Saturday, May 07, 2005

Stephen Meyer

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, (DI chair) by phone:A thrilling scene, a photo, a phone, and some mikes.

Gives his CV in all its dull glory.

"Darwinian chemical evolution theory"?

Not an expert on public education, but asked for opinion on how to teach science. There's a difference between philosophy of science and how to teach it.

Teach the "competitors to neo-Darwinian evolution."

direct quote: "received theory of neo-Darwinism"? Received from ...

religious beliefs "coaxed out of them"

Not all testimony of equal value.

Must think of science in a broader religious or philosophical worldview. Why?

Historical vs. experimental sciences. Damn you astronomy! Kansans Knowledgeable about Kopernikism will defeat you yet!

Meyer prefers "nomological" to "experimental" which is bogus. Nomological means law based. Natural selection is a "law" like F=ma.

Meyer is dumb.

Carol Cleland? Gould on hist. science?

It sounds like major parts of the minority report is derived from his Cambridge thesis.

Calvert: "Are these standards age appropriate?" M: "Sure, for the teachers."

Doesn't like majority report's definition of evolution. Should talk about single origin. Wants "unguided and undirected" to be in the definition. Wants to specify that natural selection is the unguided, undirected process.

THIS IS WRONG!!!!!! Natural selection guides and directs evolution. That's the point!

3E is "excellent" micro v. macro-evolution. It misdefines macro-evolution as the term is used. Most scientists consider speciation to be micro, large patterns across many species are macro.

Problem is "whether microevolutionary processes can be extrapolated to larger scales." Answer is Yes.

Claims majority report takes sides on design. Claims minority report doesn't.

Connie Morris shushes Jack Krebs. It's on, bitch.
Michael Ruse's "demarkation criteria"?

Demarkation criteria don't exclude evolution :p

Age of earth? Won't answer.

What are the ground rules? Answer the damn questions! That's the rule, ass.

4.6 billion years. Meyer tries to run out the clock.

supports "limited common descent"

Not sure about descent of humans from primates.

Other hypothesis? "Not my field." "I'm skeptical" no actual theory. "Wouldn't bother me if it were true."

Humans have different features than the rest of the world, they are "very mysterious." OOoooooooOO.

I: Did you get Draft 2? M: "I have the minority report." I: "What about Draft 2?" M: "I have Ken Miller's critique of the minority report. Is that what you want?" NO! MORON!

I: "You're inappropriate." M: "No you're inappropriate." I'm rubber you're glue.

Calvert can't has trouble finding the majority report. Has he read it?

Do the standards use the phrase "neo-Darwinism"? No. George Gaylord Simpson is long dead.

Should religious views be kept separate from science? Waffle.

Has Meyer ever testified in court? Was he held in contempt? Do I hold him in contempt?

Neo-Darwinism: Universal common descent plus that natural selection acts on random mutations.

Is it materialistic and atheistic? No.

Iri stalls for time. Smart. Make witness squirm. Yields time.

Abrams: How does historical science differ from Popperian view? Prefers explanatory power to predictive power. That's dumb. Very dumb. Explanation is post hoc, prediction is a priori. TfK has done this before.

How do differential between testable and untestable theories of science? Evidence.

Kathy Martin: "Do textbooks teach historical science as fact?" DUMB!!! "Most textbooks refer to Darwin's theory as a theory." Cambrian, blah, blah, major challenge. "significant evidential challenge." Theory vs. fact "wrong question."

Martin won't abandon the dumb question.

Meyer can't shut up!