Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.

[Khandro]

Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?

I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.

[jim360]

I think I missed out an "also" to my post -- at any rate, Naomi, my post is addressed at Khandro rather than you. Apologies for confusion.

[naomi24]

//with no explanation whatsoever of what that something might have been or where the hell it might have came from.//

Since he’s a Christian I’m assuming he thinks he knows.

[naomi24]

OK, Jim. Thanks.

[mibn2cweus]

//Since he’s a Christian I’m assuming he thinks he knows.//

That wouldn't be the only assumption being made. ;o)

[naomi24]

Ha ha! No.

[mushroom25]

the problem I have with "intelligent design" is that, at least so far as the human animal is concerned, the designer clearly wasn't very intelligent.

given a blank canvas to work from, what engineer in their right mind would design a fragile joint into the centre of a main supporting structure?

[mibn2cweus]

^ ^ . . . or a recreational park directly adjacent to a sewage facility.

[mibn2cweus]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6330246400/hB6E52E5D/

[Old_Geezer]

The eye seems of particular interest. Why pull all the data out of the front and then have to pass the data through to the back again afterwards, creating a "blind spot" ?

[mushroom25]

discussing this at work - one co-worker says that God created man in His own image. which makes it even more incredible. God must have been aware of the problems but chose to repeat them in his prodigy. unbelievable.

[Khandro]

jim; // More recent fossil evidence has changed the picture so that no longer does it look like a whole host of new species "suddenly" emerging out of nowhere.//
Can you please substantiate this? I don't believe he said 'suddenly' and if new evidence has been found, (and the interview took place within the last 12 months) clearly Meyer is unaware of it, which I would doubt very much.

[beso]

The whole notion that "explosions" in diversity somehow wreck Evolution is misguided.

The whole process is underpinned by random change. If evolution didn't progress at random rates then we might have cause to doubt the theory.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The opening statement by Meyer about the first cause: "...and therefore MUST(stress by VE) transcend space matter and time" says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGgXpsfcnw0

[jomifl]

It seems to me that Dr. Meyers has too narrow a view of pretty well everything about evolution. The interpretation of the cambrian explosion as a sudden increase in the number of species could be replaced by the explosion of numbers of existing species to a level where they left enough fossils to be discovered. I could go on but I think my point has been made.

[vetuste_ennemi]

And Shermer's opening statement on "ultimate" causes bears repeating: "It is permissible in science to say we don't know".
The Discovery Institute is a Christian lobby, Khandro. And when I say Christian I don't mean Anglican, RC or Quakers; I mean Bible belt Baptists and evangelicals. They're extremely smart and able as your video shows, but science is not the only thing on the DI agenda.

[jim360]

I'd suggest just digging further into the subject, Khandro. At any rate the Cambrian Explosion is not nearly as big a problem as Meyer makes it out to be.

[naomi24]

Jim, sorry, but that’s not really acceptable. I was rather hoping you would post something to support your claim too.

[jim360]

I really don't think it's up to you what is acceptable and what is not.

However, one reasonable starting point would be the relevant chapter in Bill Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything" which would quote several references. I don't have that book to hand at the moment, but there's one. I think he'd reference works by, among others, Stephen Gould and S. Conway Morris.

[Khandro]

v_e; I don't care if he is a Christian or a Manchester United supporter, why don't you say something about the science?
Darwin had doubt and he is confirming that doubt, the trilobite had vision with very little evidence of life (on this timescale) before it. Darwin thought it would be found but it hasn't been, and Jim has failed, as yet, to point to his 'recent discoveries'.
Some people appear to be greater Darwinians than Darwin.

[naomi24]

Jim, blimey! Treading on eggshells, or what? No need for a strop. You've made a claim that is relevant to what we're talking about. It's therefore perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence to support it.

VE, I've just watched your video. Dr Shermer says it's fine to say 'we don't know' - my feeling exactly. On the other hand, Dr Meyer says his argument is based upon what he knows - but he doesn't. Silly argument.