C. Meyer's Cambridge 2012 talk. Fuller’s presentation drew Meyer's astonishing ID+theodicy admission in the question period, already shown at UD. And Meyer lauded Fuller in one of his answers to audience question in the video above. The intellectual priority between these two figures should be quite obvious by now. Methinks Meyer is far too specialised and fixated on OoL to reach most people, compared with how broadly Fuller conceives of ID; not just nature in the distant past, but contemporary human insights, choices and innovations. Iow, Fuller's independent scholar (non-Big-ID) view of ID is one that actually matters (or at least can matter) to most people. Instead, Meyer's DI-based and (right-wing American) funded Big-ID is unnecessarily scientistic – it seeks to be 'science-only,' aloof, detached, elitist. Most of this video talk has been spoken by Meyer before. When he 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. 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. A couple of questions: how many actual 'origin(s) of life' researchers are there (even just in USA)? My guess is that very few people actually call them-self an OoL researcher. Yet a large part of Meyer's message is simply to try to legitimise OoL as a field that more people *should* study, as if it is not actually one of, if not the most, highly speculative field today as most people believe it to be. Despite his (Presbyterian) protests otherwise, Meyer is still caught in analogism, though he denies speaking analogically. He mentions "identical effects in living systems (E2) and human artefacts (E1)," but that is begging the question that Fuller openly acknowledges. Why Meyer can’t recognise this is a large part of Big-ID’s ‘movement’ problem. Human beings as 'intelligent agents' simply DID NOT 'design' or 'create' or 'construct' or 'build' the Origins of Life or BioLogical Information. That should not be debatable, but Meyer readily flips from theology to science and back again seemingly at will on this topic. Meyer's univocal predication breaks down because his Big-ID denies theological Designer-talk, all the while yet he seeks legitimacy and credibility precisely for what he denies, thus contradicting his Big-ID exists in a vacuum, i.e. “in a specifically scientific context.” He admits “I’m a theist,” but this is ‘just about science.’ People who look at this from a scholarly or everyday perspective see through this ruse. 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? Why does he not seek out those scientists and try to work collaborative with them on ‘agency, mind, conscious activity,’ on ‘design theory’ as it is meaningful to most scholars and scientists active today? The answer is because he is trained to consider 'science' as meaning only 'natural-physical science.' Most of the 'big-tent' of IDists has followed his weak PoS in this deviant way. It thus offers only a partial and tilted view of science, which explains why Meyer is calling for a ‘Revolution’ without actual 'natural scientific' evidence. Probably, probably, probably, probably... When he 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? Probably he won’t tell us because it would compromise his Big-ID claims, just as much as admitting ID+theodicy does. Well, I don't know about anyone else who participates at or who reads UD posts, but friends, I AM an 'intelligent designer,' a 'designer' who is 'intelligent' (to whatever admitably limited degree). Aren't you?! I am no 'quasi-' even if Meyer thinks he is. Luckily for those who haven’t swallowed Big-ID rhetoric, small-id logic stands strong and unfazed by the claims of scientificity by a weak PoS American movement that seemingly cannot admit that human beings didn’t create the Universe. This opens an alternative world of 'intelligent design' that neither Stephen C. Meyer nor John G. West is apparently yet prepared to face.Gregory_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

My thoughts, in light of Paley's self replicating watch and the question of the root (and main branches) of the darwinist tree of life ANALOGY. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply