Stumble it!Meyers repeats nonsense and is praised by the nonsensical
posted in Creationism by themaiden |You’d have to be an idiot to think that this is what critics mean when they ask for a clear definition of Intelligent Design.
Robert Crowther, posting at Evolution News and Views, writes:
In the debate over intelligent design one of the more annoying problems is the media’s predilection to misdefine ID, and to avoid reporting the positive case scientists make for the theory based on scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer, CSC Director, this weekend penned a clear and concise description of the theory that everyone –especially journalists– should read and remember.
I read Meyer’s article, and yes he makes a case, such as it is, for Intelligent Design. He repeats Behe’s tired old and long refuted arguments and he takes a stab at making a DNA/information argument. What he doesn’t do is actually define, in any meaningful way, key components of Intelligent Design. Sure, we know what ID is in Meyer’s loose language– stuff makes us think things were made by an ( ahem ) unknown intelligence–, but there is no math. There are no measurements, no experiments. There isn’t any science, in short. The various labels ‘feel nice’ but they are as fuzzy now as they were before Meyer didn’t attempt to clean them up. It is silly to trumpet this as anything special. It is noise.
Popularity: 1%
