Joined: Aug. 2005
Thanks to William (Isaac) Dembski for spotting Meyer's article in the UK Daily Telegraph
From his article:
|Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins.|
As it was developed by Philip Johnson, and considering the wedge document, not to mention the dearth of scientific research, this seems a bit rich.
|By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.|
Natural selection is not "blind and undirected", Species adapt to fit their niches, as those niches change over time via climate change, continental drift, cataclysms such as meteor strikes, etc., etc.
|The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".|
The vast amount of work produced since Behe's (1996) assertion seems to have slipped by Mr Meyer, though not by Judge Jones, fortunately.
|Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence.|
An unscientific assertion. What uniform experience can be considered evidence and how is that scientific?
|The informational features of the cell at least appear designed. Yet, to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.|
Not X does not prove Y. What evidence is there that there is an "Intelligent Designer" at work. People may believe this, many scientists are theists, but belief is not science.
|So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.|
Abiogenesis is an intractable problem, and may remain so for a very long time, but the leap of faith to an Intelligent Designer is not science, it is religion.
|Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.|
"Pandas and People" and the wedge document clearly demonstrate the evolution of creationism into intelligent design.
|Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."|
What theory. Please, please state the theory of Intelligent Design. I heartily agree with the quote from Flew. Do you not see the irony there Dr. Meyer?
Same old canards. The problem is this will be new to many English readers, who will be unaware of the duplicitous nature of the Discovery Institute and the creo/ID movement in general. At least they do not (yet) have a significant support base in the UK. Is there a link on the Telegraph website for comments? I didn't spot one. Maybe the paper will publish an opposing view.