Stephen Meyer Expertly Punctures the Rule of Methodological Naturalism

This video by Stephen Meyer is so lame. Who is forbidding scientists to explore anything they want using the scientific method?

And his Rosetta stone example of a designer is ridiculous as it is obvious that somebody did it who had knowledge of those three languages. It wasn’t a chimp at a typewriter.

He then jumps to the OOL and says nothing of value. For this he gets a $250K salary? oy vey

1 Like

This is the same video… but directly to YouTube’s platform!

People are leaving comments in the comment section … I can’t leave any notes because my employer blocks that kind of interaction with YouTube… but maybe some others could contribute some sanity to a very foolish video…

Stephen Meyer on Another Erroneous Rant - - << LINK!

If I tried hard enough, I could probably come up with a less productive use of my (or anybody’s) time and energy than arguing with creationists in the comments section of youtube videos…but it would be difficult.



That’s a roger! But it’s an option for those who crave the frontlines…

The DI blocks all negative comments from appearing on these BS propaganda videos. Part of their “honesty in science” campaign. :roll_eyes: If you’ll note the only comments posted are glowing positive ones proclaiming what a genius Meyer is. What a clown circus the DI runs.



Which is why I went right to the YouTube platform version of the video.
Naturally, the “channel owner” can still delete comments… I guess… but at least there is a comments section.

The DI platform doesn’t even have an option for comments for this video.

I wasn’t clear. The DI’s policy is to delete / block all critical comments on YouTube. They’ve never allowed any comments on their ENV propaganda website.


The question he is exploring is if “inference to the best explanation” which is the standard for historical science is the scientific method where modeling and testing are involved.

What makes you say that, Bill?

1 Like

It is how Darwin originally argued for UCD. Inference was not a standard back then as far as I know and Darwin argued successfully for this standard.

Meyer studied Darwins method at Cambridge and used it for his design argument.

Here is a PDF that discusses Darwin using inference to the best explanation to argue for natural selection.

W.H. Newton-Smith (ed) A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Blackwell, 2000) 184-193.
Inference to the Best Explanation PETER LIPTON

I was asking about the video, not Darwin.

How Darwin originally presented it doesn’t seem very important given that we’ve tested thousands upon thousands of predictions, which are not mere inferences.

Inferences are all Meyer’s presenting because he lacks the faith to offer or test a single scientific prediction. His pretense that the predictions in his books are scientific is absurd, don’t you agree?


Axe and Gauger and scientists associated with Behe they have done experiments. The experiments however need to match the claim made. This is where evolutionary theory is lacking.

Many papers use UCD as a working assumption and that goes back to Darwins original inference.

Nice of you to admit ID has zero experimental empirical evidence.

Except for the millions upon millions of experimental research results published in more than a century of investigation. :roll_eyes:

Seriously Bill, the claim evolutionary theory has no experimental support is so stupid it really doesn’t deserve a reply. It’s so bad it’s “not even wrong”.


Then why are you making this claim :slight_smile:

It is quite ironic to see the DI removing negative comments while pretending to be the champions of academic freedom.


Here are 29+ experiments that support evolution:


These experiments are independent of mechanism.

No, you are committing a logical fallacy and simply making assertions.

That doesn’t mean anything.



I know of nobody who advances that idea now. Should we also fight wars with muskets?

1 Like