Since I have tried to describe this blog as a “pursuit of self-education,” I am wondering what the purpose of my previous post was (ID on the Abrams Report). I had read about this interview in Signature in the Cell and knew it was an ambush and an argument. I wanted to see it…but why would I want that on my blog? What about this video clip is educational? What did it teach me?
Ok, I agree with intelligent design and think the theory is scientific and correct. One could say that, since I am a Christian, I am “predisposed” to it. Maybe so. But I believe I am open-minded enough to consider both sides of an argument. What I could not stand about the previous video was the disrespect and mischaracterization that went on.
Abrams did not invite Meyer on to have a discussion–it was only to get him to say ID is religion. He insults and trivializes the peers who have reviewed the ID work, even though he doesn’t even know who they are. He also said that ID “assumes evolution doesn’t exist,” which is ridiculous. ID, in this argument, address the origin of biological information. It is plausible ID explains the origin of this information, and natural selection explains everything after. I personally do not yet know what I believe concerning evolution, other than that obvious observable fact that natural selection exists. Natural selection does not explain the generation of biological information, from what I have read. I am still reading. I have purchased Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker, and plan to read that this winter or spring.
What irritates me, and I think I will just have to exercise patience, is that every book or article or video I see on intelligent design has people commenting with both an ignorant and mean spirit. Comments are made in exactly the same spirit of Abrams (biased, close-minded, loud, disrespectful) or that of Eugenie Scott (condescending, superior, ignorant and mischaracterizing).
So, in the context of pursuing a self-education, this video (and the multitude of ignorant comments I have read) provides the negative example, what not to be.
The infamous Abrams Report with Stephen Meyer and Eugenie Scott.
Well, I really don’t want to take the time to comment on this video. It is old and was just after the Dover school court case (or possibly during, I’m not quite sure) where the school district wanted to present ID as an alternative.
I would like to good on Meyer, going on a very hostile show and holding his own. That show is just mosh pit of opinion, and there is no such thing as being “rude,” so get off it Eugenie.
After reading Signature in the Cell, Eugenie’s claim that “Intelligent Design makes the claim that there are things out there in nature that are just categorically unexplainable by natural cause; therefore they were created–designed–by an intelligent agent…” What complete hogwash! Things?? The focus of ID is quite narrow: the origin of biological information. Evolution has been unable to categorically explain the origin of life. That is what ID seeks to address.
Abrams. A mindless bully with some else’s notes.