Attempts to Counter Stephen Meyer’s Book

Evolution is extremely flexible in its explanations because there is more imagination than hard scientific evidence. For this reason, it has opened the door for evolutionary scientists to create some of the most far-reaching scenarios ever imagined, and claiming it’s all in the name of ‘science’ which cannot be confirmed and yet claim its superiority (bluffing) to be factual or near factual.

Ever since Stephen Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt”  was published and has been a best seller on Amazon.com in science, various articles have been trying to counter it.

“Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer has to do with an explosion of complex life forms such as the Cambrian arthropod having a large complex brain that all of a sudden appears in the fossil record were expected ancestors of these animals have not been discovered. This is similar to what is being discovered in space where scientists are discovering abrupt appearances of diverse group of galaxies already in mature states near what they consider to be the beginning of the universe which is contrary to what evolutionary astronomers believed! They thought one type of galaxy evolved into another, this called the “Hubble Sequence.”

Popular Science writer and evolutionist, Carl Zimmer decided to write an article that attempts to counter Meyer’s book and others like it. His article appears in the New York Times which is not surprising because this publication is very pro-evolution.

Zimmer’s style in his rebuttal is quite classic for a militant defender of evolution, because he purposely avoids mentioning Meyer’s book for fear of giving it credit and that more people would buy the book as a result. He does refer to Meyer and the rest who don’t believe in neo-Darwinism as “opponents of evolution”.

When a theory gets increasingly more complicated as new data is discovered which falsifies it even more and old arguments are looked at with the new data, it means the theory is not valid. A totally new direction is required! The increasingly complicated theory, in this case “evolution” is only resting on man’s imagination to rescue it rather than facts. That is not to say inferences cannot be drawn in science nor advancing growing knowledge with new data, but when conjecture is considered growing knowledge and is so dominate among its explanations, this is not science but rather a cult following.

Zimmer endorses and uses conjecture over science quite often in his article, “Explaining Evolution’s Big Bang”

“Long before the Cambrian explosion, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper argue, one lineage of animals had already evolved the genetic capacity for spectacular diversity. Known as the bilaterians, they probably looked at first like little crawling worms. They shared the Precambrian oceans with other animals, like sponges and jellyfish. During the Cambrian explosion, relatively modest changes to their genes gave rise to a spectacular range of bodies.”

“But those genes evolved in bilaterians tens of millions of years before the Cambrian explosion put them to the test, notes Dr. Smith. “They had the capacity,” he said, “but it hadn’t been expressed yet.”

Zimmer suggests that evolution created genetic capacity for a purpose of producing enormous diversity among animals but kept it dormant for millions of years till something triggered its use in a short period of time by evolutionary standards. Correct me if I’m wrong, but nature doesn’t go by future assumptions in order to survive, does it? Does anyone believe evolution relies on predictions of the future which affects what it does in the present? When I was taught about evolution in school, the theory said that evolution relies on what goes on in at the present moment in order to survive! A mindless process doesn’t go by selecting future goals for survival especially many million of years into the future. We humans with a brain can decide on goals that may enhance our lives in some way, this takes a thinking process to do this!

Also, many diverse life forms require massive amounts of specified information much like many forms of advanced technology requires massive amounts of specified information. So not only does this conjecture lack observable data, and lack the ability to be replicated, and lack the ability to consider and execute future goals, its explanation of “genetic capacity” lacks a realistic requirement of creating massive amounts of specified information in a short period of time in order to create a diverse group of animals.

Meyer puts it this way in his book, functional genes and proteins are not just rare but exceedingly rare within sequence space as science points out. As a result, a random mutational search for specified information would fail, than to succeed, in generating even a single new gene or new protein during the entire history of life on earth!

On the other hand, Zimmer fails to show how DNA can originate, and show how mutations are able to obtain new information to build another life form! All what Zimmer does is, assume that evolution just happen to build a “genetic capacity” to be used many millions of years later without explaining why that was required for survival of the fittest in the present.

Zimmer also makes a surprise case for evolution or should I say, shocking case for evolution by embracing a global flood! Evolutionists have always attacked the historical account from the Bible. Zimmer suggests that nature had to respond to the killing off of many species from a global flood by triggering the Cambrian explosion using the “genetic capacity” which was somehow prepared many millions of years in advance!

It took a global flood to tap that capacity, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper propose.  They base their proposal on a study published last year by Shanan Peters of the University of Wisconsin and Robert Gaines of Pomona College. They offered evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was preceded by a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land, eroding the drowned rocks.”   

What is so very interesting about Zimmer and the authors whom he sights, they use the “Great Unconformity” as evidence for a global flood!  Creation scientists have for a long time now, been using the Great Unconformity as evidence for a global flood. Evolutionists however, have rejected using that method for evidence for a global flood, calling it a myth rather than science so why are these guys using the same evidence as creationists treated so differently? We certainly don’t see rebuttals coming from evolutionists on Zimmer’s endorsement of a global flood. So how did Zimmer get acceptance from his peers who previously opposed flood geology? Is it because Zimmer embraced a particular story for his conclusion, that life came from poison which has never been observed in nature nor even replicated in a lab rather than coming from God and that minerals were able somehow to miraculously produce advanced and complex animal body parts in a short period of time. Talk about mythology in trying to explain a major falsification of evolution!

