Science of the Spirit
I don't see any evidence by the end that Shermer has changed his mind (which, again, was not the intent). But when biology, physics, and cosmology are weighed together, I don't know what objection to Steve Meyer's case he would hold onto. Every cosmology either has theistic implications, or ends up wrecking the basis for rational scientific investigation of nature. This may be the most interesting dialogue that Return of the God Hypothesis has sparked so far, and that is no small measure of praise. As a friend commented who heard it before I did, "Whoa! Must listen." Whoa, indeed. Now I would like to hear a follow-up with some of the other sophisticated advocates for atheism — Sam Harris, perhaps, above all.
Responding to Darrel Falk
By the way, at one point Shermer quotes extensively from the review of the book by biologist Darrel Falk (who doesn't touch the cosmological arguments at all). Meyer addresses Falk's points concisely, but you can read a full response from geologist Casey Luskin and physicist Brian Miller here, here, and here. More to come on that front shortly. Miller has asked for a partial retraction from the entity, BioLogos, that published the review. No word as yet on that.
Comment: It's nice to see that at least some in the New Atheist field have forgone their predecessors dismissive attitude in favor of actually making arguments against the points brought to light by the Intelligent Design camp. It leads to some high level discussion and debate that is otherwise sorely missing in today's academic atmosphere.
More from Stephen Meyer:
- PragerU features Stephen Meyer in new video: Evolution - bacteria to Beethoven
- Ben Shapiro interviews Stephen Meyer about intelligent design
- Another hit for Intelligent Design: Scientific paper reaffirms that new genes were required for Cambrian Explosion
- Despite Darwinists' cancel culture, intelligent design achieves breakthrough in mainstream biology journal
- 'Nested Coding': Overlapping genes as a signature of intelligent design
- Intelligent design 3.0 and advancing the tipping point
Reader Comments
rs1 I have also come to realize that atheism is just as much a "religion" as Christianity or Islam or whatever. Atheists are just a different kind of true believer, its just that they "believe" in nothing and can be just as fervently evangelical as any Christian.ABSOLUTELY!
RC
Shermer: Entropy ends the universe? Then what started it? Your philosophy has no beginnings, just endings. You are part of a death cult.
Meyer: Your philosophy adds an instruction set to the combination of small parts, but tries to make meaning or purpose irrelevant. You are part of a complexity cult.
You are both materialists, both just snake-fascinated by your own intellectual meanderings. You're perfect foils for one another, but have little to contribute to human understanding.
Meyer wants there to be a God, but have it just be an explanatory force, and otherwise leave us alone to play in our massively entertaining universe with our massively entertaining language-and-concept-spinning brain. That's why his is a complexity cult.
Whereas Shermer's philosophy can't posit a source, Meyer's can't posit a destination. As good materialists, they will agree not to challenge one another on their basic flaws. They then can talk forever and a day about nothing substantial, and have loads of self-masturbatory fun.
lsjarvi And that's just fine with him, as long as there is nothing to comprehend that his intellect can't eventually encompass.RC
God, but have it just be an explanatory force,
No, Meyer disproves deism via the added information that comes from new protein folds (cf origin of life and cambrian explosion). That is an old argument from him. The *only* meaningful counterargument has come from a book called Evolution 2.0, which suggests that this would have been possible via transposition and different genetic arrangements, symbiogenesis and gene transfer, and epigenetics and cell intelligence. A few arguments (genetic code and epigenetic information) have been tackled by Meyer.
As good materialists
What a f*cking crock. A God transcending time and space has been what Meyer set out to prove from the start. The ultimate materialist, the quintessentially skepticist Boltzmann Brain materialist, would suggest that everything can and does happen by chance. That can't be disproven, but it would suggest that a universe based on laws is so improbable as to never come to pass.
No, Meyer disproves deism (rejects revelation and substitutes reason) via the added information that comes from new protein folds (cf origin of life and Cambrian explosion).........A God transcending time and space has been what Meyer set out to prove from the start.Do you perhaps need to resolve the contradiction in these two statements? Anything transcending time and space is not subject to understanding through human reason. That's why Meyer is a materialist who can't posit a source, unless it's a highly theoretical one that doesn't render his own mental powers unnecessary or impotent.
Evolution in consciousness must, by definition, have a goal. Otherwise, it's not evolution. Materialists would have you believe that random change produces meaningful and goal-directed progress. Not even in a purely mechanical universe can it do that, hence the fact that Darwin is going down in flames. Meyer is a materialist.
Neither of them can posit a source or a meaningful destination. Shermer is fine with that, but Meyer is uncomfortable. He does more dissembling, mouthing spiritual-sounding platitudes so you won't notice that his God made a universe that has plenty of complexity and apparent moral content, but lacks an evolutionary point.
And also to say to any thinking reasoning people, of whatever belief or philosophy, reading this, to get a copy of Signature in the Cell, Darwin's Doubt and Darwin's Black Box if they haven't already.
If you like materialism, go ahead and listen to these people. It used to be a free country!
For that matter, Peterson is more Darwinian. That's clear in his books, but not to suggest either he or Meyer is incorrect for believing in evolution to some degree.
*
"It has become popular today among the scientific community, to proclaim as a matter of fact, that the universe is ultimately governed by death and decay on the large scale and randomness on the microscale..."
"...When we start looking at transcendental concepts like LIFE, MIND, or MORALITY contained in the scientific work and life of the great Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, we tend to find that entropy breaks down in the most devastating manner..."
"...The great Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) noted in his famous 1926 book The Biosphere [Link] that the biosphere (the thin envelop over the face of the globe which shapes and is shaped by living matter) was not a closed system defined by entropy as Darwinians assumed, but rather an open system shaped by the intersection of cosmic radiation and internal radiations emanating from within the earth.."
"...When humanity appeared onto the scene, a new phenomenon began expressing itself in a form which the great Russian academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) described as the Noosphere (as opposed to the lithosphere and biosphere). Vernadsky understood this new geological force to be driven by human creative reason, and devoted his life to teaching the world that the law of humanity must accord with the law of nature stating:
“The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must, rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming”. [Link]
*
In Vernadsky’s mind, neither the noosphere, nor the biosphere obeyed a law of mathematical equilibrium or statis, but was rather governed by an asymmetrical harmony and progress from lower to higher states of organization. It was only by coming to understand the principles of nature that mankind became morally and intellectually fit to improve upon nature by turning deserts green, harnessing the power of the atom or applying scientific progress to health and agriculture. Some of his most important insights were published in his Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomena (1938), [Link] Evolution of Species and Living Matter (1928) [Link] Some Words About the Noosphere (1943), [Link] and The Transition of the Biosphere to the Noosphere (1938)." [Link]
*
The current crop of Malthusian/Darwinian nihilists that are STS driven and highly psycopathic and who currently have the reins of western society in hand, need to be removed. It seems that their dream world, made in their own image, doesn't include most of the world's inhabitants. I would add that this way of thinking is antithetical to the 'natural order of things' because the Earth does what it does best, it brings forth life... it people's.
*
Matthew goes on to say, "...And while cynics look only at the periodic mass extinctions scattered across the fossil records, where entire systems of life were wiped out, the true scientist observes that a higher process of creation of new systems is at play always moving towards expressing ever greater degrees of freedom of action and complexity towards the expression of human life."
Humanity stands poised at this moment to perform a great leap by utilizing ever more denser forms of energy to produce the ergs and calories necessary to fuel our expansion to the stars. Check out this 8 and a half minute section of Matt's video: [Link]
Check out more in the comments section here:
Comets cause meteor showers on Earth
Comets that circle the Sun in very elongated orbits spread their debris so thin along their orbit or eject it out of the solar system altogether that their meteor showers are hard to detect. From...The current crop of Malthusian/Darwinian nihilists that are STS driven and highly psycopathic and who currently have the reins of western society in hand, need to be removedOr made irrelevant.
They're doing a pretty good job of that all by themselves.
I do not believe in <blah> because people who are smarter than me tell me what to think and they tell me <blah> is wrong. Instead I believe in <halb> because that is what these people tell me to believe.
From the above:
It's not a debate — it's a discussion between respectful, eminently thoughtful people, neither of whom is trying to "win."
I have read enough of Michael's writings to know that he is pathologically incapable of a rational discussion. I have also come to realize that atheism is just as much a "religion" as Christianity or Islam or whatever. Atheists are just a different kind of true believer, its just that they "believe" in nothing and can be just as fervently evangelical as any christian.