Stephen C. Meyer at the Heritage Foundation

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Evolutionists Adrift on the Origin of Information, which appears in the Dakota Voice. That organ’s about page informs us:

Dakota Voice is based in Rapid City, South Dakota and features contributors from around the country. Dakota Voice examines local, state, national and world issues of interest to conservatives and Christians. … While most news sites see events through a secular worldview, Dakota Voice strives to maintain a biblical, Christian worldview. …

— Bob Ellis, Owner

Ellis writes about something we’ve mentioned before. He says:

Center for Science and Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer kicked off his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design yesterday with a presentation at the Heritage Foundation (see video below).

So what we have here is a creationist’s report on Meyer’s presentation to the Heritage Foundation. We’ll give you some choice excerpts, with our Curmudgeonly commentary between Ellis’ paragraphs. You’ll have to click over to the Dakota Voice for any links that Ellis may have included in his text. The bold font was added by us for emphasis. Here we go:

As the accompanying article at the Discovery Institute points out, Dr. Meyer’s book exposes the fact that materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] have a really hard time explaining the origin of life. After all, everything in science tells us that it is impossible for life to spring from lifeless materials. Therefore, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] rely on an unscientific event at a pivotal point in their theory of origins, even as they demand that only scientifically verifiable information be considered.

Okay, if he says so. Let’s read on:

Whether you believe God created the universe (as I do), or merely believe “a” designer created the universe, intelligent design theory assumes a designer outside of and independent of the laws governing the universe.”

That’s quite an assumption. Where — if not in the universe — might that designer be lurking? We’re not informed. Anyway, we’ll continue with Ellis’ column:

Meanwhile, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic], by the self-imposed parameters of their own theory, insist that no supernatural cause may be considered … yet their own theories concerning the origin of the universe are impossible (something cannot come from nothing — has it ever been observed in science?).

This is powerful stuff! Here’s more:

As you see, creation and intelligent design are logical and rational within the framework of their own theory, while materialism/naturalism/evolution [sic] are illogical, irrational and impossible within the framework of their own theory.

Ah. It’s all so clear! Moving along:

Materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] insist that something which cannot be observed or tested according to scientific principles (i.e. God) cannot be considered in the world of science. Yet they expect us to believe in key points of their theory (something from nothing, life from lifelessness, information without intelligence) when these contentions have not been observed or verified in science?

So, as we understand Ellis’ position, evolution and creationism are both ridiculous — therefore we should go with creationism. Okay. Click over there to read it all, if you like. We’ve given you enough encouragement.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Stephen C. Meyer at the Heritage Foundation

  1. As I have mentioned before, there is an Amazon discussion about this book. ( http://www.amazon.com/Will-liveup-the-hype/forum/Fx2L5L6YWDEF2XQ/Tx3OM8FRHHWKP5T/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0061472786 )

    A post today (6/25/09) says, “Interesting, the book was released yesterday and Amazon already has a used copy for sale. Anyone else find this amusing. “

  2. The Curmudgeon ponders:

    Where — if not in the universe — might that designer be lurking?

    Maybe off on a hiking trip in the Appalachians?

  3. Great Claw says: “Maybe off on a hiking trip in the Appalachians?”

    My usual guess is Uranus, but yours is the winner today.

  4. Let’s see…

    “[M]aterialists/naturalists/evolutionists rely on an unscientific event at a pivotal point in their theory of origins….”

    “[I]ntelligent design theory assumes a designer outside of and independent of the laws governing the universe.”

    Submitted without further comment.

  5. James F says: “Submitted without further comment.”

    Obviously, your tiny mind is unable to see which alternative is superior.

  6. I don’t understand James F’s comment. The first statement is false and the second one is true.

    So what is the deal?

    Evolution very much relies on the scientific process. Quite frankly, any person who says that DNA mutations (which accumulate over time resulting in evolution) aren’t random proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t know science from sh*t from shine-ola.

    If I expose cells to UV light, then the genetic mutations that result are RANDOM. That is observable and repeatable. So is damage from cell-cycle (transcription) mistakes and translation mistakes (although translation mistakes are less devastating obviously). How about chemical damage to DNA from chemicals like benzene? It inserts itself (intercalates) into DNA RANDOMLY. How about retroviruses? Not only do they ADD information to the genome, but they also insert RANDOMLY.

    So, wtf? Really?

    Now on to (un)”intelligent” design. It doesn’t pass muster as science because it isn’t falsifiable. Period. Metaphysical concepts (meta- meaning beyond and physical meaning nature) aren’t covered by science. Science only covers the natural world. Period. Science is SILENT on matters metaphysical.

    So defenders of “intelligent” design, get over it. You are re-arranging chairs on a sinking ship. Just like the church versus Galileo. You are fighting a losing battle, (1) because genuine scientists consider you a joke and (2) because the legal field is wiping the floor with your stupid arguments (see Kitzmiller v. Dover). It’s over. Stop your whining.

  7. I failed to effectively convey my sentiments. I was hit by the irony of Meyer claiming that evolution relies on an unscientific event in one breath, then completely giving away the farm in the next by invoking a force behind ID that is unscientific. One wonders to what degree they buy their own BS….

  8. James F says: “I failed to effectively convey my sentiments.”

    No, I got it. I failed to convey that I was just teasing.

  9. S.C., no, that was directed to LRA, I knew you were teasing. You wouldn’t be the Curmudgeon otherwise.

  10. Ooopsie!!! I’m sorry James F. I really thought you were being serious (and the host, too) because I’ve heard some seriously stupid stuff out of anti-evolution people (I live in Texas, and I have recently been arguing with IDer’s about the whole science standards debacle. In fact, I’m switching careers from biological sciences/neuroscience to philosophy of mind/science and cultural studies on the impact of science on society and there is an IDer at my school (Univ. of Texas)… Rob Koons… it really drives me crazy, since he knows diddly squat about science but chooses to criticize it). Anyhoo- accept my apologies!

    To Curmudgeon, keep doin’ what you’re doin’! It’s awesome! 🙂

  11. LRA says: “To Curmudgeon, keep doin’ what you’re doin’! It’s awesome!”

    Thanks. I plan to persevere — at least until I figure out why I’m doing this.

  12. Hopefully, it’s because you care about critical thinking and how that critical thinking betters our society. Hopefully, it’s because you’re tired of politicians trying to dictate public policy about things they clearly don’t understand. Hopefully, it’s because you are a person (or persons?) of integrity and you’re tired of the BS.

  13. No, I’m just doing it because of all the wild women I meet.

  14. longshadow

    No, I’m just doing it because of all the wild women I meet.

    You mean hotties like Kathy Martin?

    😉

  15. “No, I’m just doing it because of all the wild women I meet.”

    Ha! You’re my kind of Curmudgeon!!! 😛

  16. LRA,

    Forgiveness is automatic. No worries. I can’t even imagine what you folks have to deal with in Texas – part of why I support the Texas Freedom Network along with the NCSE. Best wishes!

  17. James F– Thanks! Yes this BS is affecting me personally… Sahotra Sarkar (a philosopher of science) left the philosophy department here… I think it was because of Koons (that’s just my speculation, tho).