Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID Foundations, 18 (video): Dr Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute presents the case for Intelligent Design (with particular reference to OoL)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here, HT WK:

[youtube NbluTDb1Nfs]

Take an hour and a half to learn what ID is about (yes, what it is really about [and cf. here at UD for correctives to common strawman distortions . . . ]), with particular focus on the origin of cell based life [OoL], through watching a public presentation in the UK from a leading ID thinker, Stephen Meyer.

Notice the distinction he underscores relative to the common demonising rhetorical projection of “Right-wing Fundamentalist theocratic agendas” etc.

I clip from the video:

Meyer’s summary of the design inference

Let me also draw in the design inference explanatory filter considered on a per aspect basis, as was presented in the very first post in the ID Foundations series:

The per aspect explanatory filter that shows how design may be inferred on empirically tested, reliable sign
The per aspect explanatory filter that shows how design may be inferred on empirically tested, reliable sign

(NB: Observe Meyer here, on ID’s scientific bona fides.)

It is probably also helpful to add the following, from a reply by Meyer to a hostile review of his book, Signature in the Cell. (It seems that things have got worse over the past few years, we used to have no-views — hostile pretended “reviews” of books not read — now we have hostile no-views of books not yet published.)

Clipping:

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of  functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). [–> Notice the usage] Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . .  In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion]  Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk [[the hostile reviewer], nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . .

Food for thought.

