Search This Blog

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Sunday YouTubes - Stephen C Meyer speaks science rather than propagates propaganda



The above is a clip concerning an Illustra movie, "Darwin's Dilemma"

"Illustra Media produces video documentaries that examine the scientific case for intelligent design. Working with Discovery Institute and an international team of scientists and scholars (including Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Lee Strobel), Illustra has helped define both the scientific case for design and the limitations of materialistic processes like Darwinian evolution. These documentaries include Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Privileged Planet and Darwin’s Dilemma."  

This organization is a not-for-profit agency seeking to present information to the public and dependent entirely on sales and donations to exist.  It is a proactive organization dedicated to dissemination of information.

In stark contrast, the NCSE is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to stop the dissemination of information...in other words, they are dedicated to censhorship of any ideas that disagree with Darwinism.

It seems to me better to be involved with and to promote an organization that seeks to share information rather than to be associated with one that is trying to stifle it.  Duh squared, right?   The only reason there is an NCSE is simply because Darwinism cannot stand on evidence without being propped up by propaganda.  No one needs to set up an organization to defend the laws of gravity, for instance.  There is no organization formed to fight against challenges to laws of magnetism or electricity or the definition of a triangle.   Good science can stand on its own two feet.   It doesn't require organizations designed to shield it from scrutiny.

Christianity is proactive rather than defensive.  Christians are on the march against evil.  The Bible says that the gates of hell will not stand against us.   Gates are part of a defense of a city or compound to keep those outside from getting in and taking over.   Christianity is intent upon breeching the defenses of the minds and hearts of individual people.   It is individuals, not governments, who are targeted by God.   Understand that this blog is a proactive worldview blog intent upon disseminating information that will lead unbelievers to believe and to prop up the shaky faith of the uncertain.   It is intent upon publishing truth by publishing the findings of science and the best writing of modern philosophers and writers as well as Biblical truths and supporting those truths with Bible quotes.   


Stephen C. Meyer wrote a ground-breaking book and today we are considering much of the content of the book and his views on the concept of Intelligent Design as a scientific concept and not a metaphysical one.



Meyer was a double-degreed scientist working for a large oil company seeking information when he realized that cells were packed with information and this began his journey of exploration that led him to the Discovery Institute.



Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow - Discovery Institute
Program Director - CSC

Articles by Stephen C. Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a founder both of the intelligent design movement and of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, intelligent design’s primary intellectual and scientific headquarters. Dr. Meyer is a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, the author of peer-reviewed publications in technical, scientific, philosophical and other books and journals. His signal contribution to ID theory is given most fully in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, published by HarperOne in June 2009. For more on the book, and more about Dr. Meyer's views on intelligent design visit his website at www.signatureinthecell.com.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.

Dr. Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education with Michigan State University Press and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2000).

He has also authored numerous technical articles as well as editorials in magazines and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, First Things and National Review.






Discovery Institute main site



Uncommon Descent website!




Signature in the cell you tube website!



Intelligent Design is a scientific movement dedicated to uncovering and understanding evidence about the world around us today and especially the world of organisms.

Creationists can learn a great deal from the work of men like Meyer at the Discovery Institute, some of whom are and some of whom are not Christians. The sad truth is that Darwinist's primary complaint with the Institute is that it is a "bunch of Christians", an argument that isn't true but more to the point isn't relevant. Pay no attention to the various blah blah blah about who the scientists are at the place and whether or not they are Christians or Jews or Theists or Muslims or anything else.   Do pay attention to the quality of the evidence presented.   

Meyer himself does claim to be a Christian.   Interestingly, Shermer says that he "was a born-again Christian" at one time but has changed his mind.   That is a blog post in and of itself but there really is no such thing as an unborn again Christian.   There are many who have made an intellectual commitment to the concept of Christ as Savior and there are many who have said prayers to be "saved."   I myself did this as a grade schooler and I was certainly old enough to understand the concept of sin.  However, sin didn't much bother me and my prayer was not sincere.  It was many years later when I suddenly knew, heart and soul, that Jesus was Lord and I was not.   I was then ready to meet God on His terms and be made new within.   

Jesus did not use the term,"born again", lightly.   There was intentionality there because a birth cannot be undone.  No one gets to go back in the womb and if you have been born it is a completed act that is not reversible.   Pseudo-Christians are all around.   Many of them don't realize it, and it truly is a great thing when you are around someone when the "light comes on" and they really hear the call of the Spirit of God and come to a saving faith.  

Years later when I was walking through poor, crime-riddled areas seeking to lead people to come to faith in Christ my heart was in the right place but my doctrine was trailing behind.   Neither a simple prayer nor an intellectual assent is effectual.   If you are not touched to your very heart by the depth of your sin and the uselessness of your own will and abilities and see it all as worthless compared to Christ and unless you do indeed receive forgiveness for sins and give allegiance in not just your mind but your heart then you will not be likely be "born again."   There is a literal translation from a sinner with a dead spirit to a saint with the Spirit of the Living God within.    To explain this to an unbeliever is hard because you will find it far harder to "grok" than a mathematician considering the incompleteness theorem.   There must be a complete surrender within of both heart and mind to the God of the Universe and the work of Christ in order to actually be "born again" and going to church or saying prayers or reading the Bible or acting like a Christian is of no use otherwise.



Romans 10:9-13 (New International Version, ©2011)

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[a] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[b]
Footnotes:
  1. Romans 10:11 Isaiah 28:16 (see Septuagint)
  2. Romans 10:13 Joel 2:32
  
To summarize the work of the Discovery Institute, you need to understand that they are an organization focused strictly on evidence and not philosophy nor religious concerns.   They have discovered overwhelming evidence for design within the cell because of the information contained within and the manifold sophisticated systems and also the as-yet not fully understood process of reproduction and many other cellular functions as well.   Science is still learning about organisms and frankly science is still learning from organisms.  You will not find commenters providing you with much actual evidence for macroevolution because they do not have it to give.   I am thankful for the existence of the Discovery Institute because they are continually publishing papers and other media that are all about the evidence, no just-so stories included.  

21 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"Illustra Media produces video documentaries that examine the scientific case for intelligent design."

Translation: it's a front group for creationism and other forms of pseudoscience.

"Intelligent Design is a scientific movement dedicated to --"

-- destroying the entire concept of science, by assuming the conclusion before they start, and throwing out any evidence that doesn't fit their predetermined conclusions.

No wonder you like them so much, Radar. You do the same thing all the time.

And why do you insist on using your personal religious conversion as evidence that Intelligent Design and Creationism are valid scientific theories?

Anonymous said...

Since this apparently is all about YouTube videos; here's another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMUr0ARo4AE

Anonymous whatsit said...

Could any of the advocates of either ID or creationism around here please present the verifiable, falsifiable claims on which they are based?

radar said...

anonymous whatsit needs to read my previous blog posts and also watch the you tubes and engage the brain.

Jon Woolf's continual stream of authoritative empty assertions would be comical as they are usually pointed at my side but they represent his side. Darwinism is the compilation of empty claims and no evidence. Darwinism is the religion-driven baseless drivel.

My personal conversion is not used to tie anything to ID.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

If you keep endorsing websites that spread lies, who are you to tell others that they need to 'engage the brain'?

It seems your pride still is a major obstacle for you.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"anonymous whatsit needs to read my previous blog posts and also watch the you tubes and engage the brain."

That's not even a good evasion. Fact of the matter is that you have no verifiable, falsifiable claims that confirm creation.

I had a look at some of the Youtube videos above, and it's just the same old lame old fallacies. How to make an atheists' head explode? By pretending that there is a scientific law that says that every effect has a cause. Wow. Except there is no such law. Simple logic fail. And that's the sole argument that that Youtube video is based on.

Anonymous said...

"Jon Woolf's continual stream of authoritative empty assertions would be comical as they are usually pointed at my side but they represent his side. Darwinism is the compilation of empty claims and no evidence. Darwinism is the religion-driven baseless drivel."

I think most readers here will recall that you're enable to come up with answers to, what, a dozen or so questions that all falsify YEC that Jon Woolf has presented to you over and over again. And here you are with nothing but derision to offer and talk of "empty claims and no evidence". Okay then.

radar said...

Since Jon Woolf has done nothing to falsify YEC then, yes, we are okay then. I post lots of valid information, he makes a few snarks and empty declarations and the blog moves on.

Anyone who cannot see that both Creationism and ID are valid scientific hypotheses is blind or propagandized or both.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who cannot see that both Creationism and ID are valid scientific hypotheses is blind or propagandized or both."

You might as well disable comments now. Because after a statement like that, why would anyone bother do debate with you?

You have already made up your mind. It doesn't matter what people say or what evidence they present to you; you'll simply dismiss it right away.

Jon Woolf said...

"Since Jon Woolf has done nothing to falsify YEC then"

Nothing, Gracie?

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for paleosols, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the sequential nature of the fossil record, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for weathered and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the anomalous distribution of living organisms, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for genetic anomalies such as the 'stuck-together' human chromosome #2, Radar?

Tell us, what's the YEC explanation for genetic bottlenecks ... or rather, the lack thereof in 99+% of living organisms, save for a very few glaring examples like the cheetah?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and pterosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

These and other questions have been posed to you repeatedly over the last year, and you haven't managed to answer even one of them.

The no-young-isotopes phenomenon alone is sufficient to disprove young-earth creationism.

highboy said...

Got some questions about this ya'll:

1. What is the beef with ID? Most here, even the dissenters, have already made clear that one can believe in God the Creator and still believe in an old earth and even evolution, so what is the problem with ID and why are so many saying its ridiculous? Or when you object to "ID", is it an objection to the concept of a creator or simply the subject of ID as a scientific theory?

2. What is the beef with a designer at all? I've heard arguments about "bad design" but unless we can read the motives of a Creator we have no way of determining if that design is exactly how its suppose to be or not. I believe one of the anonymous posters said something similar.

3. While the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, (depending on which side you're on) in regards to ID may be objectionable to some as it pertains to science, but I fail to see how its not perfectly logical to conclude that something supernatural (or someone) is responsible for creation.

4. What does ID have to do with YEC?

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

1 - The correct question to ask is: what beef does ID have with the Theory of Evolution? After all, its the ID folks that attack an accepted scientific theory.

2 - Well, is there actually a designer to have a beef with?

3 - If you already assume things are 'created' I guess its logical that there is a creator. But not everyone assumes this; it is a purely individual conclusion.

4 - Nothing with YOUNG Earth Creationism per sé, but there is a clear connection with creationism. If you want to know how and why you might do a Google search for the word 'cdesign proponentsists'.

radar said...

Who cares if any Discovery Institute people are Christians or not? It is about evidence.

Who cares if lots of people have "accepted" Darwinism? Didn't your mother tell you that if your buddies jump off a cliff it doesn't mean you have to do it, too?

It should worry you that Darwinists have to have organizations designed to stamp out opposition. Read some Orwell, people! If they are using so many resources trying to shut up those who oppose Darwinism instead of using evidence to support Darwinism it tells you that they don't have the evidence.

You don't throw rocks when you have ammunition for your guns. Darwinism doesn't have the bullets, so to speak. It is a concept developed when the structure of the cell was unknown and based on an ancient Greek axiom that was entirely speculative. Darwinism is basically secular humanism pretending to be science and trying to fend off new findings in the realm of organisms by closing their ears and saying "nonononononononononononono!" But the truth hurts. Cells have information and cells are designed. Deal with it instead of trying to bury it.

Anonymous said...

*yawn*

Whatever Radar. If that rant makes you happy.

Meanwhile, the world moves on...

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who cannot see that both Creationism and ID are valid scientific hypotheses is blind or propagandized or both."

Thank you for retreating. You're correct on the hypothesis part. Unfortunately not so much on the "valid" and "scientific" part.

ID is not testable, so it remains a speculative hypothesis. That alone doesn't mean it is ultimately wrong, but it is outside the bounds of science.

Creationism is a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable, but as far as it is falsifiable, it is also falsified. So it is a discounted scientific hypothesis.

Radar, you were presented with these arguments before, and now all you have to offer in return is derision. You know what they (being you) say about derision, right?

Anonymous said...

"1. What is the beef with ID? Most here, even the dissenters, have already made clear that one can believe in God the Creator and still believe in an old earth and even evolution, so what is the problem with ID and why are so many saying its ridiculous? Or when you object to "ID", is it an objection to the concept of a creator or simply the subject of ID as a scientific theory? "

The problem with ID is that it is not a testable hypothesis. People like Radar routinely overstate what ID is capable of proving, which as it happens is nothing. ID consists of little more than arguments from incredulity and a general "god of the gaps" argument.

The concept of a creator is certainly compatible with all of modern science, though there's no evidence of any divine hands-on activity. It's Radar's narrow and unsupportable YEC story that clashes with observable evidence.

Anonymous said...

"2. What is the beef with a designer at all? I've heard arguments about "bad design" but unless we can read the motives of a Creator we have no way of determining if that design is exactly how its suppose to be or not. I believe one of the anonymous posters said something similar. "

That's right. Barring any knowledge of the motives or working methods of the designer, it's a dead end scientifically speaking. If it's a good design: God did it. If it's a bad design: God did it. Now what?

Organisms having functionality is explained equally by evolution and creation, though in evolution we have something we can investigate.

Radar has claimed more than once that believing in a creator and conscious design would improve scientific discoveries, but since, as you pointed out, we don't know the motives of such a creator, this assumption wouldn't help us at all.

Anonymous said...

"3. While the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, (depending on which side you're on) in regards to ID may be objectionable to some as it pertains to science, but I fail to see how its not perfectly logical to conclude that something supernatural (or someone) is responsible for creation. "

It's not illogical, but it's not possible for science to explore it.

And who's to say that the process of evolution itself is not God's design?

Anonymous said...

"4. What does ID have to do with YEC?"

Very little, except people like Radar like to co-opt ID because it "feels" like science.

Anonymous said...

"Who cares if any Discovery Institute people are Christians or not? It is about evidence."

So not worldviews then. Good.

"Who cares if lots of people have "accepted" Darwinism? Didn't your mother tell you that if your buddies jump off a cliff it doesn't mean you have to do it, too?"

Agree with you there.

"It should worry you that Darwinists have to have organizations designed to stamp out opposition."

What exactly would you call Creation.com, the Disco Institute, Answers in Genesis etc.? All anti-evolution propaganda.

"Read some Orwell, people! If they are using so many resources trying to shut up those who oppose Darwinism instead of using evidence to support Darwinism it tells you that they don't have the evidence."

See above. You sure you want to pursue this line of argument?

In any case, it's logically incorrect. What tells you that someone doesn't have the evidence... is if they don't have the evidence.

Anonymous said...

"You don't throw rocks when you have ammunition for your guns."

Then how about you aim your guns at Jon Woolf's questions above instead of throwing little pebbles at them?

"Darwinism doesn't have the bullets, so to speak."

The theory of evolution has plenty of bullets, which is why it's the currently accepted scientific theory, with falsifiable predictions confirmed by observable evidence.

"It is a concept developed when the structure of the cell was unknown and based on an ancient Greek axiom that was entirely speculative."

... and subsequently fleshed out into the modern synthesis. It is no longer entirely speculative, but supported by evidence in many different scientific disciplines.

"Darwinism is basically secular humanism pretending to be science and trying to fend off new findings in the realm of organisms by closing their ears and saying "nonononononononononononono!" But the truth hurts."

Derision is not an argument. Come up with arguments instead of logical fallacies and ranting derision.

"Cells have information and cells are designed. Deal with it instead of trying to bury it."

The former is true and explained by modern science. The latter is unsupported conjecture. No burying needed.