How it Works0 min ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No... from his sources. Rather a world of difference there.
The Cambrian Explosion doesn't represent a problem for evolution just because the interpretation of what's gone on is potentially difficult. In the first place, there's still several hundred million years since of developing life that does fit into the pattern. Secondly you are always going to find gaps in the fossil record that can be difficult to plug, or periods where the data is incomplete for whatever reason. The world's current collection of fossils is representing only the tiniest fraction of creatures that ever lived; some species are known still from only a single bone fragment, and presumably others are lost forever.
So the Cambrian Explosion is a puzzle, one that is yet to be completely solved, but not a fatal flaw.
The Cambrian Explosion doesn't represent a problem for evolution just because the interpretation of what's gone on is potentially difficult. In the first place, there's still several hundred million years since of developing life that does fit into the pattern. Secondly you are always going to find gaps in the fossil record that can be difficult to plug, or periods where the data is incomplete for whatever reason. The world's current collection of fossils is representing only the tiniest fraction of creatures that ever lived; some species are known still from only a single bone fragment, and presumably others are lost forever.
So the Cambrian Explosion is a puzzle, one that is yet to be completely solved, but not a fatal flaw.
OK, Khandro, let's assume the Meyer thesis that life on earth is "designed" and his further postulate that only intelligent minds can design things. Now, what inferences can we draw about the designer? Meyer himself is clear about the designer: it's the Christian God (although, as he's punting ID as science, he's careful to avoid the assertion that such a conclusion is itself scientific). Why couldn't the designers be aliens from outer space? The opening scenes of 2001 A Space Odyssey suggest that humans are the result of genetic engineering by a black obelisk. How about that? Hume in the Dialogues has Philo suggest that the designer could be an apprentice demiurge learning his trade, or a superannuated one in his dotage. Nothing in the evidence would make either of these ideas implausible, would it? In fact, I would suggest both are more consistent with observation than that the designer is a demiurge at the height of his powers. And further: what can our observation of the universe at large, or just our local corner of it, teach us about the intentions and character of the designer? How do we get from the theory of an intelligent designer to the absurd propositions of what you call great religions?
Concerning the science, then, Khandro. Well, I don't know enough to comment (not, of course, that I usually allow that trivial impediment stand between me and a good rant - chucked that in to deny you the pleasure of saying it, b****r that I am). I can't remember what Meyer says in the interview (must get his book). Is he saying that the trilobite with its complex eye was created by the designer in a creative explosion? That is to say that the trilobite does not have ancestors? Is that what you believe? Carrying on the same strain (i.e. of avoiding your question by asking another), why do you think so many of the designer's works are extinct? Doesn't that seem a little strange?
"But please stop talking about religions, that's a good chap. :0)"
The Discovery Institute was set up by evangelical Christians in order to promote a particular interpretation of a particular religion, Khandro, not to promote science. Meyer's claims that his views are based on scientific principles and that his religious beliefs are accidental is a tactic the proponents of ID use all the time and are disingenuous, as is their pretence that there is any disagreement in the scientific community about the fact of common origin. Evolution by means of natural selection has been accepted almost universally for a hundred years ago, even before the science of molecular biology put the theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Incidentally, some background on the Dover case. Meyer claims in the interview that he declined to be an expert witness. Slightly different story here which says the he and Dembski withdrew from the defence team: http://
Of course, none of this proves that the trilobite WASN'T created by an unspecified intelligent being 600,000 years ago and that the majority of biologists are wrong.
Anyway, VE - stick to the science. Do you believe that discrete species were created by an intelligent designer? Or do you believe the designer has directed and engineered particular adaptations?
The Discovery Institute was set up by evangelical Christians in order to promote a particular interpretation of a particular religion, Khandro, not to promote science. Meyer's claims that his views are based on scientific principles and that his religious beliefs are accidental is a tactic the proponents of ID use all the time and are disingenuous, as is their pretence that there is any disagreement in the scientific community about the fact of common origin. Evolution by means of natural selection has been accepted almost universally for a hundred years ago, even before the science of molecular biology put the theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Incidentally, some background on the Dover case. Meyer claims in the interview that he declined to be an expert witness. Slightly different story here which says the he and Dembski withdrew from the defence team: http://
Of course, none of this proves that the trilobite WASN'T created by an unspecified intelligent being 600,000 years ago and that the majority of biologists are wrong.
Anyway, VE - stick to the science. Do you believe that discrete species were created by an intelligent designer? Or do you believe the designer has directed and engineered particular adaptations?
'Cambria is a place in wales' ....Now here is a guy who is on top of his subject, he write a book about the Cambrian 'explosion' and has researched this Geological era so thoroughly that he doesn't know why it is called the 'Cambrian'. I spent a lot of time working in Wales and never came a cross a village, town or city called 'Cambria', I can't even find it on google earth so it cannot exist. :o)
Khandro, you have asked VE to stop talking about religions, implying, as you implied in your OP, that you think the concept of an intelligent designer is not related to religion. Perhaps if you told us where you are coming from the discussion might take the path you intended it to follow? Or am I mistaken?
It could be a scientific question my queen
these have to be falsifiable ( to be a relevant scientific question one must be able to construct an experiment which could prove its falsity )
I am not sure if Intelligent Design is falsifiable - it is getting rather late and my brain has seized - but if it is then it can be discussed as a scientific theory.
I have no issue with the Americans teaching their kids a rubbish science theory - it gives the rest of us a chance to compete
A retreat from science to mysticism may seem strange
but it has happened before
The Arab scientific renaissance of the 12 and 14the centuries stopped and was replaced by mysticism
It has always puzzled me: something that works was replaced by something that obviously doesnt work
these have to be falsifiable ( to be a relevant scientific question one must be able to construct an experiment which could prove its falsity )
I am not sure if Intelligent Design is falsifiable - it is getting rather late and my brain has seized - but if it is then it can be discussed as a scientific theory.
I have no issue with the Americans teaching their kids a rubbish science theory - it gives the rest of us a chance to compete
A retreat from science to mysticism may seem strange
but it has happened before
The Arab scientific renaissance of the 12 and 14the centuries stopped and was replaced by mysticism
It has always puzzled me: something that works was replaced by something that obviously doesnt work
n.; Religion is a particular faith or system of worship. The concept of ID has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion, nor does it, nor does Meyer, in any way dismiss evolution. The subject is the origin of the building blocks life itself in order for evolution to take place.
j.; Cambria is a name for Wales, being the Latinised form of the Welsh name Cymru.
j.; Cambria is a name for Wales, being the Latinised form of the Welsh name Cymru.
Latest Posts
Crosswords10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
News17 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.