UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
Guess your oversimplified version didn't flesh out all the details. His argument was not about complexity, but actual digital code. And his method was to use Lyell's and Darwin's method to arrive at the argument. So to say his theory is not science is to also discredit the theory of evolution.... a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it to. That is fine. You've made it clear you have no desire to know the REAL truth or investigate things further. You are as pathetic as people who follow religion with blind faith. The same saying that "if Jesus Christ showed up and told you Christianity was fake you wouldn't believe it" applies here. If Charles Darwin showed up and told you he made it all up, you would still cling to it. I will not waste any more time with you. It is pretty obvious you don't care to REALLY investigate what ID is all about.
My oversimplified version was Meyer himself!
You seem to think that, if I reject ID (in the same way you reject evolution, mind) I am close-minded and not willing to listen. Fine, believe what you want. If you don't think it's possible for someone to look at ID and understand what ID proponents are saying and still reject it, that's your problem, not mine.
Here's Meyer himself speaking :
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_yiUoEfCgI]Stephen Meyer describes his definition of Intelligent Design from Signature In The Cell - YouTube[/ame]
Perhaps complexity isn't the correct word. He does, however, seem to say that since we know humans can create information like we see in cells, and we do it through our intelligence, it must be an intelligence that created the cells. We don't know how it could happen undirected. That still sounds like inserting god (and really, in the end, isn't that what the intelligence must be?) where we are ignorant. Humanity doesn't understand how something happens? Must be god.
Here also is an small article which purports to refute some of Meyer's ideas from his book, Signature in the Cell. Having not read the book, I won't claim accuracy in the article. I wonder if you have read the book and can speak at all to the accuracy of the quotes used and the rebuttals given?
I said nothing of you rejecting ID. I said you were mis-informed and not willing to take the time to explore it yourself. You don't care to and you wouldn't change your mind anyway if presented with the truth.
Last edited: