Stephen C. Meyer — WORLD MAGAZINE’s Person of the Year

_{William Dembski

December 5, 2009

Culture, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Meyer on Cover of WORLD Terrific News about Steve Meyer making the cover of WORLD MAGAZINE as their person of the year for 2009.# Much deserved! Steve has considerable visibility in the ID movement, but I’ve known him over the years as well for his indefatigable work behind the scenes to make ID into a thriving intellectual and cultural force. Many of the initiatives and projects that have signally blessed the ID movement have been at his instance (for instance, it was his vision that propelled the video UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF LIFE, which has spawned a host of other videos).

Stephen C. Meyer

#Meyer is the second ID proponent to receive this award. Phil Johnson did in 2003.

Comments

But then you demand that Dr. Meyer should have explored the possibilities that metals could have played in the origin of life. You write “All Axe has proven is that proteins alone are unlikely to have been a beginning. But metals are better at chemistry and they could have been the starting point.
Metals are better at chemistry that what? Chemists? Biochemists? Non-metals?Mung_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

I also found it somewhat interesting that you posted a 2000-word review, but spent well over 850 of those words setting up how open-minded you are, talking about yourself, and complaining that the author didn’t get to the point.
LOL!Mung_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

siis, You had asked for comments on the review of Stephen Meyer's book posted at the blog of Prof Ben McFarland (Seattle Pacific University) I posted my comments there, but who knows if they'll see the light of day. - - - - - - Ben, I enjoyed your review of Signature in the Cell. After such a dramatic open – where you go out of your way to show how intellectually disposed you are to the idea – I was anticipating a real challenge to the evidence. Unfortunately, you didn’t give one. In fact, I read your review as rather manufactured and petty. I also found it somewhat interesting that you posted a 2000-word review, but spent well over 850 of those words setting up how open-minded you are, talking about yourself, and complaining that the author didn’t get to the point. What was left of your critique seems trivial. It’s as if there was a need to be as uncharitable as possible in order to make up for the lack of anything resembling a real critique. For instance, on page 248 of the book the author writes “the discovery of 17 variant genetic codes” and then goes on to make the point that this offers rather conclusive evidence that there is not just a single set of codon-amino acid assignments. This conclusion flows directly from the evidence itself. But you return with “These are alternate codes that are exceptions that prove the rule: there is really one code and everything else is a slight variant of it, at most.” I noted your use of the word “variant” as a descriptive term, and then noticed Dr. Meyer’s use of the word “variant” as the same descriptive term. I was left wondering what the big issue was. You are of course welcome to characterize them as “alternate codes” if you wish (and I doubt anyone including Dr Meyer would disagree). Yet, it is these small potatoes you described as the author making “frequent distortions of the biochemical facts”. It truly makes one wonder who is offering up the distortions. In another of your bullet points you write “Later you claim that DNA is information-neutral” and then you immediately agree with him on that claim. Then you write “But then you claim that because of this there can be no bias toward information” and then once again you immediately agree with him. Then the very next thing you do is deride him for the comments you just agreed with, and label it “tunnel vision on DNA”. This is another example of rather poor form on your part, and it characterizes most of what you had to say. In yet another bullet point you say “The claims that nucleotides are hard to assemble are outdated in one fell swoop by the recent paper”. This is another comment of poor value. The group that synthesized an RNA molecule succeeded only after more than a decade of trying, and succeeded only by means of significant experimenter intervention at repeated steps along the process. Seeming to perhaps appreciate the issues better than you, Robert Shapiro (professor emeritus of chemistry at NYU) commented that “Although as an exercise in chemistry this represents some very elegant work, this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever”. He went on to say “The chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely”. Finally, in your closing remarks regarding Douglas Axe’s work you start by complaining “I'm still a little annoyed that Axe spoke at the recent ASA meeting but no audio was posted for his talk. Do you want scientists like me to believe your work or not?” Once again, the pettiness comes through loud and clear, and one has to remind themselves that this is supposedly a book review – about a book. You go on to say that Axe’s work is fine on its own merit, and then say “You're arguing that a protein must be 150 residues long and made only of amino acids to work. I agree, that's improbable that something like that would just come together”. But then you demand that Dr. Meyer should have explored the possibilities that metals could have played in the origin of life. You write “All Axe has proven is that proteins alone are unlikely to have been a beginning. But metals are better at chemistry and they could have been the starting point. There is no mention of this possibility anywhere in the 600 pages” I am wondering why you feel it was incumbent on Dr Meyer to go off into pure conjecture and speculation about metals. I am certain he already had a thesis to put forward and was doing so. And as a final dig at the author you say “Look, I want to believe, but you have to help my unbelief by demonstrating something, not by just taking the most difficult thing we can find, saying it's unexplained, and saying "now you have to believe what I say." No, actually, I don't.” This of course, is not just silly; it’s intellectually pathetic as well. First and foremost, there is not a single moment in the book that Dr Meyer says anything even close to resembling what you’ve ascribed to him. The quote you make doesn’t exist, you simply made it up. Not only does the comment not exist, but Dr Meyer went out of his way to say nothing like that, and in fact directly addressed your assertion on virtually every page of the book. One might wonder…for someone who tries so hard to let it be known he wants to “believe”, what drove you to such low-brow means to show that you don’t. It comes off looking a lot more like a simple refusal than anything else.Upright BiPed_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Has Meyer addressed the critical review posted on the blog of Biochemistry Professor (and Christian) Benjamin McFarland from Seattle Pacific University: http://arrowthroughthesun.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-signature-in-cell.html Much of it was over my head. Any biochemists here or others with thoughts?siis_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

lryna, I consider all living things to be agents as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting what the observable evidence can and cannot be allowed to say. Does the “Darwinist stage” have to have empirical evidence behind its conclusions? And what if the central overarching conclusion demands that material is all that there is? How would we test that? And what do we do with the evidence to the contrary?Upright BiPed_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, I'm what you might call a young bitch at this game, so please do me a favor and tell me what 'agency' means to you in this conversation. I consider all organisms as 'agents', so to me they are all players on the Darwinist stage.IrynaB_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Graham,
To Upright Biped: I’ll leave the God stuff to you.
Really? Look back at my posts on this thread and find where I posted anything about a God prior to your comment addressing the topic to me. It’s a short thread, it shouldn’t be too much to ask you to cut and paste my comments. Didn’t find any? Now look through your comments, and tell me again how you'll leave that topic up to me.
Regarding your list: chance, law, and agency, I dont think Science rejects the supernatural
Let me parse this apart… "Regarding (my) list: chance, law, and agency..." You want to make a comment about something not on the list? Then may I suggest at this point it simply becomes your list instead?
…(science) simply ignores it
Yes, science ignores the supernatural…that is why there are so many books on the subject written by scientist and science writers. It’s the same issue with the internet; its full of science blogs ignoring it too. They’re doing the same thing at their national association. They are strenuously ignoring all the time. As Berlinski once suggested, it’s what Freud referred to as “the return of the repressed” What would be a nice change is if science would indeed ignore the supernatural - or should I say, if science would stop enforcing its assumptions on the subject for the reasons I've already given - and simply returned to the observable evidence without prior demands on what the evidence can and cannot be allowed to say. That is what ID is attempting to do.
It leads to exactly the same place ID is in after 10+ years in the business: nowhere.
Perhaps you noticed Amazon’s Top Ten books for 2009 in the Science category.
However, you seem to have left off the most interesting and productive cause of all: variation + selection. Or did you omit it as a matter of priori ?
You may be new to these issues, so let me simply remind you that “variation + selection” is subsumed by “chance” and “law”. I wasn’t required to mention it separately because it was already included.
And Im writing this real sloooow.
Good. Now try thinking before you start. - - - - - - - Graham, let us cut to the chase... Is there a ubiquitous physical connection between cAMP and glucose, or not?Upright BiPed_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

To Upright Biped: I'll leave the God stuff to you. Regarding your list: chance, law, and agency, I dont think Science rejects the supernatural, as it simply ignores it because it is unproductive. It leads to exactly the same place ID is in after 10+ years in the business: nowhere. However, you seem to have left off the most interesting and productive cause of all: variation + selection. Or did you omit it as as a matter of priori ? And Im writing this real sloooow.Graham1_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

lyrna, I find it hard to believe that you are stymied by the words, contexts, and phrases used in this conversation. The Popperian in me might guess that you are an old hound at this game.Upright BiPed_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Graham,
When Upright Biped refers to ‘agency’, its a code word for God.
To say 'there is a God' is a metaphysical assumption. It is meta-physical because it is above and beyond what is physically available to us. There is no physical test for that which is not physical. To say 'there is not' a God is a metaphysical assumption as well. The reason is the same – there is no physical test for that which is not physical. It again, is just another metaphysical assumption. Do you have the capacity to understand this concept? It is, after all, not that hard to understand. If one cannot physically test the existence of something, then to say 'it is there' or 'it is not there' stems from the same physical test – there isn’t one. This is why ID does not make such a conclusion, Graham. The conclusion is not appropriate to science, or to scientific investigation. Again, is this simple concept beyond your level of comprehension? There is no physical test that can say there is or is not a God. So 'Yes God' or 'No God' is a question that can be safely left out of the conversation since (to all rational thinking people) it is understood that there is no physical test to answer the question either way. You are welcome to have your un-tested (and un-testable) metaphysical assumptions about the answer, as is everyone else. That however does not mean that we must then assign to chance and law those physical observations that are clearly beyond what chance and physical law can accomplish by any observation within our uniform experience of chance and law. To do so would end in twisted logic that states the following: Chance and physical law cannot account for X, therefore chance and physical law are the source of X That level of thinking may suit you, as it apparently does, but there is nothing that requires anyone else to consider it valid.Upright BiPed_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Steve is on of my academic heroes. While no man is good- as I believe in Christ's own words- Meyer is certainly to me one of the best minds that I have read. He deserves his props, honor and respect for the nasty tides of war that he has been fighting through for years.Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, perhaps you could give your definition of agency?IrynaB_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

To IrynaB: When Upright Biped refers to 'agency', its a code word for God.Graham1_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Geeez. There is truly no point of intellectual dishonesty to which materialist ideologues will not go in order to support their worldview. Shell games and child-like twists of logic are heartily included. But now I see … agency has been fully re-inserted into the causal chain of the natural world - after all, Sally likes strawberry ice cream, and Billy likes Suzie.Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

IrynaB: I don’t agree with you that Darwinism doesn’t allow for agency. Didn’t Darwin himself introduce the theory of sexual selection? According to this idea, it’s the agency (mate choice) of females (such as myself) that determine the evolution of certain male traits. Wouldn’t you say that’s an example of agency in Darwinism? Upright BiPed: Please allow me to repeat myself and perhaps be more clear in doing so. Darwinism is code for ideological materialism – meaning no agency allowed, period.
So apparently Charles Darwin was not a Darwinist (nor are most biologists at the "academy").Zachriel_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

lyrnaB, Are you really suggesting that Darwinism does in fact allow for agency operating in nature, and that this revelation is evidenced by the fact that differing sexes choose mates? Please allow me to repeat myself and perhaps be more clear in doing so. Darwinism is code for ideological materialism – meaning no agency allowed, period. This is not a poorly known subject of conversation, so I would hate to assume you only posted your comments as a means to argue over something that is not even in question. As I clearly stated: “Darwinism (as practiced at academy)”. My apologies if I confused you. Perhaps you want instead to argue that we can infer agency whenever we know the agent in advance? I would then wonder; do we not draw our inferences directly from the object of interest itself, or is it that we must (by the light of some testable assumption) defer to certain conclusions?Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
IT REMOVES A CAUSE KNOWN TO EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
If by agency you mean libertarian free will, to whom is it "known to exist in the natural world," or even known to be a coherent concept? And if you don't mean libertarian free will, then I don't see how it makes sense to trichotomize chance, law, and agency.R0b_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, thank you, I think I see what you mean now. You're saying that Darwinism removes agency as a cause known to exist in the natural world. Is it really a done deal that all causes can be classified as either law, chance or agency? Or perhaps some mixture of the three? If I make a cup of tea, what are the causes of the cup of tea? But I digress. To get back to your claim: I don't agree with you that Darwinism doesn't allow for agency. Didn't Darwin himself introduce the theory of sexual selection? According to this idea, it's the agency (mate choice) of females (such as myself) that determine the evolution of certain male traits. Wouldn't you say that's an example of agency in Darwinism?IrynaB_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

lrynaB, The cause is not design; design is not a cause. The causes known to operate in the natural world are chance, law, and agency. Humans have nothing to do with it.Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
The difference is that Darwinism (as practiced at academy) removes a cause known to exist in the natural world. Let me say that again in case I wrote it too fast for you: IT REMOVES A CAUSE KNOWN TO EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
I don't get it -- what cause is that? Design by humans?IrynaB_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Cabal, "If there’s a difference, please enlighten me." The difference is that Darwinism (as practiced at academy) removes a cause known to exist in the natural world. Let me say that again in case I wrote it too fast for you: IT REMOVES A CAUSE KNOWN TO EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD. It removes this cause as a matter of ideological priori, and it removes it prior to observation of the evidence (and even in spite of it). ID on the other hand, does not remove any cause as a matter of priori. All known causes are up for consideration based upon their explanatory value in relation to the observable evidence. "Why am I unable to see the difference between ID and ‘goddidit’?" Because you come here as a close-minded ideologue exercising your God complex with the "what I should think and say" plug-ins provided by those who trained you. In other words, its a choice.Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Cabal:
Darwinism, as in “The Scientific Theory of Evolution” says nothing about, and is not – just as ALL science for obvious reasons – is not in a position to say anything pro or con the existence of God.
I'm confused. Many interpret their Bible to declare that humanity, even the earth, universe and everything, was created in 6 days about 5,000 years ago. How can you suggest that science makes no comment about this? If you are saying that one's definition of God is flexible enough that no matter what science finds, there's still a dark corner of the universe somewhere where a "god" might be hiding, well, you're right. However, if one puts any sort of concrete characteristics upon his definition of god, then science suddenly does speak to it. After all, if science speaks to the existance of a God who created everything in 6 days 5,000 years ago, then science must speak to all other pre-estabished characteristics of god.bFast_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

just as Darwinism is friendly to atheism.
Darwinism, as in "The Scientific Theory of Evolution" says nothing about, and is not - just as ALL science for obvious reasons - is not in a position to say anything pro or con the existence of God. OTOH most if not all supporters of ID also embrace a book religion. Even the high priests of ID like Dembski or Behe hide their belief that the designer is God. ID has long since been unmasked as a proxy for God. Why am I unable to see the difference between ID and 'goddidit'? If there's a difference, please enlighten me.Cabal_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Gil Dodgen @20: Your comment might not be strictly on topic, but I found it deeply moving.Kontinental_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Hello PaulBurnett, Hope stephenB(21) clarified the issue.T. lise_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

Paul, the core of virtually all your comments on UD are religious in nature, and are often rather disconnected - much like the one on this thread: "Does this award illustrate that there is no connection between intelligent design and religion?" You then ignore the opportunity to debate down an ID proponent, while you hide behind a rather conspicuous Gish ad hom. The question remains: why do you make nothing but religious comments when its the non-religious observable evidence which challenges your priori? It seems like you would just give us the ubiquitous mechanical link between cAMP and glucose so those pesky evidentiary claims could be put to bed.Upright BiPed_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

---Paul Burnett: "Does this award illustrate that there is no connection between intelligent design and religion?" Does your question illustrate that you have not yet learned the difference between a scientist's world view or the world view of some of his supporters, as opposed to the methodology by which he draws his scientific conclusions?StephenB_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

It should be noted that there are some of us (such as Antony Flew and yours truly) who changed their minds regarding atheism/materialism, based on what we perceive to be compelling evidence of design in the cosmos and living things. In my case I went one step further than Flew and became a Christian, based on what I perceived to be an accurate depiction of the human condition as elucidated by Judeo-Christian theology (i.e., made in the image of God but in a fallen state, with no hope of rescuing ourselves in our own strength). I saw this condition in myself after some brutally honest introspection, and I saw it in history. All attempts at creating utopia through philosophies and political systems that deny the obvious, inherent fallen state of humanity have resulted in hell on earth. There was another major factor, of course, but that is another story.GilDodgen_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

"Upright BiPed" wrote: "Paul, It’s just as well; retreat suits you. Cowardism (retreat with an quick ad hominem to boot) suits you even more." A charge of "cowardism" from somebody who doesn't even use his real name here? A pointless insult is the best you can do? No refutation of anything I wrote? Come now, you can surely do better than that...or do you agree that my last few comments were not religiously motivated? (Because they weren't.)PaulBurnett_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Paul, It's just as well; retreat suits you. Cowardism (retreat with an quick ad hominem to boot) suits you even more.Upright BiPed_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply