I received, in an email, an invitation to review a new eBook called "Signature of Controversy". I was going to read it before posting it but I see Brian has posted it, so I might as well also.Signature of Controversy is a free eBook with contributions by David Berlinski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer. It contains responses critics of Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell
.Download the PDF ebook here. (expires soon)
Enjoy.
Check out more Stephen Meyer resources here. Including the full mp3 audio of the book, Signature in the Cell.
Hat tip to Apologetics315.
Also, if you care, you could join the online interview being offered.
Isn't Meyer one of the "reverend" moon's bitches?
ReplyDeleteI have no clue but someone said:
ReplyDeleteThe moonies believe that Jesus Christ failed in his salvation plan and that Rev Moon from Korea is the second coming of Christ.
If that is indeed true and Stephen Meyer believes that then he is lost. Now do you know that for a fact? Is there any evidence of that or is that merely the atheists sewing circle again?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI read this Signature of Controversy on Monay-tuesday.
I read it for entertainment, because even a person trained in engineering with two bilogy couses in college, it is obvious this is an exercise in absurdities.
They really write like objective scientists:
"Part III concentrates on the
crowd of pygmies who populate the furious, often obscene Darwinist blogs."
Thank you very much! Hee hee.
He also talks of ID as being a scientific "Theory" which it is not, and the book Signature in the cell as a "Pillar of ID Theory."
There is no Pillar. The book merely takes scientific evidence and obfuscates it with woo.
God botherers like to make up their own definitions for valid and established scientific terms.
That is why they cannot even talk with scientists.
ID is creationism dressed in a suit.
This "book" is total nonesense.
Funny how every scientific evidence offered is total crap in the eyes of the arrogant atheists, who are *always* smarter than the authors. Had an interesting read at Amazon, books by molecular biologists are ridiculed by the unwilling, unknowing and unteachable.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the laughable claim that ID is "creationism in disguise" or similar, falls to the ground because ID is not populated exclusively by Christians. But we know that's a favorite gossip story at the atheist sewing circle. I bet they embroider onto frogs.
SB,
ReplyDelete"By the way, the laughable claim that ID is "creationism in disguise" or similar, falls to the ground because ID is not populated exclusively by Christians. But we know that's a favorite gossip story at the atheist sewing circle."
Federal Judge Jones ruled in the Kitzmiller v Dover school district, after weeks of testimony from Behe, et al, that ID is, in fact creationism and cannot be taught as science in the public school
Nobody said ID was only populated by Christians, but it is populated by theists, including some Muslims.
The sigature book is the same old wron out sad and pathetic efforts to obfuscate actual science.
Nice try.
Stormbringer:
ReplyDeleteIn order for intelligent design to qualify as science, it needs to make testable predictions. It doesn't do that. It just says "this looks complicated; 'someone' must have designed it."
Now, the claim that intelligent design is creationism in disguise is neither laughable nor something that falls of its own weight. It is firmly established and only because the creationists were so brazen about it. They took an existing creationist text, Of Pandas and People, and edited it to change "creator" to "designer," "creationist" to "design proponent," and I believe there were some other key word changes. But aside from key words like "creation," "creator," and "creationist," the text waz kept verbatim. There was another giveaway in that the editing was imperfect. The phrase "cdesign propontist" appeared. Quite frankly, we know that intelligent design is creationism in disguise because the creationists kept the ties to creationism. Perhaps they thought it would take too long to write texts with no such connections.
SB,
ReplyDelete"Funny how every scientific evidence offered is total crap in the eyes of the arrogant atheists, who are *always* smarter than the authors."
What's really funny is that atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Many theists trust in the verasity of the ToE, Francis Collins being one.
I never said I am smarter that Meyers, he is quite intelligent, but from my exoerience and training I am very adept at identifying an invalid argument.
As Pvblivs stated, the Discovery Institute, where Myer is a Fellow put out the "Wedge Document" in the 90's that was their stragedy for wedging creationism into the schools by changing the name to ID, so they were hung on their own pertard.
You don't seem to have any practical knwledge whatsoever on these matters so you might want to just shut up.
You have not produced even one salient argument in your screeds, you just go on making loose connections and vague generalizations about "Atheists."
I get the feeling I'm dealing with a nine year old kid.
Might be a little late on this boat, but don't forget that some of the leading Biologists and Evolutionists are Theists. One of them is a Roman Catholic, another I believe is Jewish. Also Darwin was from a Protestant Country, and is rumored to have gone to church.
Delete"Atheists" Aren't the only ones who push for Evolution.
SB,
ReplyDelete"Cdesign propontist."
As Pvblivs noted, when the Discovery Institute altered the book, "Of Pandas and People," at one point they inserted the words "Design Proponet into the word Creationist and presto- the editors never caught it and thise the now infamous Cdesign Propontist. Their editors never caught the mystake and it has haunted them until this day.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteHere is a passage that caught my eye in the SoC paper:
"My book is not about the origin of the human genome, nor about
human evolution nor even biological evolution generally. It’s about chemical
evolution, the origin of the first life and the genetic information necessary
to produce it. In fact, I explicitly acknowledge in the epilogue that someone
could in principle accept my argument for the intelligent design of the first
life and also accept the standard neo-Darwinian account of how subsequent
forms of life evolved."
Here he claims that he is not actually even talking about evolution, per se, but only about how the first cell organized.
Thus, he is talking about abiogenesis rather than evolution.
He is even alluding thathis book supports evolution!
Not so fast though, as you read on you will see he's obfuscating his own words.
It is obvious he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I apologize Dan. That would be Jonathan Wells, who also works for the Discovery Institute. I get all the loonies that work there mixed up sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI do find it interesting that the Disco boys would pall around with one of Moon's creatures....
Funny how every scientific evidence offered is total crap in the eyes of the arrogant atheists, who are *always* smarter than the authors.
ReplyDeleteGuess they didn't change your diaper today Stinky... You seem more cross than usual. The disco institute is crap science so why should it warrant anything other than dismissal and ridicule?
Had an interesting read at Amazon, books by molecular biologists are ridiculed by the unwilling, unknowing and unteachable.
Again... You say nothing. You really should speed your way towards your family, because you're completely useless here.
By the way, the laughable claim that ID is "creationism in disguise" or similar, falls to the ground because ID is not populated exclusively by Christians.
Yes... They have a couple of Moonies there as well. You are such a douche. Ever heard of the "Wedge Strategy?" Ever read the "Wedge document?"
But we know that's a favorite gossip story at the atheist sewing circle.
Ahh Stinky... You're just jealous because you're too much of a coward to join in the fun at WeAreSMRT, so you're left rubbing your member raw at your one person circle jerk of a ghost town blog.
Try using lotion.
It should be noted that the fact non-Christians are associated with the DI doesn't dismiss ID being creationist.
ReplyDeleteMuslims, Mormons and Jews (et al) are creationists too
So far, I find the emotional language in this book to be a "credibility sink". This is journalism, rather than science.
ReplyDeletePvb,
ReplyDelete>> It just says "this looks complicated; 'someone' must have designed it."
Yea Storm, everyone knows that forensic science and archeology are not real science!!
>>Now, the claim that intelligent design is creationism in disguise is neither laughable nor something that falls of its own weight. It is firmly established and only because the creationists were so brazen about it.
The ID crowd could certainly have used a creation book to push their own agenda and changed it to do so...so what? That is the Christian's Fault?
>> They took an existing creationist text, Of Pandas and People, and edited it to change "creator" to "designer," "creationist" to "design proponent," and I believe there were some other key word changes.
Yea they did it to fit their own WORLDVIEW, not the Christian's worldview.
Even Hawking believes in ID, as recently pointed out in the news.
Let me guess you call Hawking some dumb Christian in disguise? Give us all a break. Creationism DOES NOT allow for the introduction of Aliens at all ID DOES!! You are wrong to group us all together.
We are certainly not in the same category or group as the ID'rs. If it were me at the Dover trial I would be fighting for Biblical Creationism and it could possibly have gone a different way. I totally agree that trying to be devious is wrong and they got their hat handed to them. If they were honest and said UP FRONT that "this is a Creation book but we changed the wording to fit our worldview", maybe things would be different right now. But they didn't, they got caught in what was interpreted as deceiving, and they rightfully lost.
>>Quite frankly, we know that intelligent design is creationism in disguise because the creationists kept the ties to creationism.
A)intelligent design is creationism in disguise
B)because the creationists kept the ties to creationism
Does that even make sense to you? Did you mean to say because the ID'rs kept the ties to creationism? There you going again using that great brain of yours to take logic and poo all over it. Wake up man. Listen to what you are saying in your bias!!
Yes Creationists are tied to Creationism, Duh!!
And ID'rs are tied to Design, Duh!! Design that could include Alien Design, like Richard Dawkins postulated.
Pfft.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Even Hawking believes in ID, as recently pointed out in the news."
Nowhere in that article does Hawking declare that he "believes in ID". Did you actually read it?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"The ID crowd could certainly have used a creation book to push their own agenda and changed it to do so...so what? That is the Christian's Fault?"
The particular members of the ID crowd that did this just happenned to be the christians that were trying to put creationism into the schools until the courts shot that down.
"Yea they did it to fit their own WORLDVIEW, not the Christian's worldview."
Again, the ones that did this were christians.
"If it were me at the Dover trial I would be fighting for Biblical Creationism and it could possibly have gone a different way."
The Dover trial was not ruling on whether creationism could be taught in public schools. The courts had already ruled that it cannot. To have any chance, the creationists had to pretend that what they were endorsing was not creationism.
"Did you mean to say because the ID'rs kept the ties to creationism?"
Nope, I meant because the creationists kept the ties to creationism. They were creationists, advancing creationism, but saying that they were advancing something different. If intelligent design had actually been an independent movement, it would never have pushed the text Of Pandas and People. A separate movement would have come up with its own text. And people who were not creationists would (at the time) likely have been unaware of the book Of Pandas and People.
"Yea Storm, everyone knows that forensic science and archeology are not real science!!"
Wow, deja vu. I seem to be having the same discussion with Jmars -- except he is insisting that evolution is a scientific theory and that falsifiability isn't a criterion.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>The particular members of the ID crowd that did this just happenned to be the christians that were...
Are there such a thing as Scientists who just happened to be Christians? Are their motives suspect?
>>... trying to put creationism into the schools until the courts shot that down.
So enlighten me, Dover was a 2nd trial by the same people? Please show some evidence of that. Not because I don't believe you, but because I have never heard that one before.
>>If intelligent design had actually been an independent movement, it would never have pushed the text Of Pandas and People.
Why not? Are Christians not allowed to use or reference scientific material?
>>To have any chance, the creationists had to pretend that what they were endorsing was not creationism.
IF, big IF, that was indeed the case that would make it wrong. But, you are judging motives though, something we are not to do. How are you certain of this? You can read minds now? Please, at the very least, show me that first case that got "shot down" by those same people.
If you do I might have to agree with your conclusion, otherwise you bias will be showing. I will await that evidence before make such an allegation though.
ID and Creationism certainly has falsifiability, evidence for evolution would be one of them and vice versa. That is why Creationism is very important in the fight against the obviously false claims of evolution. Show evidence for one, shut the other up for eternity. Wouldn't that be grand!
Dan,
ReplyDelete"We are certainly not in the same category or group as the ID'rs. If it were me at the Dover trial I would be fighting for Biblical Creationism and it could possibly have gone a different way."
Cuz you got a big dick (?) or what?
Dan:
"Judge Jones, I gotta big dick, bigger thn yours. We're gonna teach creationism in theis here school"
Judge Jones:
"Whip it out lil feller.
Dan:
"Well, I meant that as a metaphor."
JJ:
Sit the hell down and shut up. ID is creationism in disguise no matter how big Dan's dick is and it is unconstitutional to teach religion as science in public schools."
Pvblivs wrote the following: If intelligent design had actually been an independent movement, it would never have pushed the text Of Pandas and People.
ReplyDeleteDan responded: Why not? Are Christians not allowed to use or reference scientific material?
Although this is just one example of many, the above response is typical of why I originally stopped posting here. Dan's no longer discussing honestly, nor is he interested in being taken seriously.
When your opponent is reduced to Snark as Standard Operating Procedure, there's no reason to stick around. Giving Dan the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem to be paying off.
Adios...
However creepy and sick I find Froggie's last post, I have to agree with him.
ReplyDeleteBesides, remember how lousy the ID research movement is?
In the meantime, here's something to watch.
And, I notice (again) that Dan says that Dawkins believes that aliens created us. No matter that it's been explained over and over again that the man does not believe that; He was giving a hypothetical scenario of how ID could be tested, remember: Dawkins does not believe in ID himself. How could he believe that aliens be responsible for ID if he doesn't believe in ID himself?
God, the continual lack of honesty I see from the ID/Creationist camp pisses me off. If there is any proof that their god does not exist, one doesn't need to find biblical discrepancies, the behaviour of the bible's followers is enough.
If you have "The Truth", why use lies to preach it?
Something I forgot: here's a link to a thorough dissection of "Signature of the cell".
ReplyDeletePlus, a question I forgot to ask Dan. If you believe that there's evidence for ID, and that it's being "suppressed" as the "Expelled" movie says, then what evidence for ID was presented in that movie?
After all, they were able to get that movie out despite all the "censorship", they complain that their views are being "censored", so there was their chance.
What evidence for ID did they show? What was the evidence that the normal scientific community is trying to prevent people from seeing?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>What was the evidence that the normal scientific community is trying to prevent people from seeing?
How about another paradigm instead of just evolution. But like I said, ID and Creationism certainly has falsifiability, evidence for evolution would be one of them and vice versa.
Let the data speak, not the current paradigm, is that so much to ask for?
Wem,
ReplyDeletePvblivs wrote the following: If intelligent design had actually been an independent movement, it would never have pushed the text Of Pandas and People.
Dan responded: Why not? Are Christians not allowed to use or reference scientific material?
>>Although this is just one example of many, the above response is typical of why I originally stopped posting here. Dan's no longer discussing honestly, nor is he interested in being taken seriously.
First, you're a big dork.
Second, this post here is an example of what I was saying. Here I am using ID material to post about. I use science material to discuss things and such to help make my points.
My point was that just because someone uses Christian material to make a point about ID dues not mean they are indeed Christian. Atheists reference and read the Bible does that mean they are Christian? Pvb's logic was flawed when he said that. I merely pointed that out. If you don't like that then...
Auf Wiedersehn...chicken.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteWem,
Pvblivs wrote the following: If intelligent design had actually been an independent movement, it would never have pushed the text Of Pandas and People.
Dan responded: Why not? Are Christians not allowed to use or reference scientific material?
_______________________________
Pandas and People never has been, and never will be scientific material.
You know that damn well Dan.
I know you know that.
You can wish it is all you want, but it is not.
I am sure you are totally aware of that their arguments are at fault.
I also think you are a fucking coward for not admitting it.
Dan.
ReplyDeleteAdmit it. You do not have a scientific or a mathematical bine in your body.
You have shown that you do not even have a command of simple algebra.
You are a totally emotional creature. If that works for you, so be it, but quit your horseshit whining about science. You don't have a clue.
SB reminds me of several other interlopers, screaming meemies, that have showed up here in the past.