Foundational. END

Comments
'traditional Christianity' - a "small subset of intelligent design"!!! With that, the case rests. Happy Sunday in America, folks! = )Gregory
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
@Gregory: Intelligent design too broad of a term to distance itself from any ills of society. However there are small subsets of intelligent design, which actually can do such a thing. For instance, traditional Christianity: - They follow the teachings of Jesus. - They do not engage in idol-worshipping. - They do not fight in wars (today they are mainly waged by atheists, muslims and trinitarian "objectivists"). - They do not engage in man-made politics. - They hate sin and they love the sinner. - ...JWTruthInLove
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
"You’re a philosophical naturalist, or at least you accept the premises of philosophical naturalism in order to “protect” science." No, DonaldM, I am not a 'philosophical naturalist.' I'm not even a 'methodological naturalist,' even though I study human beings, both 'nature' and 'character.' Of course, that doesn't stop you from making accusations and spewing prejudices, but it doesn't show well on IDists when you do this. lpadron #106 - Not at UD. I don't consider this a balanced site. It is generally not truth seeking, but rather ideology spreading. Most people at UD are too scientistic in their support for the necessary 'scientificity' of 'Intelligent Design Theory' to conduct an honest dialogue. A very few don't insist on the scientificity of ID, but that distinguishes them from ID leaders, who are really the only ones I take somewhat seriously in the IDM. #107 - I called out Stephen C. Meyer (topic of this thread) and UD's 'Joe' wants to 'battle' for him! How many armchair wannabes are there in the IDM who speak as if they know while regurgitating IDist books and videos? ID leaders are far too rhetorically crafty and selective with their PR strategy today to face actual challenges to the 'movement' they lead. It is not in their best interest to do what Meyer agreed with Fuller about regarding 'theodicy' - it would destroy the 'Wedge' strategy. I saw many failures and expressions of 'Expelled Syndrome' of the IDM from within, at the DI. Perhaps the time will come for engagement with one or some of them again, but that time is not now. More serious scholarship and more important work remains to be done. BA77: "But Gregory how should any of this be possible if ‘mind’ is merely emergent from the brain as neo-Darwinism holds?" This sounds like a 'blame everything on Darwinism' ideology. As a Christian, BA77, you could compose a laundry list of 'guilty' people for the brain --> mind position. No mercy is what you show to a 19th c. figure from Down. At the DI's summer program in the social sciences and humanities session, you folks probably wouldn't believe the number of social 'maladies' the DI blames on 'Darwinism.' Actually, you probably would because that is the same mimicked myopia often demonstrated here. It is really quite astonishing how humanisticially myopic the DI is in blaming Darwin! And they don't employ a single sociologist!!! To repeat what was said above: Darwin didn’t refute ‘the design argument.’ But that ‘design argument’ is worldview / theological apologetics, it is not ‘natural science.’ Most theists (certainly the vast majority of Abrahamic believers) accept one or another variety of ‘the design argument.’ But that is something very different from gulping down (all rights reserved) ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ as Meyer promotes it in the bowels of Seattle’s politically-aligned Discovery Institute – Director as he is of the Center (for the Renewal of) Science and Culture.Gregory
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Thanks for the clip about the musical prodigy, Philip. What was it that prompted it? In another connection, to return to that hilarious 2+2 = 4, dressed up as advanced mathematics: '‘The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.’ Its sententious tone and epigrammatic brevity lend a real pungency to the irony, don't they? As if heavy sarcasm was all but obscured from view, as we watch 'twinkle-toes' ballet-shoes 'tripping the light fantastic', oblivious to what's above them. And yet, Henry Quastler could not have been more serious, or more justifiably so. Science is an unusual faculty within the Academy, in that it has an infants' school wing, which many of today's leading lights apparently attend on a regular basis, to garner inspiration for their hypotheses. My favourite, I think, is the one where nothing turns itself into everything. On the other hand, a five-year old could be smarter....Axel
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
I was there a couple of times. And NZ, too. Both great, great countries. But when you're young, the grass in the other field is always greener. Until you get back there and remember why you left! Did your daughter say what impressed her particularly about Hobart or Tasmania? I was only ever in South Australia, for a brief time in NSW and West Australia. My mother, sister and step-father had been in Queensland and NT. What a character my step-father, Vince, was. He'd been a speedway rider, served in the Black Watch, then the commandos throughout the WWII, then Palestine. And when he was injured he served as Mountbatten's bodyguard. (I don't read anything sinister into that..!). And he was only about five foot three or four. If that. Though broad with it. It's always puzzled me how those regiments of wee, Glaswegian keelies must have fared so well in bayonet charges, given their reputation. In NT, he was crocodile shooting!Axel
