Stephen Meyer lies again

Discovery Institute creationist and lying liar Stephen Meyer now claims that I think Francis Collins should be disqualified as head of the National Institutes of Health (or indeed,  of any “scientific organization”!) because of his religious beliefs.  This piece contains a quote from Meyer:

Dr. Stephen Meyer is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago [is an] evolutionary biologist and thinks it’s inappropriate for someone who believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible to be the head of a scientific organization,” he notes. “But the double-standard involved in that condemnation is kind of breathtaking because Coyne is an outspoken atheist — and atheism is every bit as much a worldview as theism.”

. . While Collins has never supported the idea of intelligent design, Meyer contends the idea that he should be disqualified to head an organization such as the NIH because of his religious beliefs amounts to bigotry.

Chalk up another lie to Meyer and the Discovery Institute. For the record, what I said about the matter is this:

I’ve been chewing over what I think of Obama’s picking Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health. (See the New York Times piece here, which includes some reactions by other scientists.)  I guess my first reaction would be to give the guy a break, and take a wait-and-see attitude towards his stewardship of the NIH.  After all, he doesn’t seem to have let his superstition get in the way of his other administrative tasks, and he doesn’t seem to be the vindictive type, either. (I do have an NIH grant!)  I won’t grouse too much about this, but do want to emphasize again that the guy is deeply, deeply superstitious, to the point where, on his website BioLogos and his book The Language of God, he lets his faith contaminate his scientific views.  So I can’t help but be a bit worried.

And this:

Collins may indeed be a good administrator, but this appointment is a mistake.  At the very least, Collins must remove himself as director of the BioLogos foundation, as holding both posts would represent an unwanted incursion of religion into the public sphere.  I call for him to resign from BioLogos if he’s appointed as head of the NIH. (That, of course, has the attendant benefit of putting the ever-amusing Karl Giberson in charge of BioLogos!)

Yes, I think the appointment was mistaken, but I do understand why Obama did it. And I certainly don’t think Collins should have been disqualified because of his faith.

44 Comments

  1. Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    I took one for the team and went to Meyer’s book signing last night:

    http://yrif.org/2009/07/21/hell-in-a-cell-an-evening-with-the-discovery-institute/

  2. Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Sure, but truth just gives them nothing to use in their campaign for Absolute Truth.

    So they have to use what works–dishonesty.

    Glen Davidson

    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  3. Vytautas
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    I always find it interesting how those who claim to be in possession of moral authority are the first to trot out the lies. I suppose if one believes they are privy to the absolute truth, then the ends justify the means. In this case, to smear Jerry Coyne (and others) for calling Bullshit on his tripe and on the Globe for being duped into giving a clown like S. Meyer a prominent forum, and in turn, a false whiff of respectability.

    Of course lying by the hyper-religious is nothing new as evidenced by this little escapade:

    http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/07/lol_baptists.php

  4. Doc Bill
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Meyer writes: “and atheism is every bit as much a worldview as theism.”

    Any time I hear someone refer to a “worldview” my immediate thought is “moron.”

    Meyer is no exception. However, Meyer is well-educated and I can only explain his behavior as deliberate rather than being mentally challenged.

    Is there a word for “willful moron?”

    • Doug
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      He’s also factually wrong – atheism certainly implies that one will have a DIFFERENT worldview than one with theism, but I’d wager there are as many different worldviews as atheists. Atheism is a prerequisite to a realistic worldview, but it certainly does not say much about the way the world IS, just what it ain’t. What we think it is must be figured out individually.

    • Soil Creep
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      I agree Meyer is simply using “worldview” as a means to slip in the old canard that atheism is just another religion. But I don’t think the term “worldview” is moronic if used in the correct sense (or maybe I’m just a moron?).

    • Tacroy
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      That comment of Meyer’s is completely without substance; it’s equivalent to saying that atheism is as much of a noun as theism. Just because something has the attribute of being a “worldview” doesn’t mean it’s sane or useful or reality-based.

      • Posted July 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        *Ugh!* I use the word “worldview” all the time. I find it a perfectly useful word.

    • Michael K Gray
      Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      “Is there a word for “willful moron?””

      Yes: “Theist”.

    • Fuller Ming
      Posted September 3, 2009 at 2:31 am | Permalink

      Don’t beat me up please, this is an honest question: Why do you believe anyone who uses the term “worldview” is a “moron”. Also, why the personal attacks?

  5. Jennifer B. Phillips
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Well the comments on that piece are quite a bit more balanced than I anticipated, but there were a few nuts in the mix, e.g.:

    “Who are these people that they think they are better than someone who believes in God. May the Lord God strike their mouths for the evil they are giving out and may God’s glory shine through all the experience when Collins takes over the new position.”

    Thankfully there’s a big loophole there, in that if the lord god does ‘strike our mouths’, it shouldn’t affect our typing–or our thinking. Whew!

    • Stacey C.
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      Well One News Now is just a hair’s breath less nutty than the World Net Daily…so it’s no surprise to see people getting the vapors over supposed slights against God or Jesus.

  6. Doug
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Is that not slanderous at all, for Meyer to simply lie about you like that?

    • Michael K Gray
      Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

      Not slanderous, but libelous.

  7. NewEnglandBob
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Lets see, a new quote from a lying liar. I wonder what he will say. Oh, he lied again. I didn’t expect THAT.

    • Posted July 22, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

      Don’t the odds of an honest statement coming from Meyer go up the longer he keeps lying?

      Oh, damn, gambler’s fallacy there. Never mind.

      Glen Davidson

      http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  8. Posted July 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Meyer
    the coded liar
    Finds a way
    to inspire

    Thomas Jefferson
    from the grave
    To side with magic
    DNA

    But his lies
    grew and grew
    Until Coyne said
    “Hey Stephen, fuck you.”

    *this heroic quatrain may not reflect the actual feelings of the blog author toward said apologist.

    • Doc Bill
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      I love poetry!

  9. NewEnglandBob
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Your attempt at humor is pathetic.

    The quotes from Meyer in the article are exactly as Coyne portrayed it.

    So, Josh Caleb, your arguments here have been completely demolished. Are you now only going to make up nonsense from here on?

  10. James F
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Stephen Meyer lies again

    Pope still Catholic.

    Bears still defecating in the woods.

    Ooh, I can’t wait for David Klinghoffer to stop by and explain this one!

    • santitafarella
      Posted July 24, 2009 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      James F:

      I think it is thoroughly unhelpful to call people liars.

      —Santi

    • NewEnglandBob
      Posted July 24, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      Maybe for accommodationists, AKA Faitheists, who are afraid to call a spade a spade due to fear of upsetting a large group, it might be unhelpful, but for people who live in reality and want to set things straight, calling a liar a liar is just fine and dandy.

  11. Josh Caleb
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    what attempt at humor?

    Coyne clearly lies when he wrote:
    “Meyer now claims that I think Francis Collins should be disqualified”

    This claim of disqualification is from the article’s author Pete Chagnon, not Meyer.

    Turns out, two can play this game.

    “completely demolished”
    Oh, I agree, uncle!

    • NewEnglandBob
      Posted July 22, 2009 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      I read the article. If the author misrepresented, then that is his problem. Nothing you state can be relied upon. ID proponents know nothing of telling the truth.

      Yes, completely demolished by:
      Hempenstein
      KP
      Dan L.
      Steven Sullivan

      You have been made to look foolish.

      You are the only one playing a game. Pathetic.

      • Josh Caleb
        Posted July 22, 2009 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

        “I read the article. If the author misrepresented, then that is his problem. Nothing you state can be relied upon.”

        You don’t have to rely upon what I state, you can just read what Coyne wrote then read the article. Using the same criteria Coyne does for Meyer “lying”, Coyne commits the same foul. Be man enough to admit it.
        Being cut with your own sword hurts the most…

        try stepping outside of the echo chamber once in a while, and don’t trip on your ego on the way out…

  12. articulett
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Josh Caleb’s brain cells have withered due to faith…

    Meyer is a liar for Jesus and Josh Caleb is an enabler of liars.

    How said for them to sully this erudite blog with their desperation and delusions.

  13. Damian
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Josh Caleb:

    This, said by Stephen Meyer, is a misrepresentation of Jerry Coyne’s view:

    “Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago [is an] evolutionary biologist and thinks it’s inappropriate for someone who believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible to be the head of a scientific organization,”

    I can’t see your original post (appears to have been lost due to a glitch or something, along with several others), so I don’t know exactly what your problem is, but if it is what I think it is, you’d be wrong.

    That statement from Meyer clearly implies that Jerry Coyne believes that Collins should be disqualified from becoming the head of an organization such as the NIH, because he “believes in God”, and also because he believes “that science and God are compatible”.

    But he doesn’t, and the quoted sentence goes much further than accurately stating Jerry’s view — that due to various factors, including some (not all, and certainly not simply because he believes in God) of his wackier religious beliefs, as well as his anti-scientific beliefs, Francis Collins is the wrong choice — and instead, accuses Coyne of believing that anyone who “believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible”, should not be considered as the head of the NIH, or any other scientific organization. That is actually a further implication that misrepresents Jerry’s actual opinion (after all, how could he want Collins to be disqualified for believing in God, and not others).

    If your objection is that Meyer didn’t explicitly use the word “disqualified”, then I’ve just wasted my time, because you are clearly not here for a reasonable conversation.

    • Josh Caleb
      Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Coyne puts words (“disqualified”) in Meyers mouth that were never quoted in the article. Using the same standard of accuracy, how can Coyne then say he was misrepresented by Meyer when Coyne does the same thing to Meyer?!

      who is “not here for a reasonable conversation” Damian?

      • articulett
        Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

        It WAS dishonest, and it WAS MEANT to imply something that is NOT true and to spread a prejudice against rationalists.

        Jerry’s gaffe was to call Meyers a “young earth creationist”, when he is really just a “plain old creationist”, and he corrected his mistake. The implication is the same. It’s hard to keep straight IN either case, the guy is a liar for Jesus. He needs to believe a magical story to feel saved and will discredit honest scientists at every opportunity in order to do so.

        If you can’t tell the difference between one dishonesty and a mistake, I suggest you look into choosing better role models. It may be all the same to your faith seeped synapses, but to a more erudite audience, your “logic” is only fooling yourself.

      • Damian
        Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink

        So, what you are saying is that even if I provide the original quote that is being criticized, I cannot then frame it in a slightly different way, even if it means exactly the same thing?

        That would mean that, per your comment, I could not suggest that you are accusing Coyne of dishonesty because of your use of the word “misrepresented”, even though the dictionary definition uses “dishonestly” in its description of the word?

        Well, congratulations, because you’ve just accused the vast majority of people on earth of lying (or misrepresenting) at some point in their lives, and you have also accused the original interviewer of lying about Meyer, as well. I do hope that you’ve been in touch to record your dissatisfaction?

        With all due respect, that is a frivolous and petty distinction that does nothing to further the discourse, and appears to be an attempt to distract from the original subject, which was the dishonesty (or frequent carelessness, which at some point begins to look deliberate) of Meyer. It is perfectly reasonable to represent a word(s) using a different word that means exactly the same thing, while providing the actual quote, as well.

        That is entirely different to doing as Meyer did, which was to inaccurately represent Coyne’s entire opinion, so as to make him look illiberal and fanatical, as opposed to having reasonable objections.

        If you cannot see the difference, there is little more that I can say, except to suggest that you may have a problem with honesty, yourself.

  14. articulett
    Posted July 22, 2009 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Collins doesn’t just BELIEVE in god, he thinks this god sent him a personal SIGN in the form of a frozen waterfall which Francis Collins took as a message from god that “Christianity is true”. He also states that people are “right to reject materialism” (he doesn’t provide a coherent reason for this prejudice, however.)

    If this wasn’t Jesus related, FC would be considered delusional by everyone and not just the “uppity atheists”. There were certainly plenty of non-delusional people qualified for the job, and most rational people are a bit squeamish about having delusional people in high office (especially given the prior administration and the messages he believes he got from god–not to mention this unfolding C-street nuttiness).

    I can’t believe how the liars at the Discovery Institute twist this into a statement about Jerry thinking someone shouldn’t be hired because they believe in god.

    Make no mistake, Collins doesn’t just “believe” in god– he thinks the invisible creator of the universe communicates TO HIM through natural landscapes. No matter how you slice it, that’s wacky. And you have to be pretty brainwashed and seeped in faith to imagine that it’s a “perfectly rational thing to do” or that no one should find this somewhat alarming.

    I worry about the messages people get from their imaginary friends. I prefer that people who represent me don’t have imaginary friends… or if they do, they are silent about them. I promise to do the same in positions where I hold power.

    The Discovery Institute disgusts… normal believers have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy, opinion, etc.– but DI has no shame in proffering lies as facts to those who haven’t the proper skills to determine what a fact is in the first place. Shame on them… and the scores of people like Josh Caleb that they retard.

    • Josh Caleb
      Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      uhhh… wat? yer yoosing big werds

      “Collins doesn’t just “believe” in god– he thinks the invisible creator of the universe communicates TO HIM through natural landscapes. No matter how you slice it, that’s wacky. And you have to be pretty brainwashed and seeped in faith to imagine that it’s a “perfectly rational thing to do” or that no one should find this somewhat alarming.”

      funny, Francis Bacon (supposed father of the scientific method) had similar thoughts:
      “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

      yeah, Bacon, what a wack job!

      • articulett
        Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:38 am | Permalink

        Um, I don’t recall Bacon having delusions about waterfalls, but I can understand why you’d use such stories to convince yourself that your own beliefs aren’t as wacky as the beliefs you reject.

        Science can’t disprove anyone’s unfalsifiable notions… it does provide much better explanations for them, however.

        You and your ilk show why science and faith don’t mix. You guys are forced into little obfuscating analogies and vilification of your opponent because you have no evidence to distinguish what you’ve come to believe as true from all the fantastical notions you don’t believe.

        There is no quantitative difference between a belief that a waterfall is a sign that Christianity is true and the belief that you will get 72 virgins if you drive an airplane into a building.

  15. SLC
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Folks, onenewsnow is a far right wing whackjob web site that is one of the premier backers, along with worldnutdaily, of the birthers (for the benefit of those on this blog who may be unfamiliar with the birthers, they are a group of deluded nutcases who insist that President Obama was not born in Hawaii). They are about as reliable as the Star supermarket tabloid. Of course, the fact that Meyer associates himself with the Dishonesty Institute, home of evolution deniers, global warming deniers, HIV/
    aIDS deniers and, in the presence of its director, John West, Holocaust deniers is sufficient reason for discrediting him as someone of intellectual stature.

  16. articulett
    Posted July 23, 2009 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Science tells us a lot about how people come to believe unbelievable things… it can’t show that any of these things are true or more respectable than any other.

    You feel moral and good using words to justify your silly beliefs, but your reasoning is as specious as any birther or Scientologist. You reason the same as the wack jobs… and if it quacks like a duck–

  17. santitafarella
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Prof. Coyne:

    In your previous post on Meyer you called him a “young-earth creationist.”

    Is that correct? Where did you get this information that Meyer is a “young-earth creationist”?

    I read Meyer’s recent book and I see numerous instances in it of references that would lead one to conclude that he accepts an old earth. On page 158 of his book, for example, I notice that he discusses the meteorite impact hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs favorably. In fact, he says explicitly that the meteor impact theory of dinosaur extinction “has broad explanatory power.” He also refers to the Cretaceous period as the time when the meteorite “hit the earth.” These are all on page 158 (if you have the book).

    It would not seem possible to be a young-earth creationist while at the same time accepting that the age of the dinosaurs actually existed and came to an abrupt end via a meteor impact 65 million years ago.

    Also, at the top of page 166 he appears to endorse Big Bang cosmology (which sets the age of the earth at 13.7 billion years). He also seems to affirm the 13 billion year age of the universe on the last page of his book (p. 508).

    Is it possible that you misrepresented Dr. Meyer’s views (as you accuse Meyer of misrepresenting yours)? Or do you have some evidence for your claim that Meyer is a “young-earth creationist”?

    Here, by the way, is the link to where you said Meyer is a “young-earth creationist”: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/pro-intelligent-design-editorial-in-boston-globe/

    And below is an article link written by Meyer in which he explicitly endorses big bang cosmology and does not reject descent from a common ancestor. These two facts strongly negate the idea that Meyer endorses “young-earth creationism.” Here’s a quote from Meyer:

    “The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.”

    And here’s the link: http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-meyer_29edi.ART.State.Edition1.3ec9990.html

    —Santi

  18. santitafarella
    Posted July 24, 2009 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Prof. Coyne:

    I notice that you’ve corrected your assertion that Meyer is a young earth creationist. You said:

    “I stand corrected–Stephen Meyer is not a young earth creationist. I was thinking of his Discovery Institute colleague Paul Nelson, whom I debated a while back. My apologies to Mr. Meyer for attributing to him a lunatic idea of his colleague.”

    Bravo. It’s good that you corrected the record. Many kudos for your honesty. Now please give others the same credit you hope people will accord you, and not assume the worst of people (calling them liars etc.). Meyer seems like a lot of things—including smart—but I don’t think he is a deliberate liar. He appears to be a nice guy who differs with you about some things. Attributing malign motives to others only serves to demonize them and make dialogue more difficult.

    —Santi

    • Damian
      Posted July 25, 2009 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      I agree, to a point. But do you also accept that there comes a point when it appears that an individual has been “careless” on so many occasions, and without correction, that it is more likely that they are deliberately distorting the truth?

      If so, do you also accept that that point is inevitably different for each person?

      And how would you personally be able to tell which is carelessness, and which is a deliberate misrepresentation in pursuit of a goal? Not easy, I know, which is why I accept your suggestion that we should “not assume the worst of people”, but with the caveat that I have outlined above.

      Just as it would be wrong to misattribute malice, so too would it be wrong to allow an individual to get away with a consistent pattern of deception, because of a fear of misattribution.

      If you have followed the ID movement for as long as some have, the time for understanding — at least as far as the main players are concerned — has long since passed. Nobody — not even the most careless — can be wrong as persistently as many of them are.

      And I’d love to know what exactly there is to dialogue about? Once again, dialogue is a two (or more) way process, and the ID movers and shakers have shown little desire in over 10 years of actually attempting to seriously engage with science.

      If they are still making the same mistakes, as well as using the same arguments that were soundly refuted years ago, what would you attribute that to, exactly?

  19. eddie
    Posted July 26, 2009 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    I think the worst thing about their misrepresentation of Jefferson is the idea that, had J been presented with Darwin’s compelling evidence for evolution and natural selection, he would not have accepted it.
    We give J the benefit of the doubt by assuming his intellectual honesty, while the fundies condemn Jefferson to be as dishonest as josh caleb and the rest of them.
    It’s projection once again.

  20. Lars
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    “what I said about the matter is this”

    Do you have any references to a fuller context of what Meyer said and what he based it on? Reading the fuller context of your posts, e.g. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/francis-collins-as-nih-director/, I can see clearly how reasonable readers would conclude that Coyne “thinks it’s inappropriate for someone who believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible to be the head of a scientific organization”.
    E.g, you say (regarding Collins’ appt to the NIH post) “I’d be much more comfortable with someone whose only agenda was science, and did not feel compelled to set up a highly-publicized website demonstrating how he reconciles his science with Jesus.”

    You also say (in this post) “And I certainly don’t think Collins should have been disqualified because of his faith.” But then what in the world are you saying Collins should have been disqualified because of? Because of his position leading Biologos; but what about that? Apparently that “he lets his faith contaminate his scientific views.” In other words, you would allow religious believers to hold scientific leadership positions only if the did not let their faith “contaminate” their scientific views. They must not believe that their beliefs has any bearing on reality. That sounds very much like what Meyer said you said: “someone who believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible”.

    At best, Meyer’s description of your attitude is too honest for your liking, so you call him a liar. At worst, he has reported a plausible understanding of your words, but it isn’t what you meant. In the latter case, the civil response is merely to issue a clarification of what you meant. You have not provided justification for calling this man a liar.

    • Posted February 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      Lars, that’s a sensible assessment.

      Years ago I wrote short letter to the editor in which I said that some ID advocates had published in peer-reviewed journals. In my mind I was not thinking science journals but journals in the philosophy of science and related subdisciplines that deal with cosmic fine tuning. Soon after that on his blog a philosopher at the University of Texas called me a “liar” because he assumed I was saying literally accurate but deceptive by uncharitably interpreting my comments to mean: ID advocates had published in peer-reviewed science journals but not just on ID.

      Looking back, I can see how my words could have been read in several different ways. But what floored me was how one can be so mean and ungracious to another professor. If he had just emailed me, I could have told him what I intended to communicate, which I am clear about in my articles and books on this subject. But when an op-ed page limits its letter writers to 300 words, you can’t get all out without perfect clarity.

      Having said that, I have a forthcoming piece in the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 4.1 (2010), “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It includes a critique of the Behe-Dembski project as well as a critical assessment of the denial of the philosophical final causes found in the works of folks like Dawkins.

    • Posted February 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Lars, that’s a sensible assessment.

      Years ago I wrote a short letter to the editor in which I said that some ID advocates had published in peer-reviewed journals. In my mind I was not thinking of science journals but journals in the philosophy of science and related subdisciplines that deal with cosmic fine tuning. Soon after that on his blog a philosopher at the University of Texas called me a “liar” because he assumed what I was saying literally accurate but deceptive. He uncharitably interpreted my comments to mean this: ID advocates have published in peer-reviewed science journals but not just on ID. (If, of course, that was what I was really thinking, he would be right to call me deceptive. But that’s not what I was thinking).

      Looking back, I can see how my words could have been read in several different ways. But what floored me was how one can be so mean and ungracious to another professor. If he had just emailed me, I could have told him what I intended to communicate, which I am clear about in my articles and books on this subject. But when an op-ed page limits its letter writers to 300 words, you can’t get all of it out with perfect clarity.

      Having said that, I have a forthcoming piece in the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy 4.1 (2010), “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It includes a critique of the Behe-Dembski project as well as a critical assessment of the philosophical denial of final causes found in the works of folks like Dawkins.

  21. Stephen Meyer
    Posted April 8, 2011 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Now look here, old chap. Everybody’s entitled to an opinion, but do play fair. I’m Stephen Meyer – I can show you my birth certificate – & I’ve never had the possibly doubtful pleasure of meeting you; so where do you get this “Stephen Meyer is a lying liar” stuff from? I mean to say, damn it all, but I do feel that’s a bit over the top about somebody you’ve never met.
    Also, “lying liar” looks like tautology to me.

  22. NewEnglandBob
    Posted April 8, 2011 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    When someone attributes a comment to someone else which is not something that person said and the knocks it down even though it is a straw man, then calling that someone a liar is appropriate.

    All that needs to be determined is whether the action was malicious or ignorance. Care to respond to that, Stephen Meyer?


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] so complex, it must have been…DESIGNED!!11!” — and I know that Stephen Meyer lies and makes up pseudoscientific babble, so I have very poor expectations of this book: I anticipate [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28,209 other followers

%d bloggers like this: