I think this interview is going to be game-changer for Intelligent Design Theory in the era of so-called ‘‘Intellectual Dark Web’’.
You can mislead the misinformed public in 2005 that some kind of federal Judge is responsible for making the case whether a theory is scientific or not. You can mislead the public by equating Intelligent Design with creationism to make ID in the eyes of public less credible, less scientific. Yes, you succeed to mislead the public in 2005 when there was no Youtube channel when the public mostly relied on TV and newspapers.
But let’s see whether you will succeed again when correct information about Intelligen design will reach millions of people in the coming weeks.
Don’t think it’s the public who needs convincing. More like the scientific community. And most ppl who listen to Shapiro more than likely already adopt some type of creationism. Who cares? This interview may make billy bob down the road adopt ID. Oh nooooo
Or we can point out Team ID has produced not a single solitary piece of positive evidence in the over 20 years it has been in existence. Lots of hot air, lots of propaganda books filled with cherry picked data, misrepresentations, and outright lies concerning actual evolutionary biology, even a few propaganda movies. But a big fat ZERO in positive supporting evidence.
I’ve been following ID for the past decade or so. I am just curious, how do you think Stephen Meyer appearing on Ben Shapiro Show is going to be a “game-changer” for ID? Can you give details on how this might be a game changer? You also mention the word ‘Scientific’ in regards to a Judge and the general public. But if ID is ‘Scientific’, wouldn’t ID want to make sure whatever ‘Scientific’ position they take or write about can be supported with solid, honest ‘Scientific’ research? verses appealing to victimization from a court Judgment and the general public?
Just so you know I’m on your side but am disappointed by the stuff coming from EN and other ID venues, not to mention Behe’s recent book.
@Lou it is going to be game-changer” for ID because ID never reached to the wider audience, seems strange, but only I can observe that fact, I am not part of American culture, so from outside I have a broad view than anyone inside American culture sees.
Science is operating on funding, Governmental funding, if you take from ID the opportunity to be funded, to access university research labs, grants and then you are the one who blames ID to making ‘Scientific’ research. I have bad news for you, even without government funding, even without all research facilities that general universities provide Intelligent design made research by operating at least 2 research labs Biologic Institute and Evolutionary Informatics Lab, they produced numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, even published in mainstream academic journals. Behe’s recent book is based on a peer-reviewed paper Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and “the first rule of adaptive evolution”
A Dozen ID-Inspired Predictions made by in the book Signatutre in The cell back in 2009
• No undirected process will demonstrate the capacity to generate 500 bits of
new information starting from a nonbiological source.
• Informational accounting will reveal that sources of active information are
responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations.
• Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the
capacities necessary to render the RNA-world scenario plausible.
• Informational accounting will reveal that any improvements in replicase
function in ribozymes are the result of active information supplied by ribozyme
• Investigation of the logic of regulatory and information-processing systems in
cells will reveal the use of design strategies and logic that mirrors (though
possibly exceeds in complexity) those used in systems designed by engineers.
Cell biologists will find regulatory systems that function in accord with a logic
that can be expressed as an algorithm.
• Sophisticated imaging techniques will reveal nanomachines (turbines) in
centrioles that play a role in cell division. Other evidence will show that
malfunctions in the regulation of these machines are responsible for
• If intelligent design played a role in the origin of life, but not subsequently,
prokaryotic cells should carry amounts of genetic information that exceed their
own needs or retain vestiges of having done so, and molecular biology should
provide evidence of information-rich structures that exceed the causal powers of
chance, necessity, or the combination of the two.
• If a designing intelligence acted discretely in the history of life, the various
subdisciplines of biology should show evidence of polyphyly.
• The fossil record, in particular, should show evidence of discrete infusions of
information into the biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather
than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
• If an intelligent (and benevolent) agent designed life, then studies of putatively
bad designs in life—such as the vertebrate retina and virulent bacteria—should
reveal either (a) reasons for the designs that show a hidden functional logic or
(b) evidence of decay of originally good designs.
• If the flagellar motor was intelligently designed and the type-3 secretory
system devolved from it, the genes that code for the bacterial flagellar motor
should be older than those that code for the proteins in the T3SS, and not the
reverse. Alternatively, if the T3SS and the flagellar motor arose by design
independently, T3SS should have unique (nonhomologous) genes that are not
present in the genome for the flagellar motor.
• The functional sequences of amino acids within amino acid–sequence space
should be extremely rare rather than common.
Nathan Lents and Arthur Hunt do a very good job in pointing out the cherry picking going on with Behe in his new book. ID cannot afford to make these mistakes unless you can prove their (Hunt and Lents) observations are untrue?
I’d just like to point out that if you do a search for “biologic institute” in pubmed, you find that only 4 papers have been published in “mainstream” academic journals by people at this “institute”, and only 2 of them are even tangentially related to ID.
The other 2 were published by Günter Bechly, describing new fossil species of dragonflies.
So, 2 ID-related publications. In 14 years. Not very impressive. These 2 papers have also only been cited about 3 times in total by other papers in “mainstream academic journals” in the combined 22 years that have elapsed since they were published.
So it was not broad exposure when George W Bush, a sitting president, voiced his support back in 2004 or 2005?
Ben Shapiro is an interesting character, but he also does not have that large an audience. I suggest we give it a few months and look at google trends to see if there is a measurable uptick. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, but I hypothesize nothing will be observable, except the long term trend of ID, which (not sure) might be steadily downward.
One of my fond memories as a teenager and young adult was reading The Journal of Irreproducible Results, but I think my sense of humor was twisted long before that. Riding my bicycle to the bookstore long before Amazon existed. Fun times, in a way.
If you are naive enough that you read only one side of the debate, then …but if you are open-minded to look at both sides, you will see who is trying to hide obvious results from recent research in the field