Listen, if these evolutionists like Zimmer who now embraced a global flood with the same evidence creationists use through the years demonstrates that not only are creation scientists using the scientific method, but it also shows the lie evolutionists have created on what is and is not science for the purpose of keeping other views out of the science realm. The scientific method is not based on who the person is nor what they may believe in, rather it’s based on a procedure!

For example, two mechanics from two different backgrounds, one is a Christian who fixes your car by replacing the spark plugs and the wires, and then an atheist replaces those same parts years later. Some supposed expert writes a review in your local newspaper of the car shop saying the christian’s method wasn’t mechanical because he believes those spark plugs and wires came from God and then say, the atheist used the mechanical method in changing your spark plugs and wires because he rejects the existence of God. This folks is loony logic that most Americans do not believe in!

So the likes of Zimmer and other evolutionists have been lying to the public on what science is and is not, all in the name of defending evolution because they are merely basing their bias on who the person is and what he or she believes in when drawing conclusions from the data!

But the good news is, nature is astounding, we learn from it each day. God is highly intelligent, way beyond our understanding which is why continuing to study nature on how it works is so fun and important to learn about!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Attempts to Counter Stephen Meyer’s Book

  1. Well well, yet more ignoring the evidence, Michael ?

    And now calling people like Zimmer a liar ?

    Your attempt to equal a rise in sea level to a global flood is quite silly, of course. Zimmer did not talk about a global flood (and certainly did not endorse it) or flood geology, you put that into his mouth. He clearly talks about great floods (have you read the whole article, Michael ?), which is obviously not the same thing. And then you call Zimmer a liar …

    Another sad blog, Michael.

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, ”
    We do this all the time, but to no avail …

  2. I understand disagreeing with someones writing but to call Carl Zimmer a liar is just shameful. I have read many of his articles and books and can say that Zimmer puts time and thought into every article in a professional and unbiased way. To make such a claim is creating a straw-man, protecting your own uncertain claim. Take a page from Zimmer’s work and put time into your research, then a straw-man will not be needed. I will make sure to spread the claims being made on this website and tell others to stay clear.

  3. There is so much loose horse puckey in this post that it is difficult to see over the top to any unifying theme. The whole post is merely a diarrhea against science in general and evolutionary research in particular.

    For example, what are we to make of this confused pastiche?

    Listen, if these evolutionists like Zimmer who now embraced a global flood with the same evidence creationists use through the years demonstrates that not only are creation scientists using the scientific method, but it also shows the lie evolutionists have created on what is and is not science for the purpose of keeping other views out of the science realm. The scientific method is not based on who the person is nor what they may believe in, rather it’s based on a procedure!

    First, Michael asserts that Zimmer’s embracing of a “global flood” is evidence that creationists follow the scientific method, a non sequitur. Then, from this premise, Zimmer (and other scientists) wish to exclude creationism from science. Then he rails that the scientific method should not depend upon the scientist’s beliefs.

    Whew!

    First, Zimmer does not embrace a “global flood” , where the entire earth is covered with water. What Zimmer intends by that term is, as he plainly states, “a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land.” This is the same process that today is caused by climate change, which will submerge 2/3 of the sate of Florida in a few decades, and will force more that half of humanity to abandon their homes and move to higher ground. No biblical flood, no divine intervention.

    Then Michael claims that scientific theories depend upon scientists’ beliefs—despite the obvious fact that scientists come from all beliefs (or none). There is no Christian theory of gravitation opposed to a Muslim theory of gravitation or a Hindu or an atheist theory. And there are no separate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist theories of evolution. And creationism is not a “Christian” theory;,scientists who are avowed Christians espouse evolution—in fact, are leaders in the field, such as Francis Crick, Kenneth Miller, and Francisco Ayala., Michael’s twisted analogy to Christian car mechanics and atheist mechanics is irrelevant and incorrect.

    The problem with special creation is that there is not a scintilla of positive physical evidence to support it. No creationists have even proposed a test that might establish creation over evolution. Their only argument is a false dichotomy—that if evolution can’t yet explain something, or if scientists are sometimes wrong about some aspect of evolution, then ERGO, creationism is correct. This is what does not follow the scientific method of observation and falsifiable tests of their theory. And therefore, creationism cannot pretend to be science.

    Finally, Michael vouchsafes to us the ultimate paradox—

    God is highly intelligent, way beyond our understanding which is why continuing to study nature on how it works is so fun and important to learn about!

    Let’s suss this one out. (1) God, by definition, is beyond our understanding. We cannot fathom how God runs the physical world. (2) THUS, we should study and try to understand the physical world.

    Does anyone see a problem here? Michael seems not to. Yet this anti-scientific thinking typifies creationists. They claim to be scientists investigating the physical universe, yet they assert that this universe by definition cannot be studied or understood.

    How could anyone accuse creationists of practicing science?

  4. And, by the way, what does all this have to do with “Attempts to Counter Stephen Meyer’s Book”??

    Michael mentions only one review, Carl Zimmer’s. Yet he does not state any specific refutation that Zimmer asserts, nor does he tell us why any of Zimmer’s assertions are false.

    Instead, Michael archly accuses Zimmer—and other scientists—of lying.

    If we still needed any evidence of Michael’s disconnect from reality, this would clinch the matter.

  5. I misspoke in calling Zimmer’s NYT article a “review.” As Michael noted, it does not even mention Darwin’s Doubt. As to “countering” Meyer’s arguments, dozens of peer-reviewed papers every year do that very nicel. And, despite David Coppedge’s claims in Creation Evolution Headlines, these papers have not proliferated in response to Meyer’s book. There has been a steady stream of such papers for several decades. Even earlier, Wallace’s book The Origin of Animal Body Plans contains references going back many years before its 1999 publication date.

    As to reviews of Meyer’s book, I noted earlier that Science magazine carried a review by a prominent paleontologist whom Meyer quoted. John Farrell reviewed it in his blog, “Why Evolution Is True.” Gareth Cook reviewed it in The New Yorker—“Doubting Darwin’s Doubt.” Nick Matzke in The Panda’s Thumb. Donald Prothero at Amazon. By far the most complete review,, chapter by chapter and verse by verse, is an ongoing work at Smilodon’s Retreat. So far, only the prolog and the first chapter are complete. But very detailed, showing specific errors of fact and logic

    Happy reading..

  6. I actually clicked your links and read the articles, you slant the actual content to misrepresent it. You imply brains of modern size and complexity are found in the cambrian period when they are simply referring to relative complexity and the article compares them to previously discovered fossil brains and talks about how their size and level of complexity is perfectly intermediate to other specimens previously found. You then imply that fully formed galaxies are found in the most distant (and oldest) images of galaxies, then I read the article and find out that again this is not true and that fully formed galaxies are just found earlier than they expected but are not found in the first 20% of the universe’s existence.

  7. Hello Angnophilo,

    You say, “You imply brains of modern size and complexity are found in the cambrian period when they are simply referring to relative complexity and the article compares them to previously discovered fossil brains and talks about how their size and level of complexity is perfectly intermediate to other specimens previously found.”

    The Cambrian brains of a arthropod discovered in the fossil record is dated in the evolutionary time frame to be 520 million years old! How much change do you think occurred over a supposed 520 million years? “Little” change not what I call your type of evolution, it’s basically almost the same as a modern one!

    Do you know why paleontologists and evolutionary biologists are in disagreement on how arthropods supposedly evolved? Because there are no body plans in fossils to show a step by step progression to get to the level of complexity found in the Cambrian strata as I pointed out in my main post! If evolution was true, ancestors before the Cambrian period would have been discovered and shown how all that diversity in complexity evolved! But since evolution is not true and there is no hard evidence in the fossil record, evolutionists resort to using their own imagination which is good for science fiction books but not real science.

  8. The fossil record goes back 3.4 billion years, the cambrian period is the period where teeth, bones and exoskeletons appear for the first time, which are the most common form of fossil. Other forms of fossils like carbon imprints and impressions in stone (fossils left by boneless, soft-bodied animals that logically must have come before) are found before the cambrian period. Google “pre-cambrian fossil” and click the image tab for examples. And these brains are nothing like the size and complexity of modern animal brains, that is just a lie. Maybe they’re similar in size to the smallest brains we see today, but that is because the smallest brains are basically a speck.

  9. Hi, Purelover~ Stick around for a while, and you may find that not everything Michael sys is a deliberate lie. Some of it springs from his lack of reasoning ability and abyssal ignorance of science, biology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, physics, history, and theology He has no background or qualifications to speak in any of these subjects.

  10. Quoth Michael—

    How much change do you think occurred over a supposed 520 million years? “Little” change not what I call your type of evolution, it’s basically almost the same as a modern one!

    Another instance of Michael’s failure to understand even the rudiments of biological evolution.

    If a species is well adapted to its environment, why should it change? God might do that, just from boredom, b ut evolution is more practical than that. Of the four classes of evolution, only one—directional—leads to significant change in structural form. Then, too, just because a modern descendant species s morphologically similar to its ancestor does not mean that it has not changed. It could have developed a different metabolism, or a different set of behaviors,for example. These aspects do not fossilize well.

    Creationism is simple. All Michael has to know is that God-did-it. Because God is inscrutable, that’s the end of the line for creationism. Evolution, on other other hand, is complex, requiring a certain amount of knowledge and depth.

  11. Eelco, “The Cambrian Explosion” is on my list. Nut, because of a ;large reading ;load and recently impaired vision, I have not yet ordered it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s