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Science, of course, is not in the business of proof. (And I here show that I do not see mathematics as properly a Science, though it is often hosted in science faculties for convenience. Maybe, next door to computing.) Science provides explanations that are empirically well warranted, relative to reliable and for preference repeatable observations. Such are inherently provisional and tentative in principle, though well tested findings carry great reliability. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Fair enough, Axel. Those two comments just seemed a little, well, spaced. You're from Oz? My daughter was out in Australia until recently. She was in Hobart for quite a while and tells me Tasmania is "amazing".Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Cocktail hour? I wouldn't know, Reynard. I don't come from a background which might in some degree be characterised by imbibing such sophisticated blends of p*ss (in Aussie parlance, at least).Axel
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Gregory writes: (in post 76)
Going a necessary step further than DonaldM #75, what ‘scientific’ proof is there of how an ‘intelligent/Intelligent agent/Agent’ through ‘directed, purposeful’ forces of matter and energy over eons of time (thank goodness he’s not a YEC!) ‘produced’ information? Specifically, please address the when, where, how, why and who questions.
Interesting Gregory puts this way asking "scientific" proof. You do realize Gregory that you're assuming the very point at issue, otherwise known as the fallacy of begging the question. You clearly adhere to a definition of science that is entirely built on naturalism...as in philosophical naturalism...full blown. So, perhaps you could explain how you know scientifically (by your own definition of science) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle. Let me emphasize I'm looking for only SCIENCE here. I have no interest whatsoever in you philosophy, metaphysics or theology. What scientific experiments have been conducted and by whom to confirm this hypothesis? Where can I find this reported in the relevant peer reviewed scientific journals? And I'd love to know how this hypothesis might be falsified. Please provide all the SCIENTIFIC detail you wish! That, or be intellectually honest enough to admit that your definition of what is and is not science is informed by your philosophical (ie NOT scientific) premise, which I completely reject. Gregory continues:
Asking Nick M. to do the work for ID’s decrepit explanatory power is inexcusable. Most people, including theists who have looked carefully and in depth at ‘ID theory’ as well as agnostics and atheists, reject the claims of ID as a ‘natural scientific’ proof/inference of ‘Intelligence’ in the universe. Most people believe ‘Intelligence’ in the universe based on faith, not on ‘natural science.’ ID theory is ‘distorted’in trying to naturalise faith. Meyer is a proponent of this fuzzy theism parading as an implication of ‘natural scientific’ proof.
"Most people"??? And pray tell how did you make that determination? Where is that survey? Who conducted it? Where can I find it in the relevant peer reviewed journals? And you're so completely wrong about Meyer that its not even worthy of a response. When you continually refer to "natural scientific" proof, you give away the game. You're a philosophical naturalist, or at least you accept the premises of philosophical naturalism in order to "protect" science. Great. Wonderful. As it pertains to this discussion...who cares! If you have some actual science, even using your own definition of science (which is highly flawed to start with), then please present it...sans philosophy!DonaldM
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
It looks like Robin gets it:
Evolution, as I understand it, doesn’t search. It isn’t looking for anything. It provides a mechanism for biological variation that is either useful, neutral, or detrimental to biological entities in given environments. The environments as well are variable, thus there is an incredible array of biological/ecological combination sampling, along with an incredible array of biological/functionality sampling. But in no case is evolution “looking” for any given outcome, combination, or characteristic. Either an outcome works, or it doesn’t.
Bingo! However that is definitely not a designer mimic. It has no hope of ever producing new protein machinery. That would be left to sheer dumb luck. And that ain't science.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
And when all else fails, just lie:
It has been shown that what IDists call “CSI” can easily be produced by well-known undirected, non-foresighted processes.
What a load [SNIP-- Joe, caution on language]. But I wouldn't expect anything else from that ilk...Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Alan, keiths agrees with me:
Actually, evolution is blind, in the sense that mutations happen randomly with no regard to their utility for the organism. Evolution has no foresight.
Bingo! Then it goes south:
What matters is the local structure: how are needles distributed in the vicinity of the needles that have already been ‘occupied’ by evolution?
The whole point is there aren't any needles in the vicinity. But yeah, if you artificially place needles all around blind and undirected processes will most likely stumble upon one. But then he totally blows it:
1. He assumes that the initial replicator is hopelessly complicated,we make no such assumption and that the haystack is therefore enormous, but he gives no justification for this bogus assumption.
WRONG- and you can't even demonstrate blind and undirected chemical processes can A) produce a simple self-replicator and B) take that simple starting point and make it more and more complex. Ya see keiths, it is all about positive evidence. And that is something you sorely lack and it bothers you so you have to make stuff up and attack that. And again, there isn't any search and there isn't any exploration- Unguided evolution is as I said “whatever happens and if it isn’t fatal it may stay”. Deal with it.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Is it the cocktail hour where you are, now, Axel?Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Well, the alphabet is 'elementary common sense' in that it's elementary and used to convey mutually-intelligible information.Axel
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
ID is so obvious and incontrovertible - as the most elementary common sense, not as 'faith', as, I think, Greg, claimed in one post; as elementary as 2 + 2 = 4 ... the alphabet, that that quote at the top of the page, of Henry Quastler, had me in hysterics. It just sounds so understated and ironic. I mean these words: 'The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, really...? ROFLAxel
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
I see keiths has clarified his point for you, joe.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Poor clueless Robin:
Why in the world would I provide a reference for something I never claimed or accepted? Of course there’s no reference for “blind watchmaker or unguided Evolution”; you made the name up.
LoL! Keiths is using unguided evolution and dawkins gave us blind watchmaker evolution. Only an arse would say that I made them up and here we have Robin. Geez evolutionism posits accumulations of genetic accidents, Robin
And yet oddly, you can’t – contrary to your previous claim – provide a reference for your supposed “Intelligent Design Evolution”.
What do you think ID is? Do you think that your ignorance of your opponent's position is a refutation?
Here’s an actual reference to the Theory of Evolution as I understand it and accept it.
That is a reference to some vague claim of evolution. And a claim that ID is OK with. As for rebutting keiths' comment- he doesn't say anything that can be supported. It is all a bald assertion. BTW I never said evolution was looking for a goal. That is the whole point, duh. There isn't any search. there isn't any exploration. Whatever survives to reproduce is all it is. "Directed by the relative survival"? What is that?Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Robin's big comeback:
A) There is no reference to anything called “Intelligent Design Evolution” in any scientific textbook or journal that I can find. Please provide a scientific reference that describes what this is.
There is no reference to anything called “blind watchmaker or unguided Evolution” in any scientific textbook or journal that I can find. Please provide a scientific reference that describes what this is. Good luck with that.
B) Define “blind” as you are using it above.
The same way that Coyne, Dawkins et al., use it. Here, eat this: Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless And I have noticed that you haven't supported your claim. How typical. So here we have Robin, eating worms again. Yum, yum.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
F/N: When we see people trying to argue that the "blind watchmaker" mindless chance variation driven processes THEIR SIDE HAS PUT FORWARD are "not blind" -- not non- foresighted -- that takes the cake.kairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Re AF (& KS):
Evolution explores the haystack by starting from the current needle and exploring the points in the haystack that it can reach from there. If it finds a needle at any of those reachable points, then it proceeds to search from the new needle.
This is a summary of body plan adaptation micro evolution, not a summary of body plan origination macro evo. It also ducks the pivotal case the root of the tree of life, OOL. The key search issue -- as repeatedly highlighted, just ignored -- is that complex functional specificity [nodes and arcs structure encoded requires 500+ structured yes/no decisions to give the node list, i.e. 500 bits of FSCO/I . . . about 3 followed by 150 0's, or the number of H/T possibilities for 500 coins in a line] sharply constrains the number of possible, feasible configs. That is, we have islands of function or isolated [clusters of] needles in our haystack. One which BTW, is at the 500 bit threshold, 1,000 light years thick -- the thickness of our galaxy -- and where the atomic resources of our 10^57 atom solar system running at maximum generous speed for atomic level interactions [10^-14 s], for the lifespan of the solar system [10^17 s], are able to pick just one blind straw sized sample to hit a desired clump. (Substitute stars and planets by superposing the hay stack on our galactic neighbourhood and you see that having a large no of quite big clumps -- the sun is IIRC 800,00 mi across, earth 8,000, etc -- does not solve the problem at all, once we have THAT much config space to deal with. Solar systems are on average several light years apart, e.g. Proxima Centauri is 4.3 LY away. 1 LY is the distance light -- which takes 8 min 20 s to pass 92 Mn miles form the sun -- travels in a year, i.e. 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters, or about 10 * 10^12 km or 6*10^12 miles. So, "straw" -- gibberish -- utterly dominates the space. Recall, a 500 bit space read as ASCII text will have every possible 73 character ascii string in English in it, as just one thing in it. Every possible sentence or phrase with 73 characters is in that stack!) The problem is not to move around in a clump of needles, but to get to the clump. The implicit assumption in the tree of life metaphor and analogy, is that there is a vast continent of incrementally accessible function in body plan space. But of this, -- as the problem of mutual matching and coordinated arrangement and coupling brings out -- that is not to be expected by the nature of the functional organisation challenge. With protenome space we know that there is a major problem of getting to folding AA sequences, with evidence pointing to 1 in 10^64 or so or worse. You can try to dismiss the evidence all you want, it is there. The assumption of a continent has no evidence. Getting to the next level, the actual fossil record reflects this. Yes there is an imposition of a tree structure, indeed one is written into software for molecular trees (which conflict from one tree to the next), but that is not what he fossils say. There are now 1/4 million plus fossil species, millions of individuals in museums, and billions in the beds all over the earth from all the claimed ages of life. They show a strongly stamped pattern of discrete forms, adaptations of forms, and jumps between forms. this is usually summed up as sudden appearance, stasis and disappearance. Let me clip W. Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste in PNAS:
Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation . . . [[Abstract, "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis," PNAS February 13, 2007 vol. 104 no. 7 2043-2049.]
Poof goes the favourite tree of life icon of evolution, as I pointed out seven months ago in the essay challenge. In short, there is simply no coherent reason to accept the tree of incrementally advantageous variations spanning a vast continent of functional forms. BUT BECAUSE OF A DOMINANT EVOLUTIONARY MATERIALIST SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, THIS IS IMPOSED, IS TAUGHT AND IS OFTEN BELIEVED. So, what is an alternative? Let the kangaroo genome speak, as has been pointed out recently but as usual inconvenient facts are ignored in the rush to push the usual talking points. So here is ABC Au, citing Professor Jenny Graves, outgoing director of the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for Kangaroo Genomics :
The tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), was the model kangaroo used for the genome mapping. Like the o'possum, there are about 20,000 genes in the kangaroo's genome, Graves says. That makes it about the same size as the human genome, but the genes are arranged in a smaller number of larger chromosomes. "Essentially it's the same houses on a street being rearranged somewhat," Graves says. "In fact there are great chunks of the [[human] genome sitting right there in the kangaroo genome."
Remember, marsupials and placentals are supposed to have branched 150 MYA, and that is about twice as long ago as T Rex et al. In short we are here seeing a known design pattern, code libraries, with code reuse and modification. But then why let mere evidence and facts interfere with a perfectly good ideology of a priori evolutionary materialism, it seems. Sadly telling. No wonder Johnson's rebuke to Lewontin's a priori imposition of materialism on origins science is so apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Robin sez:
Earth to Joe – evolution is not blind.
Intelligent Design Evolution is not blind. Unguided evolution is blind, mindless and without purpose. I can provide references to support my claims.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Umm a blind search is NOT a targeted search. And neither you nor keiths can support what he said. Also unguided and blind exploration is a contradiction.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Yes Alan, the two are interchangeable, just as the definition I provided says.
Wonderful demonstration, which I hope others are observing, of why those who introduce a term should provide a definition to avoid misunderstanding. Now, it is clear to me that, in the context of Keiths' comment:
In terms of the needle and haystack metaphor, the problem faced by evolution isn’t to find needles by probing random locations throughout the entire haystack — that would be a blind search — but something quite different. Evolution explores the haystack by starting from the current needle and exploring the points in the haystack that it can reach from there. If it finds a needle at any of those reachable points, then it proceeds to search from the new needle.
I suspect that keith is making a distinction between a targetted search and an unguided exploration (random walk) around the reachable space (bridgable from one viable allele and its expressed protein to another.) I am sure keiths will clarify for us. Words are an imperfect way of conveying meaning, even when there is a genuine effort at communication.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Yes Alan, the two are interchangeable, just as the definition I provided says. Do you know how to read, Alan? search: 1-To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
You can search just to see what you will find, if anything.
That's exploring, Joe.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Alan, You don't have to search for something specific. You can search just to see what you will find, if anything. Alan doesn't seem to understand the English language. But yes, I agree and have said that with unguided evolution is more like stumbling upon something. However that ain't going to get you anywhere.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
There doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between searching and exploring.
Joe can't seem to read the definitions he quotes. A search involves looking for something specific; a target. An exploration is serendipity. Evolutionary processes "stumble upon" possibilities.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Gregory:
As an aside, if Eric Anderson stepped in the ring with me, he’d be busted up so badly in the first round that he’d want to stay seated on his chair and not stand up for a second.
I will gladly step in the ring with you, Gregory.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Gregory, I'm with Mr. Matzke on this one. Please tell us of your experiences with the Discovery Institute and please be *very* specific about the simple questions Dr. Meyer could not answer.lpadron
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Dr. James Tour rejects ID theory – doesn’t think it is scientific.
It meets the criteria for being scientific. Perhaps if Tour provided valid reasoning we would listen. Until then why should we?Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply