Examining "Darwin's Doubt"

I never said that. But I do know lots more about the relevant subject, and I don’t have an a priori belief that keeps me from thinking straight on the subject either. You are free to disagree, but in that case you would be wrong. Now, if you would care to defend Meyer’s claims, we could talk. But are you just on his side because that’s your tribe, or do you have arguments?

1 Like

Nope; just, apparently, an overblown ego…

When you’re replying to something, at a minimum hit “reply”, the one that appears next to the one you’re replying to, not the one at the bottom of the page. Better, quote the bit you mean. I take this to mean, however, that you have no interest in defending Meyer or making any arguments to that effect. But then what’s your basis for disagreement?

1 Like

Given that the subject is elucidated best among experts, which I do not claim to be, and given my own views that the deeper we dig into biochemistry, genetics and its interplay with the physics of molecular function, the more undeniably intricate things become --the more I see evidence for the cogency of an inventive, designing Source behind it all.
Perhaps you’ve heard me say before that I don’t see a contradiction in holding views that are generally affirming of evolution, while finding the blind forces of nature incapable of producing the intricate complexity we find.
Unlike Meyer, perhaps, my own personal faith doesn’t ride upon refuting its role and power in the history of life, but in pointing out its inadequacy as THE WHOLE EXPLANATION.
I don’t dispute the evidence at issue here, just the warrant drawn from it.
You are free to see it differently, of course.

1 Like

Why exactly are you an ID proponent? What argument of theirs do you find most convincing?

1 Like

You have to realize that common descent and the processes that create innovation are two separate questions. You are free to propose guided evolution in the second case, and it won’t interfere with common descent in the first case. My main problem with Meyer is his attack on common descent. As a phylogeneticist that’s what I care about. While I also reject the need for guided evolution (though as Joshua has mentioned it can’t be ruled out other than by Occam’s razor), I don’t push that much.

4 Likes

Good; then it may satisfy you to know I don’t dispute common descent either. That doesn’t mean I see myself as a theistic evolutionist, however. I don’t conceive of God as being that little extra indescribable “something” which “guides evolution.” For me, God is both the Author and Designer of natural laws, and the One Who actively and continuously maintains them. Were God to “cease to exist,” so would natural law. Natural law is not an “entity,” with God being some other type of “entity,” but a description of the way things regularly behave in nature.
Cheers!

2 Likes

No. Many of the things that Meyer gets objectively wrong are covered in high-school biology nowadays. These are not matters of interpretation.

2 Likes

Most were also well known by science when Meyer wrote his books but Meyer couldn’t be arsed to learn about the topics before butchering them. Again that’s not surprising when you remember his target audience was unschooled laymen for propaganda purposes, not convincing scientists.

2 Likes

Perhaps you might benefit from an analysis of how quickly the biological revolution is proceeding apace in increases in understanding, hypotheses, perspectives, etc. Cut the older guys some slack, and don’t dismiss them as if they never had a valid point to make. There is hardly one monolithically agreed upon set of mechanisms, etc. in the life sciences that lasts for more than a few years these days unchallenged. That is the nature of scientific inquiry. It’s ALWAYS, in every camp, a matter of interpretation within a context.

Well of course that’s what natural law is. I doubt anyone thinks otherwise. But why would it have to be maintained? What sort of incompetent omnipotent would create a universe that needs constant maintenance?

1 Like

I don’t see how that is relevant to Meyer’s howlers.

He’s my age and he has never had a valid point that I can see.

I don’t see how that applies to Meyer’s butchering of some facts and omission of others. Those haven’t changed.

Kindly apply that to the following claim from Meyer:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”

I don’t see how interpretation or context can make that anything but wrong. Please explain your claim in the context of Meyer’s claim quoted above.

2 Likes

That’s just another version of the old saw, “If God is omnipotent, can He make a rock so big that not even He can lift it?”
To which my reply is, “Of course! But He’s smart enough not to.”
The conception of a universe that maintains its order and regularity apart from God might seem like a useful science fiction, but it’s simply not the case --it’s not reality as we experience it.

Why would I need to explain a potential error by Meyer? Does one potential error invalidate an entire argument? Who are your 100 percent infallible sources? And why do you interpret them as such? What’s your warrant?

Well. I don’t see the similarity to the old saw, and your answer to it seems flippant and thus not very informative. Finally, how do you know it’s not reality as we experience it? What about the world tells you that God actively maintains it rather than letting it run itself?

Let’s start with this: what parts of Meyer’s argument do you think are correct? What is the basis for your opinion?

There are limits to the scientific context. For instance there is no context where the laws of physics do not apply (unless we extend to the very early universe). There are also contexts based on false information, like the anti-vax movement. IOW, I think you need to be careful about what sciencific contexts and statements about God.

What if created universes, by their nature, require constant “maintenance” in order to continue to exist?

1 Like

Because you wrote:

So I guess that you are retracting your ALWAYS?

I’m not saying that is his only falsehood. How many would it take to convince you?

My sources are the people who actually do the work that Meyer misrepresents.

Have you bothered to check ANY of Meyer’s claims against ANY other sources, Guy?