Friday, September 20, 2013

Will Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt be “the most despised science book” of 2013?

Tom Bethel over at American Spectator asks: "Will Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt be “the most despised science book” of 2013?"


Excerpts:
Along with the attacks, we find more and more biologists recognizing that intelligent design (ID) is a serious endeavor. Meyer’s book has been praised by George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Scott Turner, a professor of biology at SUNY; Russell Carlson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Georgia and a dozen others. George Gilder, most recently the author of Knowledge and Power, calls Darwin’s Doubt “the best science book ever written.” 
This much is clear: The Darwinists cannot live with ID as their enemy. They can easily co-exist with creationism, but that came from the Bible, which can be dismissed in our secular age. They rage at ID, on the other hand, because it challenges them in what they have seen as their strong suit: Science.

So which is it? The "most despised science book of 2013" or "the best science book ever written"?

Read the article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

7 comments:

Joe said...

I haven't had time to read the article yet Richard but I have posited in the past that Darwin's 'evolution' is akin to the fatalism found in Islam. Of course fatalism is poison to human society. For medical advancement the real breakthroughs will come from an intelligent design point of view not a Darwinian evolution perspective.

RkBall said...

Joe, in practical terms medicine is based on intelligent design now. Medicine reeks of the assumption of function and purpose. "You're heart is not working as it should". The atheist protests: "what do you mean 'as it should'. This heart was never designed to do anything; it just is; a working heart and a non-working heart are all the same to nature". "What do you mean cancer is bad? -- it's just that whacky darwinism doing its thing, exploring new options".

ETc. Of course, no one actually thinks or lives like this. Which is why I say that authentic atheism is unlivable.

hrafn said...

Given that one of Meyer's own sources concludes that "when it comes to explaining the Cambrian explosion, 'Darwin's Doubt' is compromised by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge, his 'god of the gaps' approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the history of life" (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1.full), it seems likely that the book will be as widely-rejected by the scientific community as it is accepted by the creationist community.

It should be noted that Bethel has a long track record of denying scientific research, not only evolution, but also relativity and AIDS.

RkBall said...

"that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the history of life"

This is no different than accusing committed atheists of being driven by deep belief in naturalistic explanations for the history of life. They then come up with ad hoc explanations for things like the Cambrian explosion -- which is exactly what they are doing.

You have to look at the actual data and attempt to minimize your bias when doing so.

RkBall said...

his 'god of the gaps' approach

Anyone who characterizes Meyer's approach as god of the gaps either hasn't read his work, hasn't understood it, or is being intentionally misleading.

One of Meyer's main points is the massive infusion of information required for body plans -- this is not an argument from a gap but an argument from evidence.

RkBall said...

"It should be noted that Bethel has a long track record of denying scientific research, not only evolution, but also relativity and AIDS."

Huh?

Joe said...

"Meyers lack of scientific knowledge" translated into layman terms "Meyers doesn't agree with present scientific orthodoxy". A point I believe is self evident. Maybe Darwin should have written slower because everyone understands the truth of evolution if it is explained slowly enough. Its kind of like English that way. You just have to say it slowly enough and enunciate clearly enough and even the lost tribes of the Amazon will understand you.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"