Stephen C. Meyer is a moron


Man, am I sick of creationists making shit up. Unlike real scientists, who have to back up everything they say, ID fanboys like Stephen C. Meyer (head of the ironically named Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to the ignorance of mankind) can arbitrarily claim something that has no basis in fact. Take his latest article in “CNN Opinion”, a kind of amateur journalism site for anyone desperate enough to give something to the failing news network for free (provided you do all the work, of course). Here’s a bunch of quotes that show what little care he has for intellectual integrity:

Contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. [bare assertion fallacy]

DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. [false analogy fallacy]

Despite the consensus view that Darwin showed that “design could arise without a designer” there is now compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design in even the simplest living cells. [bare assertion fallacy]

Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely “appear” to be designed. [bare assertion fallacy]

I’ll cover just these, since the rest is essentially the same bullshit drivel you’ve come to expect from these morons. Nothing about what Meyer said is true, except for perhaps there is increased “doubt” about evolution, although Meyer fails to mention the doubters are not scientists, but rather terribly ignorant and scientifically illiterate people. The problem here is Meyer is not being questioned on any of his assertions. He just boldly states them, and has no real worries about proving their validity (despite the fact they are all fallacies). In his mind, there is a God, and he made everything with his love magic.

A high school biology student could bury this guy’s argument, which essentially boil down to “science is really hard and it can’t explain everything, so I’m going to fill in every gap in our knowledge with magic man done it“. Why don’t you let the adults do their science Meyer, and you can go play with your friends in traffic.

Comments (13)

  • avatar

    Lukas

    Not only is the DNA/software analogy pointless, his assertion that all software must be written by humans is also wrong. Software can be created using evolutionary algorithms. So I guess if his analogy holds, that should prove to him that evolution is true.

  • avatar

    Isaac

    Pitiful. Simply pitiful.

  • avatar

    Scott

    I love pointing out that ID also supports the idea that aliens seeded the planet with life – it’s funny to watch them backpedal from that equally-inferable thesis while still trying to maintain evolution is wrong.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    He looks like an alien.

  • avatar

    Daniel

    You know, I would ask what contributions are ID scientists, if they can be called that, making to the body of scientific knowledge?

    None!!!!!!!!

    They just keep crying “but god did it, I know he did”, like little children overwhelmed with things their little minds cannot comprehend.

  • avatar

    Bryan

    Have you ever noticed how pseudo-intellecuals (like the author of this post) use language on par with drunken sailors to make their points instead of debating the science? I’ve found in my life that everytime someone starts swearing and calling others names, it’s usually to distract from the fact that they don’t want to engage in a real debate.

    Is that supposed to impress or convince anyone? Is that really the image of a “good atheist” you want to leave with others?

    What’s interesting is this post never challenges any of the points that Stephen Meyer makes. For instance:
    - How does gradual evolution over time explain the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record?
    - Bill Gates has stated ‘DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.’ That says something, since Microsoft employs tens of thousands of highly intelligent programmers to produce the software that it does. Information theory states that information always is the product of intelligence, then how does one explain DNA which does function like a computer program?
    - How does one explain the function of all the biological machines within the cell outside of design?

    I think the point is Stephen Meyer is making intelligent arguments. Your name calling and language are on par with a high schooler. Who comes off more credible in the debate?

  • avatar

    AAA

    I completely agree with you Bryan. These amateur Darwinists cannot tolerate the idea that not every scientist out there accepts their dogmatic Darwinian believes. Just make the slightest criticism to their theory and they will label you as a moron. Can’t they just grow up and have some open minded attitude? All of them share the following reasoning: “Oh he’s IDer, therefore he’s wrong!”& “Oh he said God, therefore he’s wrong!”. In other words, they attack their critics just because they have opposite views on evolution.

    By the way, the person who made this childish and disrespectful post, if you think you can take on Stephen Meyer you can try his article titled: “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang” where he proved how the Cambrian explosion totally contradicts Darwinian predictions and discredits the evolutionary models of gradualism and punctualism. In addition, all his arguments are backed up with tons of palaeontological data.

    The article can be found on this link:

    http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf

    So go ahead and refute it if you dare. At least this time you will be facing Meyer’s data and facts and not just some sentence fragments from his interview.

  • avatar

    mark

    haha,no comment

  • avatar

    Peter

    From what I’ve heard about ID, it does not explicitly claim the god of the christian bible, or Allah, or Zeus, or Lady Gaga or any particular god/goddess, for that matter, as the entity behind the “design” in ID. It merely makes the case that the likelihood of a completely functional living cell being correctly assembled by chance is so small that one can only conclude that some entity (and they do not claim to know who or what that entity is) with intelligence manipulated the result. I’ve heard it compared to the following scenario:

    A junk yard has all the pieces of a once fully functional 747 airliner but they are disconnected and placed in one large pile. Bombs are placed under the pile and are detonated so that the parts fly and connect at random and one of the permutations turns into a fully functional 747.

    Now some argue, “Well, are you saying statistically improbable events never happen?” I think the ID ppl would say no, they can and do happen. It’s just that if they do happen, to make the hypothesis that an “intellect” was behind it, rather than saying it happened at random, is not an unreasonable one.

    Another example: A guy at a casino wins 100 straight games of blackjack. OK, maybe he just was in the right place at the right time, random chance was in his favor.

    Now what if the same guy won 1,000,000 straight games of blackjack? I think the casino bouncers would’ve booted him from the establishment long before that because they concluded “an intellect” namely the card-counting dude, must’ve monkeyed with the system. The casino knows that random chance would not produce that kind of success. They could correctly conclude it was more likely that the result was produced by an “intellect,” who is now going to jail.

    Now consider, according to Applied Mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe, Prof. of Applied Mathematics @ Cardiff Univ., the chance that an enzyme, let alone a protein, let alone a cell component, let alone a functional living cell, gets assembled correctly is about 1/10^39000. Even if all the atoms in the known universe (~10^80) were eligible, there would not have been enough time since the universe’s birth for it to ensure correct assemble a single enzyme by random trial.

    Math for the statistic above:
    ~2000 critical enzymes needed for most living organisms.
    ~20 amino acids necessary for living organisms
    ~15 sites per enzyme that must be correctly filled by amino acids

    Chance choosing the correct 1 of the 20 amino acids for site 1 in enzyme 1 = 1/20.

    Chance of filling all 15 slots in enzyme 1 correctly = 1/20^15
    Chance of filling all 15 slots in all 2000 enzymes correctly is
    = (1/20^15)^2000
    = 1/20^30000
    ~ 1/10^39000

    That’s 1 out of a 1 followed by 39000 zeroes. If that all happened by chance, that was one hell of a shot!

    As a mathematician the argument makes sense to me, but then it opens up an whole other can of worms, “Who or what is the intellect behind the design?” Aaaaaahhhhh!

    Cheers fellas. Be nice. :D

    Peter

  • avatar

    Chris (France)

    Great point Peter, I entirely agree with what you just said. I don’t know what “chance” as to do with “life”.

    I walked in intellectual darkness for years concerning “The Big Bang Theory” and it finaly occured to me: for a big bang to occur it needed somewhere and something to detonate it.

    Concerning the cambrian facts: even Darwin was puzzled by something he had no explanation for.

  • avatar

    Karl Stone

    The structure of DNA is explicable in terms of the chemical propensities of its parts. A twisted ladder like structure with ‘rungs’ made of two chemicals that have a greater propensity to form chemical bonds with each-other than with other chemicals – (also produced by passing an electric current through water. i.e. the spontaneous formation of order/information!) The outer rails of the ladder are alternating sugar and phosphate groups – while the rungs pair-up, cytosine to guanine, adenine to thymine. The whole structure is therefore able to unzip lengthwise and replicate by attracting a complimentary match from the environment. It’s as amazing as looking up into the night sky and seeing billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars – the mind boggles, but it’s not miraculous in the sense of requiring an intelligent designer.

  • avatar

    Karl Stone

    Further, if you put ‘biomolecular structure’ into google, you find that structure is built up the repetition of successful structural motifs – at different levels, like the repetition of fractal patterns in the ferns leaf, just as evolutionary theory would predict, and which acts as a short-cut through the atom by atom mathematics of probability cited above.

  • avatar

    Margaret Stephens

    Your refute reflects emotion and immaturity- and you tell Meyer he’s a child?? Why so combative?

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top