Steve Meyer interview concerning his new book

_{William Dembski

May 30, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

This Sunday, May 30, Wilberforce Forum will feature a special online radio program featuring Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture. He’ll be discussing his new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, demonstrating that the digital code embedded in DNA points to a designing intelligence and brings into focus an issue that Darwin did not address.

Go to www.blogtalkradio.com/wilberforceforum at 6 pm EST, 3 pm PST this Sunday to listen, and ask Dr. Meyer a question by calling in or by posting in the conference forum online.

Comments

Note: In Firefox, click on the scroll wheel to open in a new tab. (I think this works in Safari and maybe Opera too; but check.)kairosfocus_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Does Meyer's book simply build upon his 1997 essay? http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Meyer.pdf Or are there differences between that essay and the argument he makes now?iskim labmildew_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

sparc, "Would it be possible to detect human design in genomes? Actually, it is possible to introduce mutations in genomes without leaving any traces." That may or may not be an interesting question. But the more relevant question is how physically inert language and meaning came into existence to animate life to begin with did.Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Nakashima @ 2 For the same result: Just right click the URL, and choose "Open [Link] in New Window".JGuy_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Since we are at it agai I would like to repeat a question I've asked in the recent Another important unexpected role for junk DNA thread and died get an answer: Would it be possible to detect human design in genomes? Actually, it is possible to introduce mutations in genomes without leaving any traces. Would ID be capable to detect such alterations that would be indeed intelligently designed? Or would a human induced change remain a droplet hidden in a sea of sequences designed by a more intelligent designer? Just wonderig. BTW, if ID researchers go in this direction they should of course not use the tools that only make sense in the light of evolution like sequence databases or programs like fasta, blast or Phylip. And don’t ask Smith, Waterman, Needle or Wunsch for help.sparc_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Cannuckian, That quote was not by Meyer- I just threw it in cause I read it recently and thought it interesting- so for being unclear on that. But that is a very funny and enlightening response thought ;) One of the underlying points of that story has to do with appealing to authority (the FIC). If I am going to trust my livelihood to something I want that something to be trust worthy. That is in No Free Lunch terms, "can my trust be purchased by the integrity of this authority" In the case the of the FDIC the answer was essentially no- at least not unless you are going to provide me with all the circumstantial facts needed to essentially prove the integrity of the extraordinary claim. However in the case of biology we get back to first causes very quickly and none have been discovered rich enough to purchase the development of complex life except, of course, a super intellect capable of designing though matter but from outside of the subject or system being investigated. I would analogize the super intellect to a cosmic Ben Bernanke for the sake of your story.Frost122585_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

“The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate the origin all of life is for there to be only one super intelligence.” Meyer (quoted by Frost) That's an extraordinary claim though, Frost. A guy goes into a bank to open an account. He asks the teller "I would like to open an account, but I worry that my money might not be safe." The teller states: "Well, sir, a bank is the safest place for your money, because it is insured by the government." "Oh, I see," says the guy, "can you prove that?" "Yes, sir, see the sign on the front of the bank where it says 'member FDIC'?" "Well, yes, but that proves nothing. Could you show me that FDIC is dependable in insuring my money? I mean what if somehow the FDIC stops insuring all banks, and decides to go out of business? Also, how can I be sure that my money is insured by FDIC? Can I see all documents pertaining to that? And I don't just mean your brochure. I want to see all documentation, and I want to see information on the person from the FDIC who first insured your bank, and I want to know everything about his/her personal life in order to assure that he/she is dependable, and didn't just sign a bogus document purporting to insure your bank. And while you're at it, I would like to witness you signing my account and depositing my money in the safe, or wherever you put it, and I would also like an acoount of every place you've been to in, oh, say the last seven years (although I might want to know beyond that, but that will be a good start). After all, if you're going to be securing my money, I want to be certain you're not a scoundrel." At that the teller stated, "well, sure, sir, I could give you everything you asked for, but if you don't mind my asking; why are you so skeptical of our abilitity to secure your money to your satisfaction?" "Well, because, sir, I'm a naturalist. You made an extraordinary claim that my money was safe in your bank, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."CannuckianYankee_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Meyer is brilliant. I very much look forward to buying his book. I hope everyone has read http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 and http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf I also ran into two good quotes recently I would like to share. 1. "The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate the origin all of life is for there to be only one super intelligence." That is, "Theism" obeys the general principle of Occam's razor. It is the simplest explanation that best satisfies all the know evidence. and 2. "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."Frost122585_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

PaulBurnett, Re: #8 "Most folks familiar with Dr. Behe’s “standing in the scientific community,” as detailed at his employer’s website..... would not consider him a 'leading spokesperson within the scientific community;' some folks do not consider him as even being ‘within the scientific community’ any more." I think the same people who would say that about Dr. Behe would also say the same about Dr. Meyer. So what? Also, you stated in #7: "William Dembski (possibly channelling Stephen Meyer) notes that '…the digital code embedded in DNA…brings into focus an issue that Darwin did not address.' Well, of course Darwin did not address the digital code embedded in DNA! Science did not even know about this until a century after “On the Origin of Species” was published and a half-century after Darwin was dead. Faulting Darwin for not addressing this is an unfair cheap shot." Well here's the complete quote from Dr. Dembski: "He’ll be discussing his new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, demonstrating that the digital code embedded in DNA points to a designing intelligence and brings into focus an issue that Darwin did not address." Dr. Dembski seems to be saying that what Dr. Meyer discusses in his book (which we don't really know) is an issue that Darwin did not address, not necessarily the digital code embedded in the DNA. At least that's how I read it.CannuckianYankee_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

"sparc" (#6) asks: "And what about “leading spokesperson within the scientific community”? Are Dr. Dembski, Dr. Behe et al. less 'leading spokespersons' than Stephen Meyer? Are they less 'within the scientific community' than Stephen Meyer?" Most folks familiar with Dr. Behe's "standing in the scientific community," as detailed at his employer's website at http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm, would not consider him a “leading spokesperson within the scientific community;” some folks do not consider him as even being 'within the scientific community' any more.PaulBurnett_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

William Dembski (possibly channelling Stephen Meyer) notes that "...the digital code embedded in DNA...brings into focus an issue that Darwin did not address." Well, of course Darwin did not address the digital code embedded in DNA! Science did not even know about this until a century after "On the Origin of Species" was published and a half-century after Darwin was dead. Faulting Darwin for not addressing this is an unfair cheap shot.PaulBurnett_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

I am afraid that the Editorial Review on the amazon pages will not really help ID:
Product Description The first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community.
What about all the other arguments pro ID arguments that have been on display here and elsewhere for years? Seems like none of them is a
major scientific argument.
And what about "leading spokesperson within the scientific community"? Are Dr. Dembski, Dr. Behe et al. less
leading spokespersons
than Stephen Meyer? Are they less
within the scientific community
than Stephen Meyer?sparc_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

FYI, most browsers allow you to open a link in a new window if you right-click on the link and select the appropriate menu option. That said, I agree that it would be nicer if you could just left-click on the link as usual but still have it open in a new window.serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Also, Mr. Nakashima - since it is a Discovery Institute broadcast, it will probably be available on their Intelligent Design - The Future blog: http://www.idthefuture.com/CannuckianYankee_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Good suggestion, Mr. Nakashima. It would be much easier simply hitting the X when done, than the back arrow. Takes less time - on my computer, anyway.CannuckianYankee_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

A request to whoever maintains the code for UD - can you change it so that URLs open in a new window? Thank you. I hope it is archived so that I can hear it later!Nakashima_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, They have it listed as Sunday, May 30th. However, this Sunday is actually the 31st.CannuckianYankee_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply