[Z2sc8gEz]

Look at what atheist, Thomas Nagel, has to say at http://entertainment.timesonline.co....le6931364.ece:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Good stuff!

[Britiobby]

Man was he popular in the 80's.

[virtuah]

Stephen Meyer is a lying liar just like you are Humbag.

My heartthrob Dr Shermer debated a creationist this week, Steven Meyer, who I think is in the same boat as Humber: been schooled over & over as to why his position is wrong yet continues to trot out the same old tired arguements.

Shermer V Meyer a few years ago on Faith Under Fire
YouTube - Does Science Point To A Creator? - Lee Strobel

The debunking of Meyers list of 800 scientists who don't accept Darwin's theory
YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?

Shermer post-debate the other night, looking teh sek-c


PZ Myers' take on it all

And Dr Shermer gets the last word.

[Mymnnarry]

Corrected link

It's the seventh section.

[wMceqj7F]

Humbag's link is dead, probably because he took it from one of his cretard sites. I had to search to find this clip, which was confusing because there were a ton of letters written criticizing this particular book review...

TLS Books of the Year 2009 by Julian Barnes, Seamus Heaney, Thomas Nagel, et al

And use the search box to see the letters.

[Phighicle]

jinx! Morely owes me a coke!

[husartrof]

Look at what atheist, Thomas Nagel, has to say at http://entertainment.timesonline.co....le6931364.ece:

Yes, Seth, because when peer reviewed scientific journals reject your rubbish, a good review in the Times Literary Supplement lends some credibility. BTW, if that represents some sort of proof of validity, consider Meyer’s Signature in the Cell only made the books of the year list. It didn't make the cut for the TLS 100 best books of the decade. Note that Dawkins' The God Delusion clocked in at number 15. By your standard of literary excellence as proof, that means God is Dead.

[tousuarshatly]

In describing Meyer’s book, Nagel tells us that it “. . . is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin” (my italics). Well, no. Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record.

Compounding this error, Nagel adds that “Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause” (my italics again). Again, this is woefully incorrect. Natural selection does not require DNA; on the contrary, DNA is itself the product of natural selection. That is the point. Indeed, before DNA there was another hereditary system at work, less biologically fit than DNA, most likely RNA (ribonucleic acid). Readers who wish to know more about this topic are strongly advised to keep their hard-earned cash in their pockets, forgo Meyer’s book, and simply read “RNA world” on Wikipedia.

STEPHEN FLETCHER
Department of Chemistry, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough. Part of a letter published in the Times Online in response to Nagel's endorsement.

Perhaps Nagel should stick to philosophy since he obviously doesn't understand biology.

[Uhmavano]

Perhaps Nagel should stick to philosophy since he obviously doesn't understand biology.

He's not even as smart as a cuttlefish!

[Andromino]

Another crock of bull, as usual...

[nerohedfrs]

Emergence of life from non-life is not part of the field of study that is evolutionary biology.

[lE3l6Lgn]

Emergence of life from non-life is not part of the field of study that is evolutionary biology.

Why is that? Isn’t it of interest where life came from? Where did "Bio" come from?

[Dkavtbek]

Why is that? Isn’t it of interest where life came from? Where did "Bio" come from?

Because it's not biological evolution, it's "abiogenesis", or chemical evolution and is a different field altogether. You see the laws of evolution govern living organisms not compounds. Of course it's of interest to us (what isn't?), it's just more a nascent science than biological evolution.

[HassFks]

Why is that? Isn’t it of interest where life came from? Where did "Bio" come from?

Seth, of course it's of interest. But Meyer's junk science does nothing to answer that question. The problem is, it's impossible for an objective observer to look at DNA and see an intelligent design at work. Most DNA is non-coding, or junk, DNA. There is no discernible order, nothing pointing to some grand design. From what we know, right here and now, it looks like gibberish. Now, scientists are looking into what this non-coding DNA is and what it does, and some of it does seem to serve some important function, but we understand very little of the how and why. But it's folly to look at something that we can make sense and order of 2% of and see proof of some grand design. You have to ignore the 98% percent that, like your argument, makes no sense at all.

[Rinkeliacasse]

Why is that? Isn’t it of interest where life came from? Where did "Bio" come from?

Because abiogenesis is more chemistry than biology.

[seicslybearee]

You're being disingenuous here, Humber. Do you think that because you started a new thread we've all forgotten the 'creation science' one? This issue was thoroughly discussed there. You know very well that abiogenesis is not part of biology, and you know why. Your stated naivete on the subject is merely an effort by you to inject your religious ideas into the discussion and avoid substantive discussion of science.

[amimabremiBit]

You're being disingenuous here, Humber. Do you think that because you started a new thread we've all forgotten the 'creation science' one? … You know very well that abiogenesis is not part of biology, and you know why.

DP, I signed off that thread—remember? Also, why do people get PhD’s in “biochemistry”? Is there not an interest in both fields--to bring the issue of life’s origin into focus? But it remains a profound mystery, unless you have the faith of a little child—that a loving God is behind all “bio”.

[xyznicks]

But it remains a profound mystery

No it doesn't. While abiogenesis is much more nascent as a science than evolution, both have been studied scientifically. It's only a "profound mystery" when you reject the scientific method and say "God did it" as your answer.

unless you have the faith of a little child—that a loving God is behind all “bio”. Having faith in a loving God is entirely compatible with science. But to be a scientist you need to look at evidence, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying "It's a mystery, God did it."

[swissloveone]

... it remains a profound mystery, especially if you have the intellect of a little child—that a loving God is behind all “bio”.

fixed

[TZtrDuso]

...Having faith in a loving God is entirely compatible with science. But to be a scientist you need to look at evidence, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying "It's a mystery, God did it."

Why not be a scientist and worshipper of God both?—like Isaac Newton: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God1 usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him2 are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. Hitherto we have explained the phænomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes use to do), but according to the quantity, of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances. Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately in the duplicate proportion of the distances as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelions of the plants; nay, and even to the remotest aphelions of the comets; if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea. And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates."