Again, DCP Relies 100% On The Discovery Institute

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The proprietor of SeN simply cannot post an article on evolution/intelligent design without relying on the Discovery Institute. This time (in yet another recycled article) the proprietor relies on Stephen C. Meyer the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. The proprietor wants his readers to research Stephen C. Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell.
https://www.discovery.org/p/meyer/

gemli to LynnJohnson
3 hours ago edited
I'd like to write a thoughtful reply to your post, but frankly the "Discovery Institute" is not endorsed or respected by actual scientists. It exists only to promote a theological idea in place of actual scientific understanding. The strength of science is that scientists can change their views as knowledge and understanding of the physical world evolves. The Discovery Institute merely promotes a theistic agenda, period, full stop.



DanielPeterson to gemli
an hour ago edited
gemli: "I'd like to write a thoughtful reply to your post, but frankly the "Discover Institute" [sic] is not endorsed or respected by actual scientists."

Whew! What a relief! That falsehood saves you the trouble of having to engage arguments and evidence that might challenge The Dogma.

gemli: "It exists only to promote a theological idea in place of actual scientific understanding. . . . The Discovery Institute merely promotes a theistic agenda, period, full stop."

Spoken, unsurprisingly, with all of the confidence that complete and blissful ignorance can confer on those lucky enough to enjoy it.



DanielPeterson to gemli
6 hours ago edited

You seem to be assuming that current mainstream science on abiogenesis makes sense. Does it? I would recommend Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell to you, but I know that you're afraid of engaging ideas that might threaten The Dogma.



gemli to DanielPeterson
an hour ago
From Wikipedia:

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none.

The Discovery Institute expresses conservative viewpoints on social issues such as homelessness policy and the COVID-19 response."

(Citations that back up the claims made in this quote were removed for brevity, but searching Wikipedia for "Intelligent Design" will provide them.)

ChatGPT: Is Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell, respected in the scientific community?

"Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" is not generally considered to be well-respected in the scientific community. The book promotes the idea of intelligent design, which suggests that some features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes.

Intelligent design is not a widely accepted scientific theory, as it is not based on empirical evidence and does not make testable predictions. Therefore, it is not considered a part of mainstream science, and it is not taught or researched in the same way that mainstream scientific theories are.

Many scientists have criticized "Signature in the Cell" for promoting ideas that are outside the realm of science and for misrepresenting scientific evidence. Some have also pointed out that the book contains numerous errors and misunderstandings of basic scientific concepts.

While there are some who support Meyer's ideas, the overwhelming majority of scientists consider intelligent design to be a non-scientific idea that does not belong in the scientific discourse."



ChatGPT: Is Stephen C Meyer respected in the scientific community?

"Stephen Meyer is a controversial figure in the scientific community. He is a proponent of intelligent design, a view that suggests that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes.

Intelligent design is not widely accepted in the scientific community, as it is not considered a scientific theory because it does not make testable predictions and relies on supernatural explanations. In fact, the scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory and is not supported by the evidence.

While Stephen Meyer has a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, his work promoting intelligent design is not widely respected in the scientific community. Mainstream scientists consider his views to be outside the bounds of science and not supported by the available evidence."

[drumdude]

DCP has been incredibly boring lately. His high school book reports just aren’t doing it for me.

[Physics Guy]

Any old pamphlet on Islamic philosophy is likely to sound good to me. I don't know enough to distinguish a magisterial survey from an ignorant rant. The rant may be the one book I've read on the subject, and I may not know the first thing about the Arabic language, but at least I've engaged the arguments and ideas, right?

Actually I try not to assume that a book on a subject I don't know must be decent just because it seems so to me. If somebody tells me that most experts despise the book as worthless, I'll generally shut up. Even if I'm secretly thinking that there might still be at least something to that book, I'm going to be worried enough about making a fool of myself that I'll stop digging the hole deeper.

Most subjects are equally hard to understand because the borders of subjects are usually set by how much human minds can grasp. So I'm sure that Peterson's own subject is as hard to master as anyone else's, if you want to do it real justice. Some subjects are more obviously intimidating than others, though, because the steep parts of their learning curves come right at the beginning. The difficulty of intracellular biology may not be much greater than that of any other subject, at the end of the day, but it ought to be one of the hardest difficulties to overlook at first glance. The subject sits right at the nexus of the least understood parts of physics, chemistry, and biology. To imagine that a single popular book is a sufficient basis for authoritative judgements on a subject like that—it takes hubris even for someone who is used to reading no more than one book.

An academic who is used to having to read many books before getting a clear picture of a subject ought to know from experience how a thesis that seems plausible to a lay person can be utterly wrong. It beats me how any such expert can nonetheless be as blithely confident as Peterson seems to be in the value of one controversial book on a subject of which they know virtually nothing.

[DrStakhanovite]

I thought Gemli got banned! Did I miss something?

An academic who is used to having to read many books before getting a clear picture of a subject ought to know from experience how a thesis that seems plausible to a lay person can be utterly wrong. It beats me how any such expert can nonetheless be as blithely confident as Peterson seems to be in the value of one controversial book on a subject of which they know virtually nothing.

I always thought that the funnest part of getting into a new subject was the process of learning the conceptual terrain by reading a breadth of books on the subject, preferably those that take opposing views.

Daniel’s blog would be a lot more engaging if he read three or four different books on something specific in the Origins debate from various perspectives and then illustrate if and how their content interacts with one another.

[drumdude]

It beats me how any such expert can nonetheless be as blithely confident as Peterson seems to be in the value of one controversial book on a subject of which they know virtually nothing.

A lifetime of defending the indefensible. Squaring the circle.

Doing Mormon apologetics is not healthy, as many former apologists here can testify.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Daniel’s blog would be a lot more engaging if he read three or four different books on something specific in the Origins debate from various perspectives and then illustrate if and how their content interacts with one another.

Dan lost interest long ago in having debates or learning what people who disagree with his opinions actually think. It's a lot easier and more profitable to just focus on making ever more refined arguments about why his fundamentalism is true.

[hauslern]

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

This site argues man's origins are in Africa and we have similar dna with the apes

So man originated in Africa not Missouri

[Kishkumen]

Let’s see . . . .

A religious apologist

With a PhD in medieval Islam

Recommends a book on intelligent design

From an Institute that exists to promote the same

Out of religious motives.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but in my view this does not add up to a promising recommendation.

[Dr Exiled]

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

This site argues man's origins are in Africa and we have similar dna with the apes

So man originated in Africa not Missouri

Watch it buddy. All good Mormons will go back the Missouri (or the Ohio?) some day to build a temple to the most high and speak the pure adamic language in preparation for the return of our Lord. We have our spiritual and physical origins in Mother Missouri, regardless of what the "science" says. You can take that to the Kirtland Bank.

[Doctor Scratch]

Daniel’s blog would be a lot more engaging if he read three or four different books on something specific in the Origins debate from various perspectives and then illustrate if and how their content interacts with one another.

Dan lost interest long ago in having debates or learning what people who disagree with his opinions actually think. It's a lot easier and more profitable to just focus on making ever more refined arguments about why his fundamentalism is true.

^^^This. He posts this stuff thinking primarily about donations to Interpreter. Sure: he’ll issue the usual disclaimer about how he, personally, doesn’t collect any money from Interpreter, but it’s still his “Baby.” And getting people to throw away their money on an organization that routinely conducts smear campaigns, produces worthless fake scholarship, and is used as a “springboard” to pay for free travel for the organization’s President, is still exceptionally scummy.