Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer discuss Meyer's latest book—Return of God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe

Stephen Meyer, author of  Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, has now published yet another major book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.   Meyer is one of the foremost advocates of Intelligent Design and his latest book constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive book available on the subject.  In this video, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer carry on an irenic, valuable conversation.  If you are like me, you will be highly impressed with Meyer's mastery of his subject matter.

PERFECT ECLIPSES: COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY?

A strong argument can be made that the universe points beyond itself.  

Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, writes about the 2017 eclipse viewed by many of us today in the United States and elsewhere.  He writes:

On August 21, we Americans get to see a total solar eclipse. As I mentioned in a previous piece, we can see solar eclipses only because our planet, our Moon, and our Sun sometimes come together in a straight line in space. When the Moon passes between the Sun and Earth, those in the Moon’s shadow see an eclipse.

But the story doesn’t end there. A rare alignment of events allows Earthlings to witness not just solar eclipses, but what we might call perfect solar eclipses. Our Moon just barely covers the Sun’s bright photosphere. Such an eclipse depends on just the right sizes, shapes, and relative distances of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

There’s no law of physics that dictates this layout. There are 65 major moons in our Solar System, and many smaller ones. But only we enjoy perfect solar eclipses. If there were Martians or Uranians, they wouldn’t see such eclipses.

The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun. But the Moon is also about 400 times closer to the Earth than is the Sun. As a result, the size of the Moon on our sky matches the size of the Sun. And since they appear as round disks, they match in both size and shape.

What’s more, the tight match between Moon and Sun only happens during a narrow window of Earth’s history. The Moon is slowly moving away from Earth — at roughly the same speed that fingernails grow.

In brief, the best time and place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is just when and where there are observers to see them.

Let that sink in.

QUICK TAKES

  --  Kathleen Parker - To Defeat poverty, look to marriage   Negative rhetoric on marriage needs overcoming

  --  National Organization for Marriage - Stop this contempt for the constitution

  --  U.K. Guardian - Daughter of atheist parents wants to be baptized

  --  Andrew Spencer -What is the Prosperity Gospel?

  --  Denys O'Leary -  In Search of a Road to Reality  "The new cosmologies are not shedding much light, except on the sheer power of the human imagination."

ERIC METAXAS INTERVIEWS STEPHEN MEYER ON "DARWIN'S DOUBT"

Eric Metaxas of Socrates in the City interviews Stephen Meyer on Darwin, Intelligent Design, the scientific method, and the book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Filmed at the Union League Club in New York City on September 12, 2013.  (HT: Justin Taylor) 

I viewed it last night in its entirety and heartily recommend it.  Metaxas employs entertaining wit and humor and Meyer is an interviewer's delight- he offers cogent, articulate responses to every question!  And as for the Q&A, Wintery Knight says "Those were some of the most intelligent questions I have ever seen from a lay audience." 

Winitery Knight summarizes:

It’s a very good discussion that starts with the 5 basic questions you need to understand before you can understand intelligent design.

Here are the first 5 questions:

• What is intelligent design?
• What are the three meanings of the word evolution?
• Is Darwinian evolution compatible with intelligent design?
• Is intelligent design science?
• What is biological information and where is it found?

IGNORANT PONTIFICATING ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN

MichaelBehe, an advocate of Intelligent Design and the author of Darwin's Black Box, responded to an article in the National Catholic Register written by Mark Shea.  Behe points to a scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall which expresses his annoyance:

Behe responds to the ignorant critics of Intelligent Design.

Don't you just love writers who purport to criticize what some person or group thinks, but never manage to quote them? Mark Shea, a blogger for the National Catholic Register, holds forth on why some Thomistic philosophers look askance at claims of intelligent design in biology. Of course, we at ENV and Discovery Institute have been down this road many times before, holding joint science/philosophy conferences (see here, here, and here), writing books

• The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities

• Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

• The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

• A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature

and blogs (see Jay Richards's series on "Catholics and Intelligent Design," here, here, here, here, and here) about all manner of philosophical and other distinctions proper to a scientific claim of intelligent design. (For those who want a relatively painless introduction to some of the relevant issues, here is a place to start.) Unfortunately, Shea betrays no evidence of having read or listened to any of it. Instead he issues the kind of opinion a well intentioned person might form after perusing, say, a New York Times story on the topic.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/marshall_mcluha079201.html#sthash.aXxEQwV7.dpuf

Don't you just love writers who purport to criticize what some person or group thinks, but never manage to quote them? Mark Shea, a blogger for the National Catholic Register, holds forth on why some Thomistic philosophers look askance at claims of intelligent design in biology. Of course, we at ENV and Discovery Institute have been down this road many times before, holding joint science/philosophy conferences (see here, here, and here), writing books

• The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities

• Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

• The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

• A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature

and blogs (see Jay Richards's series on "Catholics and Intelligent Design," here, here, here, here, and here) about all manner of philosophical and other distinctions proper to a scientific claim of intelligent design. (For those who want a relatively painless introduction to some of the relevant issues, here is a place to start.) Unfortunately, Shea betrays no evidence of having read or listened to any of it. Instead he issues the kind of opinion a well intentioned person might form after perusing, say, a New York Times story on the topic.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/marshall_mcluha079201.html#sthash.aXxEQwV7.dpuf

Don't you just love writers who purport to criticize what some person or group thinks, but never manage to quote them? Mark Shea, a blogger for the National Catholic Register, holds forth on why some Thomistic philosophers look askance at claims of intelligent design in biology. Of course, we at ENV and Discovery Institute have been down this road many times before, holding joint science/philosophy conferences (see here, here, and here), writing books

• The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities

• Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

• The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

• A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature

and blogs (see Jay Richards's series on "Catholics and Intelligent Design," here, here, here, here, and here) about all manner of philosophical and other distinctions proper to a scientific claim of intelligent design. (For those who want a relatively painless introduction to some of the relevant issues, here is a place to start.) Unfortunately, Shea betrays no evidence of having read or listened to any of it. Instead he issues the kind of opinion a well intentioned person might form after perusing, say, a New York Times story on the topic.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/marshall_mcluha079201.html#sthash.aXxEQwV7.dpuf

Don't you just love writers who purport to criticize what some person or group thinks, but never manage to quote them? Mark Shea, a blogger for the National Catholic Register, holds forth on why some Thomistic philosophers look askance at claims of intelligent design in biology. Of course, we at ENV and Discovery Institute have been down this road many times before, holding joint science/philosophy conferences (see here, here, and here), writing books

• The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities

• Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

• The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

• A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature

and blogs (see Jay Richards's series on "Catholics and Intelligent Design," here, here, here, here, and here) about all manner of philosophical and other distinctions proper to a scientific claim of intelligent design. (For those who want a relatively painless introduction to some of the relevant issues, here is a place to start.) Unfortunately, Shea betrays no evidence of having read or listened to any of it. Instead he issues the kind of opinion a well intentioned person might form after perusing, say, a New York Times story on the topic.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/marshall_mcluha079201.html#sthash.aXxEQwV7.dpuf

ATHEISM AND ITS SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS: A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).  (HT: Justin Taylor)

 

About Justin Taylor

 

Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Elder at New Covenant Bible Church. VP of Editorial at Crossway. More…

 

 

• Subscribe via Feed
• Subscribe via Email

• Subscribe via Kindle
• Follow on Twitter

 

 

 

Sponsors

Advertise Here

Blogroll

 

• 9Marks Blog
• Albert Mohler
• Andy Naselli
• Cranach Blog
• Denny Burk
• Desiring God Blog
• Evangel
• First Thoughts
• Girl Talk
• In Light of the Gospel
• Jim Hamilton
• Joe Thorn
• Josh Harris
• Kevin DeYoung
• Kingdom People
• Ligonier
• Radical Womanhood
• Resurgence
• Russell Moore
• Scriptorium Daily
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Blog
• Thabiti Anyabwile
• The Sola Panel
• Tim Challies
• Tullian Tchividjian
• Vitamin Z
• What's Best Next?
• Worship Matters

 

Magazine & Journals

 

• Books & Culture
• Boundless
• Christianity Today
• First Things
• Journal of Biblical Counseling
• Modern Reformation
• Reformation21
• Tabletalk
• The Briefing
• Themelios
• Touchstone
• World Magazine

 

Ministries

 

• 9Marks
• Acts 29
• Biblical Spirituality
• CBMW
• CCEF
• Centre for Public Christianity
• Crossway
• Desiring God
• Founders Ministries
• Grace to You
• Ligonier
• Matthias Media
• Sovereign Grace Ministries
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Reviews
• The Gospel Coalition
• Truth for Life
• White Horse Inn

 

Archives

 

May

20

2013

Justin Taylor|7:00 am CT

Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions: A Conversation with David Berlinski

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).

MICHAEL MEDVED INTERVIEWS INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXPERT STEPHEN C. MEYER

Michael Medved has introduced a new science feature to his talk radio show. Thursday he interviewed Stephen C. Meyer, author of Signature of the Cell and the soon to be released Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, June 18).    (See the trailer below).     Dr. Meyer is the Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science who directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.   The 17 minute interview focuses on atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel's [heretical!] doubts about philosophical materialism.  Nagel is the author of  Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.

   Here is the interview segment.  

Darwin's Doubt promo trailer

 

Available for pre-order now at www.DarwinsDoubt.com,where you will receive a 43% discount, free shipping and four free digital books!  [I pre-ordered a copy several weeks ago]

DOUG GROOTHUIS DECONSTRUCTS MICHAEL SHERMER'S CASE AGAINST "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

Groothuis remains one of the most clear-headed thinkers around.  I learned great deal years ago from his earlier books on the New Age movement [Unmasking the New Age, Confronting the New Age, and Revealing the New Age Jesus, later revised and updated as  revised as Jesus in an Age of Controversy and more recently from his book Truth Decay.]  His blog post on Michael Shermer is worth reading.  (HT: Wintery Knight).

I previously blogged about Michael Shermer and his debate with Greg Koukl on Hugh Hewitt's radio program here.

QUICK TAKES ON FAITH AND REASON (APOLOGETICS)

Recent discoveries:

William Lane Craig on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (3 min 39 second video)

Tawapologetics:  Did Jesus Really  Say that?  The Reliability of the New Testament Gospels (Web article) 

Wintery Knight - The Case for Christian Theism  (Web links to articles and debates)

Book (ed. by John Piper and Justin Taylor): The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World.  Video and audio of the talks here.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Free Apologetics e-book library

Wintery Knight (On Intelligent Design) - Audio of Debate Between Stephen Meyer and Peter Atkin

Note: Charles Colson has important things to say about Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell   Dr. Douglas Groothuis, for his part, rhapsodizes:

The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level--philosophical, scientific, historical and literary--it is a superb treatise.    Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly.

SELECT POSTS FROM WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG

I have some catching up to do with what Wintery Knight has been up to.   Following is a selection.  All are worth "clicking through" to read:

-  How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?

-  Skincare company uses aborted fetal tissue in anti-aging cream

-  American Library Association silent as librairies ban books about ex-gays

- UK Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade (Must read)

- Hindu/Christian debate on anti-conversion law in India

- New books of interest to Christian apologists

         Update:  One of the books listed is Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell about which Charles Colson has important things to say.  Dr. Douglas Groothuis, for his part, rhapsodizes:

The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level--philosophical, scientific, historical and literary--it is a superb treatise.    Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS BLOG

If you haven't yet discovered Tim's "Random Observations" blog, it wouldn't surprise me if you wanted to add it to your bookmarks. When I pop by every so often, I am invariably treated to several original thought pieces of an extremely high caliber.  Tonight, for example, I greatly appreciated his post, "Detecting Religion in Atheists." I also valued his post, "The Origin of the Flat Earth," which taught me that "no one before the 1830s believed medieval people thought the earth was flat."  That was a charge invented, or should I say, "concocted" by atheists.  I appreciate his level-headed, dispassionate observation displayed in his post, "What's at Stake in the Intelligent Design Debate?"  There's a lot more to be found at his blog.  Happy reading! 

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS - "WHO'S INTO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?"

Tim, over ar Random Observations blog, offers a fascinating post contrasting the scientific backgrounds and qualifications of the pro-Intelligent Design scholars with those opposed.  Tim writes:

Here are the academic credentials of some of the prominent scientific supporters of Intelligent  Design I've encountered:

Michael Behe - Chemistry (BS), Biochemistry (PhD, Professor)
David Berlinski - Philosophy (PhD), Mathematics (post-PhD), Molecular Biology (PhD)
William Demski - Psychology (BA), Statistics (MS), Mathematics (PhD, post-), History and Philosophy of Science (post-PhD), MDiv
Steve Fuller - History (BS), History and Philosophy of Science (MS, PhD), Sociology (BS, Department Chair)
Donald Johnson - Chemistry (PhD), Computer Science and Information Sciences (PhD)
Rebecca Keller - Biophysical Chemistry (PhD)
Dean Kenyon - Physics (BS), Biophysics (PhD), Chemical Biodynamics (post-PhD)
Stephen Meyer - Physics (BS), Geology (BS), Philosophy (PhD)
Bradley Monton (sympathetic) - Physics (BS), Philosophy (PhD)
Jeffrey Schwartz - Philosphy (BS), Neuroscience & Psychiatry (MD)
Jonathan Wells - Religious Studies (PhD), Molecular and Cell Biology (PhD)

