DCP claims no one has refuted LDS archeological evidence in the past 3 decades

[Philo Sofee]

The Jenkins/Hamblin debate has also obviously terrified DCP off from actually setting up a serious debate ab out their serious theories so the world can seriously see its truths.

I am in the process of studying the concept of Intelligent Design since it has turned a corner and we are in a new day. The gent who most believes it has traction is Stephen C. Meyer. Here is a guy who propounds his theory exactly like Daniel C. Peterson used to in the FARMS Review of Books as editor. Meyer is out there debating all kinds of evolutionists, chemists, mathematicians, physicists. He is constantly being interviewed, writing information about the evidences up about his theory and actively engaged in comparing his view to the very best of the scientists. If Daniel C. Peterson wants to see how its actually supposed to be done, Stephen Meyer is the guy.

In other words, Daniel Peterson actually is just mouthing off with no real conviction, evidence, or desire to demonstrate in front of the world stage, just how true the Book of Mormon is with the people who could actually give credibility to it all. His opponents, disbelievers, scoffers, and scholars of the other side.

[drumdude]

He’s too busy making blockbuster movies to go out there and debate the Atheist Dogmatists!

[dastardly stem]

The Jenkins/Hamblin debate has also obviously terrified DCP off from actually setting up a serious debate ab out their serious theories so the world can seriously see its truths.

I am in the process of studying the concept of Intelligent Design since it has turned a corner and we are in a new day. The gent who most believes it has traction is Stephen C. Meyer. Here is a guy who propounds his theory exactly like Daniel C. Peterson used to in the FARMS Review of Books as editor. Meyer is out there debating all kinds of evolutionists, chemists, mathematicians, physicists. He is constantly being interviewed, writing information about the evidences up about his theory and actively engaged in comparing his view to the very best of the scientists. If Daniel C. Peterson wants to see how its actually supposed to be done, Stephen Meyer is the guy.

In other words, Daniel Peterson actually is just mouthing off with no real conviction, evidence, or desire to demonstrate in front of the world stage, just how true the Book of Mormon is with the people who could actually give credibility to it all. His opponents, disbelievers, scoffers, and scholars of the other side.

I'm pretty certain what the Discovery Institute does with Stephen Meyer and co to sell anti-science and pseudo science is the type of thing DCP and co would be all over if they too were able to command the type of power and influence that the Discovery Institute does. Of course it's influence is largely acceptable due to the number of traditional Christians supporting it. Mormonism happens to come up short on that front so may never be able to pull off the type of ruse Stephen C. Meyer and co are privileged to orchestrate. But that'd be much to Danny McP's chagrin.

In other words the Discovery Institute probably acts a bit of a model for DCP for that which he longs for.

[Philo Sofee]

The Jenkins/Hamblin debate has also obviously terrified DCP off from actually setting up a serious debate ab out their serious theories so the world can seriously see its truths.

I am in the process of studying the concept of Intelligent Design since it has turned a corner and we are in a new day. The gent who most believes it has traction is Stephen C. Meyer. Here is a guy who propounds his theory exactly like Daniel C. Peterson used to in the FARMS Review of Books as editor. Meyer is out there debating all kinds of evolutionists, chemists, mathematicians, physicists. He is constantly being interviewed, writing information about the evidences up about his theory and actively engaged in comparing his view to the very best of the scientists. If Daniel C. Peterson wants to see how its actually supposed to be done, Stephen Meyer is the guy.

In other words, Daniel Peterson actually is just mouthing off with no real conviction, evidence, or desire to demonstrate in front of the world stage, just how true the Book of Mormon is with the people who could actually give credibility to it all. His opponents, disbelievers, scoffers, and scholars of the other side.

I'm pretty certain what the Discovery Institute does with Stephen Meyer and co to sell anti-science and pseudo science is the type of thing DCP and co would be all over if they too were able to command the type of power and influence that the Discovery Institute does. Of course it's influence is largely acceptable due to the number of traditional Christians supporting it. Mormonism happens to come up short on that front so may never be able to pull off the type of ruse Stephen C. Meyer and co are privileged to orchestrate. But that'd be much to Danny McP's chagrin.

In other words the Discovery Institute probably acts a bit of a model for DCP for that which he longs for.

The Discovery Institute is not anti-science. It is not pseudo science either. It is basing its claims on the science proper. Just because they have a different interpretation does not mean it is anti-science. That is just incoherent nonsense. I honestly don't see the Discovery Institute as a ruse, rather more realistically as another interpretation against the already outdated orthodoxy. The interpretation is coming from within by the scientists themselves, instead of from without from the religious interpretations. There is literally.... literally nothing in Stephen C. Meyers writings which can be classified as "anti-science." That is simply ridiculous. Show me where you find in his books (he has 4 of them) he comes out against science proper as an evil. Of course, he is debating and refuting scientists, but that can in no way be seen as anti-science. He uses science and loves it. It is more than obvious in his numerous You Tube conversations/debates.

[drumdude]

I'm pretty certain what the Discovery Institute does with Stephen Meyer and co to sell anti-science and pseudo science is the type of thing DCP and co would be all over if they too were able to command the type of power and influence that the Discovery Institute does. Of course it's influence is largely acceptable due to the number of traditional Christians supporting it. Mormonism happens to come up short on that front so may never be able to pull off the type of ruse Stephen C. Meyer and co are privileged to orchestrate. But that'd be much to Danny McP's chagrin.

In other words the Discovery Institute probably acts a bit of a model for DCP for that which he longs for.

The Discovery Institute is not anti-science. It is not pseudo science either. It is basing its claims on the science proper. Just because they have a different interpretation does not mean it is anti-science. That is just incoherent nonsense. I honestly don't see the Discovery Institute as a ruse, rather more realistically as another interpretation against the already outdated orthodoxy. The interpretation is coming from within by the scientists themselves, instead of from without from the religious interpretations. There is literally.... literally nothing in Stephen C. Meyers writings which can be classified as "anti-science." That is simply ridiculous. Show me where you find in his books (he has 4 of them) he comes out against science proper as an evil. Of course, he is debating and refuting scientists, but that can in no way be seen as anti-science. He uses science and loves it. It is more than obvious in his numerous You Tube conversations/debates.

Philo,

A common complaint about Meyers' writing is that he consistently misrepresents his sources in the same exact way that Interpreter does. Have you gone through his footnotes in, for example, "Darwin's Doubt" to see if Meyers is engaged in this deception?

I would definitely call that anti-science if true.

[Philo Sofee]

The Discovery Institute is not anti-science. It is not pseudo science either. It is basing its claims on the science proper. Just because they have a different interpretation does not mean it is anti-science. That is just incoherent nonsense. I honestly don't see the Discovery Institute as a ruse, rather more realistically as another interpretation against the already outdated orthodoxy. The interpretation is coming from within by the scientists themselves, instead of from without from the religious interpretations. There is literally.... literally nothing in Stephen C. Meyers writings which can be classified as "anti-science." That is simply ridiculous. Show me where you find in his books (he has 4 of them) he comes out against science proper as an evil. Of course, he is debating and refuting scientists, but that can in no way be seen as anti-science. He uses science and loves it. It is more than obvious in his numerous You Tube conversations/debates.

Philo,

A common complaint about Meyers' writing is that he consistently misrepresents his sources in the same exact way that Interpreter does. Have you gone through his footnotes in, for example, "Darwin's Doubt" to see if Meyers is engaged in this deception?

I would definitely call that anti-science if true.

I shall be happy to do so as I can, thank you for giving this criticism. I shall see if it is true. I have never yet heard anyone in his debates say this. That doesn't mean he hasn't as I am well aware. Until I read it for myself I won't believe it. I must see the evidence first hand or it is mere say-so. I would call that sloppy scholarship, not anti-science.

[drumdude]

I will try to do some more research on this, as I have not had the opportunity to examine the claim either and I know you've working on a lot already.

Here's an interesting introduction to the idea of citations being misused intentionally, and what to do about it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8105147/

Reasons for not wanting to be cited pertain to an academic’s desire not to be associated with inaccurate, irrelevant, and/or poor-quality research. Table ​Table11 lays out three major circumstances for unwanted citations concerning the characteristics of the citing author(s), the representation of the citation, and the presence of the citation. In particular, published authors would like to be far removed from citing any authors that are involved in unethical (Aa), fake, or fraudulent practices (Ab), or whose articles have been retracted from the literature (Ac). Additionally, no authors would ever want their original ideas to be misinterpreted, distorted (Ba), or cited in a completely irrelevant manner (Bb). Skewed citation practices, which include the citing of inappropriate and inaccurate papers, have been noted as quite common in research on marine biology (Todd et al., 2010), ecological science (Todd et al., 2007), and biomedicine (Karabulut, 2016).

[Philo Sofee]

I will try to do some more research on this, as I have not had the opportunity to examine the claim either and I know you've working on a lot already.

Here's an interesting introduction to the idea of citations being misused intentionally, and what to do about it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8105147/

Reasons for not wanting to be cited pertain to an academic’s desire not to be associated with inaccurate, irrelevant, and/or poor-quality research. Table ​Table11 lays out three major circumstances for unwanted citations concerning the characteristics of the citing author(s), the representation of the citation, and the presence of the citation. In particular, published authors would like to be far removed from citing any authors that are involved in unethical (Aa), fake, or fraudulent practices (Ab), or whose articles have been retracted from the literature (Ac). Additionally, no authors would ever want their original ideas to be misinterpreted, distorted (Ba), or cited in a completely irrelevant manner (Bb). Skewed citation practices, which include the citing of inappropriate and inaccurate papers, have been noted as quite common in research on marine biology (Todd et al., 2010), ecological science (Todd et al., 2007), and biomedicine (Karabulut, 2016).

Excellent, I too shall look into it. I note that so far in all the reviews of the book, not a single author has accused Meyer of misusing footnotes and sources. Not that he couldn't have, however, it shall take research to find out. I suspect it is a way to leer away those not inclined to check, and so confirm their biases against Meyer. That happens in all research in every subject, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if a mere college kid claimed this because Dawkins is his hero, or some such. It will be fun to find out! There are a lot of scientists beginning to see Meyer's points and confirming them and getting away from the orthodoxy of Neo-Darwinism, and agreeing Intelligent Design makes more sense. We are in the thick of the brew ha ha perhaps for the next decade, and it is promising to be very fun, exasperating, enlarging and a learning experience! Just my kind of cup of tea...

[Physics Guy]

So-called Intelligent Design may not be overtly anti-scientific but I don't like it. It seems to me to be trying to look as scientific as it can, but in a shifty way. I haven't read enough of it recently to point to any specific examples of what I mean, but I have the feeling that when ID people show some impressively rigorous-looking data or argument, they're trying to sell you the house. The arguments and data are usually fine as far as they go, but the conclusions drawn also depend on some dubious unstated assumptions. The typical ID argument avoids drawing attention to those.

Look and see whether an ID book or paper includes a thick chapter or section examining the possible weaknesses of the ID conclusion. If it does, judge whether the discussion is serious or whether it's more just, "Nothing to see here, move along."

Also look to see whether the discussion of possible weaknesses focuses on technical details, or whether it addresses basic assumptions. Focusing on technical details can be good if in fact there are serious problems in the details, like the possibility that a crucial set of measurements could just all have been wrong. It can also be a "nothing up my sleeve" ploy, however, that simply diverts attention from the real issues. And it can be cargo-cult science that goes through a lot of scientific-sounding motions while overlooking absurdly basic issues, like building a radar dish from bamboo.

[dastardly stem]

I'm pretty certain what the Discovery Institute does with Stephen Meyer and co to sell anti-science and pseudo science is the type of thing DCP and co would be all over if they too were able to command the type of power and influence that the Discovery Institute does. Of course it's influence is largely acceptable due to the number of traditional Christians supporting it. Mormonism happens to come up short on that front so may never be able to pull off the type of ruse Stephen C. Meyer and co are privileged to orchestrate. But that'd be much to Danny McP's chagrin.

In other words the Discovery Institute probably acts a bit of a model for DCP for that which he longs for.

The Discovery Institute is not anti-science. It is not pseudo science either. It is basing its claims on the science proper. Just because they have a different interpretation does not mean it is anti-science. That is just incoherent nonsense. I honestly don't see the Discovery Institute as a ruse, rather more realistically as another interpretation against the already outdated orthodoxy. The interpretation is coming from within by the scientists themselves, instead of from without from the religious interpretations. There is literally.... literally nothing in Stephen C. Meyers writings which can be classified as "anti-science." That is simply ridiculous. Show me where you find in his books (he has 4 of them) he comes out against science proper as an evil. Of course, he is debating and refuting scientists, but that can in no way be seen as anti-science. He uses science and loves it. It is more than obvious in his numerous You Tube conversations/debates.

Let me start by admitting I may be rhetorically going too far with my characterization here. And then add to that I don’t really want to get into it even though I went out of my way to say what I did. I mean to say I think, as ignorant as I am, I’m at least kind of on track on Stephen Meyer and the Discovery I. But I also lack much more than having read a few things to that effect. I’d have to spend some time, like you and drumdude suggested, digging back into things to really put a valiant effort into supporting my comments. And I’m not feeling interested enough right now, as plenty remains on my plate.

And I’ve noticed I’ve been too disagreeable lately for the sake of being disagreeable. I don’t like when I get that way…it’s a fine line to disagree on the adventure of learning and discovering hoping to challenge oneself maximizing one’s effort and being disagreeable simply to support one’s own biased take. And i think I’ve been bouncing back and forth over that line a bit too much. That’s all to say I think I’ll back off this some and wish you well on your own adventure digging more into it. In the meantime I’ll see if I can muster up the desire to dig deep as it were. If I do and happen upon some interesting information I’ll be sure to come back and share.

Thanks for the comments, Philo, and keep up the good work.