Cheer up Simon , I have found the same with the YEC crowd as well and I have been at it longer than you .
You will get your knuckles rappped soon:)
PS is this site intelligently designed as the letters take ages to appear as I type them.
ID with a seasonal touch
Simon, rather than continue by responding to your points 3-5, I’ll pick up on your feedback from 25 November. I had written: “This appears to me to be an acknowledgement that Meyer is on target in his critiques of these approaches.”
You did not confirm or reply, but declared: “Meyer is not a scientist involved in this research. [. . .] Meyer is operating at such a basic level that he mostly misses the relevant questions, or at least misunderstands the conclusions that can be drawn from them.”
There is not a lot of content here to interact with. What do you mean by “basic level”? Meyer keeps hammering away at the issue of biological information, something which is hard to find in peer-reviewed papers! The researchers may be very good chemists, bit if they’ve not grasped the relevance of biological information, they are just reporting the games they are playing with their chemistry sets. I am aware that evolutionists have tried to explain the genetic code without intelligence, but their suggestions do not work. All the evolutionist arguments are held tentatively, pending a better "solution" to the problem. A significant contributor to this literature is Michael Yarus, who I think you alluded to in an earlier post suggesting an element of self-organisation of the genetic code. Meyer (with Nelson) has given this a critical analysis here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.2 The defects in the model "include the selective use of data, incorrect null models, a weak signal even from positive results, an implausible geometry for the primordial RNA template (in relation to the universally-conserved structures of modern ribosomes), and unsupported assumptions about the pre-biotic availability of amino acids." The problems have not been solved, and the evidence still points to information having an intelligent cause. I would like to think that anyone with an interest in following the evidence wherever it leads will at least encourage such debate.
“If Meyer really wanted to contribute to the scientific discussion he would go work in a lab and publish peer reviewed papers.”
When he did, there was a howl of protest from a science community that rejects ID as a matter of principle. The editor explained that the paper did go through the normal peer review process – but that was not enough to satisfy the wolves. This is what Meyer and others like him are up against.
I described “your inference that we must keep bearing away” as looking “more like "gap thinking" than Meyer's design inference.”
You responded: “Nonsense. We know so little about chemistry, biology and physics that we haven't even come close to exhausting the physicalist paradigm. "Gap thinking" relies on gaps not being close-able. Science does nothing of the sort.”
No, it is not nonsense to say that we have identified a major issue that is unresolved by imposing physicalism. The issue of information has been explored extensively and there is nothing in physics and chemistry to suggest that answers will be forthcoming. In terms of published papers, the most fundamental issues are being by-passed: people are writing about what they can do in the lab, not about what defeats them! Because ID is an inference to best explanation, the gaps are only part of the evidence. The argument rests primarily on what we do know about the origins of complex specified information.
I loved his mistakes on the DI's film on the cambrian explosion
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In Apply for Membership
© 2011 Christians In Science | All Rights Reserved
Christians in Science Ltd., incorporated in England and Wales.
Registered address 4 Sackville Close, Sevenoaks, TN13 3QD. Company No. 05959444. Registered Charity No. 1121422