'Intelligent Design: The Most Credible Idea?' A Lecture by Dr Stephen C Meyer

The Philosophy of Religion section of the Tyndale Fellowship hosted a one-day Conference in Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge on Saturday 14th July, 2012. The full title of the Conference was 'Design in Nature? Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives'. This is the lecture given by Dr Stephen C Meyer at that event.

For more information, please visit:
http://www.tyndalephilosophy.org.uk

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[dmans140]

I agree that the environment does not mutate us. However we all do have virus DNA in us and UV and other radiation in the environment will facilitate higher rates of mutation.

On a side note, Darwin did not know everything about evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is as accepted as slow and steady evolution by biologists and geologists.

2nd(3rd?) note. If the mutated organism does not mate then there is a good chance the mutation was not beneficial.

[633495]

Just a couple of responses if I may:

1) I don't think that the, 'environment can mutate us,' so much as mutations occur only at the level of the DNA and how accurately it is copied - and UV, for instance, can in fact damage DNA;

2) Synthetic Biology sounds really cool, and I wonder how it interfaces with nanotechnology?

[rpiller1]

I don't think they have to be chance (could some be? sure). The environment can mutate us in various ways over a long enough period as well. Food, viruses, radiation, major earth events, etc. This stuff is interesting but for me not as interesting as Synthetic Biology which I believe will be how we control evolution ourselves (minus major earth events, but maybe not even then as we could take genes that help us survive such events!)

[633495]

Another interesting point to ponder as you state that, "but much like media storage it has "evolved" to be much more complex because it's better/more efficient that way."

I think it's nevertheless always prim and proper to acknowledge that chance mutations must by necessity result in new information within the genome that gives rise to the, 'slow, gradual change' predicted by Darwin.

[633495]

Interesting point you make stating that, "the MASSIVE amount of time AND environmental changes could easily create very detailed and complex DNA that we see today."

This may work only by various mechanisms of DNA copy errors that result in the elusive, 'beneficial mutation' that is further assumed to achieve prompt 'gene penetrance' into a population in question - without that mutant organism dying before passing on the beneficial trait.

[rpiller1]

I like to think of media storage when it comes to ID. We see these complex organisms and think it couldn't have evolved, but much like media storage it has "evolved" to be much more complex because it's better/more efficient that way. That's what happens with everything. Living things have to become more efficient to thrive in it's changing environment which means it'll be progressively more complex to do so. Unlike media storage it doesn't throw everything away but has to change itself.

[rpiller1]

It's amazing what 3+ billion years can do isn't it :). Seriously though, the MASSIVE amount of time AND environmental changes could easily create very detailed and complex DNA that we see today. In fact I would expect it because we are the ones who survived through it all via NS! In fact there would be many billions of simple DNA that is lost because they all died because of NS. Given our "complex" world, it'll take "complex" creatures to thrive here, which is why the DNA is so complex.

[dmans140]

Also, what evidence do you have that there is an intelligence other than your "evidence" that DNA exists?