And now let's compare with the credentials of some of the most vocal scientific opponents of Intelligent Design that I can think of (let me know if I've missed anyone, or one of their significant degrees):

Richard Dawkins - Zoology (MA, DPhil)
Daniel Dennett - Philosophy (BA, DPhil)
Barbara Forrest - English (BA), Philosophy (MA, PhD)
PZ Meyers - Zoology (BS), Evolutionary Developmental Biology (PhD)
Kenneth Miller - Biology (BS, PhD)
Robert Pennock - History and Philosophy of Science (PhD)
Victor Stenger - Electrical Engineering (BS), Physics (MS, PhD), Philosophy (Professor)

Noticing anything?

Long before I encountered this debate, I was taken by Richard Feynman's adage that there were only two branches of science - Physics, and Stamp Collecting. In other words, scientists either do lots of hard math with predictable results (Physics, Chemistry) or they tend to collect, enumerate, and describe things (Zoology, Sociology, Anthropology, much Biology).

I used to assume that vocal evolutionary atheists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Daniel Dennett were heavy hitters, academically. But no, I recently discovered, Dawkins and Myers are just Zoologists, and Dennett's a philosopher with no hard science background.

In contrast, I'm being blown away by some of the credentials (and more importantly, lucidity) of those advocating ID. For example, David Berlinski, who appeared in Expelled, is off the charts: Mathematics and Molecular Biology? A research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis? Wow, that's some seriously hard stuff. (Systems Science and Mathematics was known as the hardest engineering degree when I was in school.) And most those which have Philosophy degrees are actually Philosophy of History of Science (I didn't always write that out), and many have serious backing and overlap with hard sciences (e.g. Physics).

So it seems most the prominent scientific IDers tend to fall closer to Physics, and most the outspoken anti-ID scientists tend to fall closer to stamp collecting. But most people aren't aware of this. They've been told, mostly, that prominent IDers have bad motives (the "Wedge Document") (as if Dawkins and Dennett have no ulterior religious motives of their own, and as if motives invalidated arguments), that ID proponents know almost nothing of science, that don't do science, etc. From what I've seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

Go over to the original post and take a look at the comments.  Tim rebuts one scorner into silence.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN CRITICS MUST NOW CONTEND WITH STEPHEN C. MEYER'S NEW BOOK, "SIGNATURE IN THE CELL"

From Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds:

Keith Mathison reviews Stephen C. Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, which he says "may be the most persuasive case for intelligent design yet published." Some excerpts from the review:

Stephen Meyer received his Ph.D. from Cambridge in the philosophy of science. He directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He has authored or co-authored numerous books and articles, but I will venture to guess that Signature in the Cell will be the one for which he is remembered. . . .

 Signature in the Cell is absolutely fascinating. For over twenty years, I have been reading books on the relationship between science and faith, creation, evolution, intelligent design, the interpretation of Genesis 1, and Meyer's book is without question one of the top 5. Those who are committed to an atheistic and materialist philosophy will be all over this book, but I am slightly optimistic that it may actually change the nature of the debate among scientists who are interested in going where the evidence leads. In fact, one of the most helpful sections of this book deals with the very definition of "science," an issue that has hindered helpful discussions and debates.

Wintery Knight posts a link to a radio interview featuring Stephen C. Meyer on the popular, nationally-syndicated Michael Medved show. (H/T Discovery Institute)  

Wintery Knight's blog also posts a link to the ID the Future Podcast website which lists the following podcasts:

DNA Evidence for Design: Stephen C. Meyer and Signature in the Cell, Part 3   and  The Design Argument Is Unrefuted: Stephen Meyer Responds to Critics With Signature in the Cell

Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule

Casey Luskins wrote a guest article for U.S. News & World Report:

Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.

Strategy 1: Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination
Darwinists have adopted a discourse of demonization where they try to attack their opponents as dishonest, deceitful, or even worse—uncool and medieval! We should be suspicious of this tactic because . . .  [more]    (HT- Ed Morrissey at HotAir)

-  Gallup poll: "On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution"