Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:47 am

Will wrote:
Nangwa: wants folks on a Buddhist forum to read a book about ID


To be correct, "wants folks on the Book Review section of a Buddhist forum to read this book about ID, before trashing it"; that is the main thing.


The book has been soundly trashed by real scientists, not to mention the fact that ID and Buddhism are not compatible.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Josef » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:49 am

Will wrote:
Nangwa: wants folks on a Buddhist forum to read a book about ID


To be correct, "wants folks on the Book Review section of a Buddhist forum to read this book about ID, before trashing it"; that is the main thing.

Reading it would be a complete waste of time.
We already know ID is wrong view.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:17 am

Nangwa wrote:We already know ID is wrong view.


Yes, it would seem Will's crusade for this book has more to do with his own prejudice and bias against what he perceives to be "scientific" materialism than anything else.

He seems unable to accept that despite Meyer's protests, all of Meyer's arguments are in favor of a supernatural intelligent agent.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Enochian » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:42 am

Will wrote:.....Meyers version of ID...


Will,

The court ruled after a LENGTHY trial that ID is merely creationism.

So please say "Meyers version of creationism" in the future.

:thanks:
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Will » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:30 am

Namdrol wrote:
Nangwa wrote:We already know ID is wrong view.


Yes, it would seem Will's crusade for this book has more to do with his own prejudice and bias against what he perceives to be "scientific" materialism than anything else.

He seems unable to accept that despite Meyer's protests, all of Meyer's arguments are in favor of a supernatural intelligent agent.

N


No Namdrol, my concern is with lack of fairness, equanimity or truth valuing on the part of many online Buddhists.

And what would Meyer's arguments be, pray tell; page number refs will be accepted. Meyer does not hide his Xtian beliefs, but his arguments for ID are not theological.

If Newton, a devout theist, were alive today none of his insights would be tolerated, much less promulgated by the bigots of science.

This notion that religious beliefs trump or motivate every other thought on any subject, especially science, is true for some Buddhists, Xtians, Jews et al. But there are plenty (the majority?) of people of varied faiths who can think and chew gum at the same time.
Last edited by Will on Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
One should refrain from biased judgments and doubting in fathoming the Buddha and the Dharma of the Buddhas. Even though a dharma may be extremely difficult to believe, one should nonetheless maintain faith in it. Nagarjuna
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Will » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:32 am

Enochian wrote:
Will wrote:.....Meyers version of ID...


Will,

The court ruled after a LENGTHY trial that ID is merely creationism.

So please say "Meyers version of creationism" in the future.

:thanks:


Please stay on topic of the book written by Meyer where he explains his "version of ID".

When legalism rules, freedom of (not to mention depth of) thought dies.
One should refrain from biased judgments and doubting in fathoming the Buddha and the Dharma of the Buddhas. Even though a dharma may be extremely difficult to believe, one should nonetheless maintain faith in it. Nagarjuna
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Will » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:39 am

Namdrol: The book has been soundly trashed by real scientists, not to mention the fact that ID and Buddhism are not compatible.


Many of whom (maybe most) never read the book - now that is "science". :crying:
One should refrain from biased judgments and doubting in fathoming the Buddha and the Dharma of the Buddhas. Even though a dharma may be extremely difficult to believe, one should nonetheless maintain faith in it. Nagarjuna
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby mindyourmind » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:26 am

Will wrote:
Namdrol: The book has been soundly trashed by real scientists, not to mention the fact that ID and Buddhism are not compatible.


Many of whom (maybe most) never read the book - now that is "science". :crying:


Yes, we get it, Will. Because we (or some of us) did not read the book we cannot hold a valid opinion on it. Which is a completely impractical way to approach life, and as hard as you may try, it is not a scientific approach at all. I reject Islam and Scientology, and the material that I have read on those together you can scribble with a crayon on the back of a napkin. I reject a theory of a flat earth, and that beetroot can cure AIDS. I do not believe that Joseph Smith actually received the new and improved word of god on gold plates - and yet I have read incredibly little about all of those, and certainly none of their source documents. Do you accept all of these propositions? Have you read these source documents? Why do you reject them?

Because life is too short. We trust the opinions of others more qualified than us, or who have more time and experience than us in those specific areas of expertise. Compared to say Islam I have given ID a very fair shake, because back in my Christian days these topics actually made sense. But when others, qualified in both science and Christian theology, reject ID to the extent that it is done then it is fair and justifiable to similarly reject that position, without having read each and every screed that gets pumped out by a desperate and very well-funded industry.

So, enough with the "you haven't read it" complaint already.
If Jesus is your new best imaginary friend then I am very happy for the two of you, but please - not here at Dharma Wheel.
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:51 pm

Will wrote:
Namdrol: The book has been soundly trashed by real scientists, not to mention the fact that ID and Buddhism are not compatible.


Many of whom (maybe most) never read the book - now that is "science". :crying:


Venema, a geneticist, read the book and it was his review I provided for you.

His conclusion is that the book is not science.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:09 pm

Will wrote:
No Namdrol, my concern is with lack of fairness, equanimity or truth valuing on the part of many online Buddhists.


MYM answered this adequately.


And what would Meyer's arguments be, pray tell; page number refs will be accepted. Meyer does not hide his Xtian beliefs, but his arguments for ID are not theological.


Of course they are, since they are bound up speculation. His tests at the end of the book are silly.

If Newton, a devout theist, were alive today none of his insights would be tolerated, much less promulgated by the bigots of science.


Newton was more interested in Alchemy than math. And he, like many of his contemporaries, believed in a designer aka god. Darwin permanently upset that apple cart by showing why the appearance of design in fact is just a sign of natural selection. Meyers and his whole crew of ID people are all just passing off speculations as science.


This notion that religious beliefs trump or motivate every other thought on any subject, especially science, is true for some Buddhists, Xtians, Jews et al. But there are plenty (the majority?) of people of varied faiths who can think and chew gum at the same time.


Well, basically Meyers is a fellow of the Discover Institute. They have an ideological agenda which is contra evolutionary biology. They are about as anti-scientific as one can get. He is absolutely intent on proving that God created life. He wrote in 1999:

Physics and cosmology suggest intelligent design as a highly plausible and arguably best explanation for the exquisite fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions. Since the fine-tuning and initial conditions date from the very origin of the universe itself, this evidence suggests the need for an intelligent as well as a transcendent Cause for the origin of the universe. Since God as conceived by Christians and other theists possesses precisely these attributes, His creative action can adequately explain the origin of the cosmological singularity and the anthropic fine-tuning. Since naturalism denies a transcendent and pre-existent intelligent cause, it follows that theism provides a better explanation than naturalism for these two evidences taken jointly. Since pantheism, with its belief in an immanent and impersonal god, also denies the existence of a transcendent and pre-existent intelligence, it too lacks causal adequacy as an explanation for these evidences. Indeed, a completely impersonal intelligence is almost a contradiction in terms. Thus, theism stands as the best explanation of the three major worldviews theism, pantheism, and naturalism for the origin of the Big Bang singularity and anthropic fine-tuning taken jointly.

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... dHypth.pdf


Face it, Will -- this is his strategy:

a) Try to get intelligent design accepted as a plausible and "scientific" explanation for the origin of life, alongside Darwin's natural selection
b) Having done so, then it is a short step to getting theism accepted as the best inferable explanation for intelligent design
c) Introduce creationism into the schools via the backdoor of ID.

His book has been well cleansed on his theistic predilections. But his agenda is perfectly clear, he is anti-evolution, anti-science. He studied the philosophy of science in order undermine one scientific theory, as far as I can tell, Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Furthermore, the Discover Institute promotes that most un-Buddhsit idea: "human exceptionalism" the idea that human beings are "exceptional" among living creatures and morally superior to all, etc.

N
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: beings from ???

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:13 pm

Namdrol wrote:Basically, what happens is that at the end of the last eon ...

So time exists?
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: beings from ???

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:19 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Basically, what happens is that at the end of the last eon ...

So time exists?



You really need me to answer that question for you?

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:29 pm

Why is it better to talk about all this eon nonsense than about flying spaghetti monsters?
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:35 pm

"The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement.

The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.

...

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

...

Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God."


http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:36 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Why is it better to talk about all this eon nonsense than about flying spaghetti monsters?


You will have to ask yourself.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:39 pm

It is interesting to note that the Templeton Foundation, one of leading science/religion interface foundations, regards intelligent design as a political movement.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Enochian » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:21 pm

Well if you all watch the PBS documentary I cited earlier, it is very clear that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a shell game by Christians.

Judge Jones specifically said in his decision that "the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Sönam » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:25 pm

Namdrol wrote:It is interesting to note that the Templeton Foundation, one of leading science/religion interface foundations, regards intelligent design as a political movement.

N


and the list

a) Try to get intelligent design accepted as a plausible and "scientific" explanation for the origin of life, alongside Darwin's natural selection
b) Having done so, then it is a short step to getting theism accepted as the best inferable explanation for intelligent design
c) Introduce creationism into the schools via the backdoor of ID.

does not stop there ...

d) reeducate those who do not believe so
e) considere that some can never be reeducated
f) eradicate those who cannot be reeducated
g) ...

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Will » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:51 pm

Mindyourmind: Because life is too short.


This is a fine answer and I, being an old creature, understand. But if this attitude is the rationale for someone under 50, who never studies the root texts of ID (or any notion that is rejected), then I still chalk that up to laziness, peer pressure & other intellectual vices.

Recall the example of HHDL, when he left the hothouse of Tibetan thinking and visited India. His instilled notions regarding the exclusive truthiness of Buddhism had the sharp edges smoothed, when he met theosophists who saw value in all spiritual paths.

So no, Jesus is still far below Buddha in my inner pantheon. I just think it is not good thinking (or living) to rely only on one's favored views and never confront directly opposing views. Too much insularity is a bad thing, no matter whether politically, spiritually, socially or personally.

From p. 6 of Toward a True Kinship of Faiths by HHDL:

Looking back to this trip in 1956, I realize that my visit to the Theosophical Society in Chennai (then Madras) left a powerful impression. There I was first directly exposed to people, and to a movement, that attempted to bring together the wisdom of the world's spiritual traditions as well as science. I felt among the members a sense of tremendous openness to the world's great religions and a genuine embracing of pluralism. When I returned to Tibet in 1957, after more than three months in what was a most amazing country for a young Tibetan monk, I was a changed man. I could no longer live in the comfort of an exclusivist standpoint that takes Buddhism to be the only true religion. When tragic political circumstances in 1959 forced me into exile in India to live as a refugee, I was paradoxically offered the freedom to deepen my personal journey of understanding and engagement with the world's faith traditions.
One should refrain from biased judgments and doubting in fathoming the Buddha and the Dharma of the Buddhas. Even though a dharma may be extremely difficult to believe, one should nonetheless maintain faith in it. Nagarjuna
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Postby Enochian » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:17 pm

The problem is that Intelligent Design is something designed by Christian liars to force Creationism on America.

This is established fact at both the scientific and legal levels.

If Meyers really had something novel to say, he shouldn't have used such a contaminated phrase like "intelligent Design".

Will wrote:But if this attitude is the rationale for someone under 50, who never studies the root texts of ID (or any notion that is rejected), then I still chalk that up to laziness, peer pressure & other intellectual vices.



What are you talking about?

The LENGTHY Dover trial established that ID is a shell game for Christian liars.

The "root texts of ID", as you phrase it, are the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

You didn't watch that multiple award winning PBS special did you? :crazy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 613200911#

Why are your promoting Christianity and asking us to read the Bible on a Buddhist forum?
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Book Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

>