H2Andy
Contributor
man, Green.. those are some awful articles...
i quote just a few:
Instead, [Meyer] argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
translation: if something exists, someone had to create it. something can't come from nothing.
sounds like the same old to me. this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. there's no science here.
i love this one:
Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation.
Meyer again:
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self –Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion
i guess he doesn't think DNA can hold all that much information ... hmmm.... he must be lonely in that viewpoint in the scientific community
by the way, all that "irreducibly complexity" stuff being thrown around is just the old watchmaker's analogy with a new name, and it's just as unscientific. these are just philosophical arguments with a thin veneer of "scientific" language.
i quote just a few:
Instead, [Meyer] argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
translation: if something exists, someone had to create it. something can't come from nothing.
sounds like the same old to me. this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. there's no science here.
i love this one:
Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation.
Meyer again:
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self –Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion
i guess he doesn't think DNA can hold all that much information ... hmmm.... he must be lonely in that viewpoint in the scientific community
by the way, all that "irreducibly complexity" stuff being thrown around is just the old watchmaker's analogy with a new name, and it's just as unscientific. these are just philosophical arguments with a thin veneer of "scientific" language.
