tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post3614739145907892482..comments2024-03-29T07:00:27.146-04:00Comments on Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen MeyerG.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-72852545497070671892014-04-21T11:33:09.619-04:002014-04-21T11:33:09.619-04:00Another objection to intelligent design creationis...<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-asher/a-new-objection-to-intell_b_4557876.html" rel="nofollow">Another objection</a> to intelligent design creationism based on Meyer's newest book.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-20529208021032451872013-11-06T15:06:27.405-05:002013-11-06T15:06:27.405-05:00A pretty ambitious process of reviewing Meyer'...A pretty ambitious process of reviewing Meyer's newest book in detail can be found <a href="http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/07/09/darwins-doubt-a-review/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Sandwalk has also given a series of posts on the book, e.g. <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/09/darwins-doubt-genes-tell-story.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-cambrian-conundrum-stephen-meyer.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/09/stephen-meyer-says-that-constant.html#more" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Meyer's appearance on Medved is discussed (preemptively) <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/10/meyer-on-medved.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-81560790220593583052013-08-09T17:56:36.589-04:002013-08-09T17:56:36.589-04:00A good review of Meyer's recent book can be fo...A good review of Meyer's recent book can be found <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Donald Prothero reviews it <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HNOHERF138DU/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0062071475" rel="nofollow">here</a>.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-64012549529813471932013-04-22T14:50:47.305-04:002013-04-22T14:50:47.305-04:00Interesting developments. Horrifying, but interest...<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/22/the-discovery-institutes-mask-just-slipped-a-bit-more/" rel="nofollow">Interesting developments</a>. Horrifying, but interesting.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-52144436017219229852012-01-17T19:07:12.085-05:002012-01-17T19:07:12.085-05:00Here's Stephen Meyer laying out 12 ID-Inspired...<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Dozen_ID-Inspired_Predictions" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> Stephen Meyer laying out 12 ID-Inspired Predictions. They are predictably not predictions in the usual scientific sense. The majority are either i) not testable predictions of ID at all but at best test for undirected evolution (and remember that even if undirected evolution were to fail, which nothing indicates (the “predictions” would primarily be unsolved questions rather than predictions if they even made sense or weren’t partially or fully solved), that by itself would not be evidence for ID); ii) or they rely on undefined, vague terminology. Indeed, if anyone had any doubts, the inanity of these “predictions” are pretty conclusive when it comes to showing that ID just isn’t a scientific theory. (I haven't checked whether that link occurs in the text itself, though. Maybe this comment is superfluous.)G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.com