New Paper confirms Trilobite Explosion

When I am talking about Behe and Meyer, I treat them as scientists, how they define their position within science, So, I am not interested in their personal matters.

Meyer is not a scientist. So why would we treat him as one?

Science is about trust. We do not trust Behe to correctly represent the data. I am hopeful he will give us reason to start trusting him. Right now, he has the control. He can show us he is trustworthy right now if he wants to do so. Most scientists dismiss him as a lost cause, but I want to believe better of him.


If Meyer is not working in a university, cannot be called scientist? even though holding PhD degree and having peer reviewed articles

Isn’t he a philosopher? Last time I checked philosophers are not scientists. Has he ever even done an experiment? Let alone published a single scientific publication?

1 Like

you are forcing me to diverge from the topic.

If all scientists are experimentalists, that is a different definition of a scientist. I take a more broad definition

nonetheless, his publications

Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004)

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2003

Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion: Evidence for Intelligent Design,” pp. 371-391, in William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

None of those appear to be scientific publications. Good to know.

1 Like

even though the paper in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

Come on now… his scientific training is in geophysics I believe. That’s it

I myself also hold B.Sc degree in Mining Engineering, So what?

if he managed to publish the paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, then it counts as a peer-reviewed paper. I know how Smithsonian institute harassed Stenberg after this publication

Why do you constantly miss the point and reply with things unrelated to what People say?

:+1:t2: To be honest, from reading your interactions here I’m concerned about your scientific future.

So, what? He’s NOT a biologist. And doesn’t publish anything in his area of training. So no, he’s not a working scientist.

1 Like

And Sternberg deserved it.

I have a good test for demonstrating Meyer’s trustworthiness to you. Do you trust Meyer to accurately present the data, exclusive of interpretation?

Are you interested?

Nope. His PhD is in “history and science of philosophy”. His thesis was “Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies” This means that the essentially all of his professional work has been about arguing for ID oin Origin of Life with detour into the Cambrian Explosion. He is a professional ID apologist and fundraiser, among the best they have, and I’m sure he is a nice guy too.

He is not a scientist. Why any one would object to this fact is beyond me.

I think his undergrad is in geophysics

i myself also worked in geophysics but not for oil industry but cupper mine, if i start publish, so people will blame me that i ever worked for exploration of cupper mine, again, work is juged not by trust, by peronal biography, but solely by the work

I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of what you are saying. Are you going to Montreal in July?

Do you mean the paper an unscrupulous Creation-friendly editor sneaked around proper peer review and which BSoW later disavowed when they discovered the dishonesty? That paper?

1 Like

sates that

Meyer’s article was accepted for publication after undergoing standard peer-review by three scientists.

Scientists don’t trust politicians. Certainly not American politicians. This hurts your case substantially.

1 Like

if scientist do not trust scientists too just because of having a philosophical opposing views-Richard Stenberg case is the best example, then it means science should not rely on personal trust, rather on the quality of the work done …faking data, experimental result is a different story,