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’s said is true, except for perhaps the fact that there is increased “doubt” about evolution, although Meyer fails to mention that the doubters are themselves not scientists, but rather terrible ignorant and scientifically illiterate people. The problem here is that 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 that 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.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
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.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Pitiful. Simply pitiful.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
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.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
He looks like an alien.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
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.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:16 am
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?
December 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
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.