ReplyDeleteSB is the classical flash-in-the-pan, show up and thow up all kinds of vile and ignorant proclomations without ever even one fouded statement.
SB is a teoll, at best, a credulous ignoramus who has his worldview impressed upon him with his feeding on his mama's milk.
I see this ilk a mile away. Not an iota of education or understanding of higher education.
Tea Party material.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"'The particular members of the ID crowd that did this just happenned to be the christians that were trying to put creationism into the schools until the courts shot that down.'
"Are there such a thing as Scientists who just happened to be Christians? Are their motives suspect?"
It isn't the fact that they are christians that makes their motives suspect. It is the fact that they openly endorsed using a creationist text and then, when the courts ruled that creationist texts could not be used, endorsed using the same text but called it intelligent design. (Don't cut off the part that I'm actually harping on.)
"So enlighten me, Dover was a 2nd trial by the same people?"
It doesn't have to be. A court ruling stating that creationism cannot be taught in public schools affects anyone trying to teach creationism in public schools, not just the original litigants.
"Why not? Are Christians not allowed to use or reference scientific material?"
They were using material ruled not scientific. Indeed, it was still a strictly creationist text. If one were to take the bible and disguise it by changing the word "god" to "craftsman" it would still be a christian text.
"How are you certain of this?"
They knew it was a creationist text because they had seen the original unedited version. They could not openly say they were endorsing creationism because the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v Aguillard that public schools cannot teach creationism.
Pvb said: "To have any chance, the creationists had to pretend that what they were endorsing was not creationism."
ReplyDeleteTo which Dan responded: "IF, big IF, that was indeed the case that would make it wrong. But, you are judging motives though, something we are not to do. How are you certain of this? You can read minds now?"
Want evidence? OK
Here is a clip from an interview with Bill Buckingham, a member of the Dover Board of Education, in which he explicitly says that he wants to insert creationism into the curriculum. During the trial, Buckingham denied ever saying it and so this video evidence was used to show that he was a liar and that the real motive of the board was, indeed, to smuggle creationism in under the moniker of ID.
And from Wiki:
From 2002 William ("Bill") Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Board of Education who were young earth creationists, made various statements supporting teaching creationism as well as evolution. At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and raised objections to proposed use of the textbook Biology written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as "laced with Darwinism" and saying it was "inexcusable to have a book that says man descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it." This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included "communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum"[sic], an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required the Dover High School botany teachers to watch the DVD. They did not take up the opportunity to use it in their classes. Cooper advised that the Discovery Institute was not offering legal advice, and soon afterwards Buckingham contacted Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, who agreed to represent the Dover Board, and recommended the book Of Pandas and People.[6] On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6–3 to add the following statement to their biology curriculum:
Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.
Clearly, the whole saga and accompanying trial 'evolved' from attempts to insert creationism into the curriculum. So Dan, do you agree with Pvb's conclusion now or is your bias showing?
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>What was the evidence that the normal scientific community is trying to prevent people from seeing?
How about another paradigm instead of just evolution.
How about answering my question instead of dodging it?
But like I said, ID and Creationism certainly has falsifiability, evidence for evolution would be one of them and vice versa.
Not quite. For one thing, you'd still have the problem of who would be responsible for the "designing" if ID could somehow be shown to be true. I believe Dawkins tried to point that problem out in that movie that you wet yourself over, but of course you people as usual twisted his words, just as in that example I linked to.
Let the data speak, not the current paradigm, is that so much to ask for?
When they don't give any data or research projects that they had promised to show in the first smegging place, YES! I asked you, Dan, what the evidence for ID was shown in the movie.
You didn't even bother trying to answer the question!
If you care you could join the online interview being offered.
ReplyDeleteYep, as that link shows, there is no link between xianity and "ingelligent design" at all. Just like they "showed" that the Dover trial.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you try answering my question, Dan? I asked: "What evidence for intelligent design was shown in the "Expelled" movie?
They're always complaining in the movie and everywhere else that their views are being "censored". Well, they had their chance in that movie to show just what those views and their evidence is.
thanks for sharing this site, you can download lots of ebook from here
ReplyDeletehttp://feboook.blogspot.com
Because I'm Lazy, I just wanna post this from my FB status.
ReplyDeleteSooo having been told to, and practically had it shoved down my throat today as I was reading my bio lesson, the topic of Intelligent Design is dropped in a slide. Ok Creationists, lemme ask you 3 simple questions that bridge and span a wide variety of things: 1.) How do you take in account OTHER Religion's views on how life came to be? 2.) Since God loves us so very much, wouldn't he have given us some means to survive in an ever changing environment? and 3.) How do you know God wasn't a puddle of primordial ooze?
(Other Religions, Paganism, Wicca, Native American Lore, Hinduism, Pastafarians etc.)
That and Dan, really you need to do some research. ID and most of the papers posted caused an uproar because they received "Special Treatment." ALL SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO TESTING. A Theory is a Subject that has been ob severed by scientists, some of different fields, across boarders bigger than your ego. That is why Theories are usually held up in Scientific honor. There is little to disprove them (that we are technologically able to do) for now. The only "laws" or "facts" that are disproved these days are in Mathematics (that I've observed lately. The stage of "law" in the scientific method order ((Hypotheses, observation,theory)) Has gone POOF in current science text books but crop up everywhere in Math books), because there is, will always be, and won't usually end, and ever changing scope to science. New advances pop up. Who knows we could Disprove Newton's Laws in 24 years.
I suggest Dan watch read a Jules Vern book. He predicted Robots and guess what. Oh and Isaac Asimov yeah really touched base there.
Science moves. It ebbs and flows. It's also very very very subject to changes. The ID "agenda" (Use of word lightly I really have NO clue what to call it) doesn't back anything clearly with any empirical proof. Having read some of this book and Pandas, which Panda predicts no transition fossil would be found for mammal to whale and was proven wrong when 3 fossils cropped up, neither book gives and data and both read like a newspaper article.
I've also noticed a slight trend, while many of us have posted in a calm manner on the topic, a lot of Christians and IDers have stooped to slander and childish hissy fits. Just pointing it out there.
Also I'm a Theist, I believe that there is something bigger out there, but I also believe that the Bible and Creationism can't fill in all the massive holes we have in our world. There is no "blanket" answer to anything. If there was, God wouldn't have given us a brain to think with, Eve wouldn't have bitten the apple and gave us free will, and we'd all be in a blissful Utopia where things are white with no black and shades of grey. Wishful thinking huh?
Rina,
Delete>> 1.) How do you take in account OTHER Religion's views on how life came to be?
Anyone an enemy of God would discount scripture and rely on their own autonomous reasoning. Eve even did that too. It is the ultimate act of rebellion. Do those supposed "believers" believe people lived to be 900, that snakes and donkeys spoke? If so, how is it such a stretch to believe that God created everything in 6 days and that we came all from two people?
Incidently, is it not odd that science have discovered that all people came from two sources one they call "database woman" and "Y chromosome Adam" Wow, science agreed with scripture. Evolution is pseudo-science Bcause it assumes naturalism as its paradigm. It starts by saying since evolution is true let's find evidence for it. If evidence is presented that actually falsifies evolution then it's determined "inconclusive" if it presents evidence in the positive then it's published. This is because there is no other place to go. It is either naturalism or void. It is the "sacred cow" that cannot be messed with:
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN
>>2.) Since God loves us so very much, wouldn't he have given us some means to survive in an ever changing environment?
We depend on God for everything. The air we breath, the food we eat, and the roof over our head. We were not created to be autonomous but to submit to Him.
>>3.) How do you know God wasn't a puddle of primordial ooze?
Same way I can be certain of anything R E V E L A T I O N.
How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.
Now my turn. How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?