<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stephen C. Meyer cracks Science Best Seller List on Amazon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/</link>
	<description>Micro-evolutionary bursts of change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:25:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: flawedprefect</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>flawedprefect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-9</guid>
		<description>While I have to agree - a position of critique should not be reached before examining the contents of the object of critique, much has been written, discussed, argued and spread around about the contents, that I doubt there would be any surprises within the unopened covers.

I don&#039;t have to see Ben Stein&#039;s &quot;Expelled&quot; to know it&#039;s gonna be a biased load of tripe - the preview, the reviews, and the criticisms have already done the work for me in various ways. They&#039;ve done the legwork, and I&#039;ve been able to make up my own mind as to whether or not I want to subject myself to the contents within the movie. (Answer: I have better things to do with two hours. Like perform a bowel movement)

There comes a point where there is sufficient supporting evidence for the contents of a book or film to be known without reading it. Myers position is no secret, and he pimps his position all over the web, writes articles, speaks at conferences, etc. It&#039;s a pretty good assumption that the book is just a rehash of these arguments.

Similarly, if you&#039;re not into Dawkins, you&#039;d pretty much be able to know the contents of his latest book through the comments, reviews, and publicity surrounding the book. However, having read &quot;Greatest Show on Earth&quot;, I can tell you that his stance (which is publicly known) is supported by a huge amount of evidence in the book - Dawkins has publicly announced that this would be inside the book. He cites several experiments which were set up to &quot;prove&quot; evolution occurs. The now famous E-Coli experiment not only proved that characteristics of an organism can be adapted to external pressures, it also collected an unbroken chain of &quot;transitional fossils&quot; frozen at every generation so that the branching chain of the new citric-acid-eating species could be located down the family tree. This was an experiment run over 21 years, began with a hypothesis, went through a procedure, and could be falsified. Data was collected from which conclusions could be reached, and if possible, they can be repeated at any step of the process.

One might say I&#039;m biased towards the pro-evolution side, but honestly, if there was one shred of evidence that Myers could present, or has presented in his book, he would have done the same. Cite one - just ONE - experiment which is set up to show design. It&#039;s so easy: Hypothesis: DNA was designed. Come up with a procedure to test this, falsify it, and produce conclusive evidence. Is such an experiment was laid out in detail in Myers&#039; book - that would sell it for me. That kind of statement is nowhere to be found, forcing me to conclude it would be filled with the usual &quot;Evolution does not account for the complexity of life, therefore, it had to be designed by something more complex, but which I could never begin to explain&quot;. This suspicion is confirmed by Geoff above, who has read it, and now I really, truly don&#039;t have to. Thanks, Geoff!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I have to agree &#8211; a position of critique should not be reached before examining the contents of the object of critique, much has been written, discussed, argued and spread around about the contents, that I doubt there would be any surprises within the unopened covers.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have to see Ben Stein&#8217;s &#8220;Expelled&#8221; to know it&#8217;s gonna be a biased load of tripe &#8211; the preview, the reviews, and the criticisms have already done the work for me in various ways. They&#8217;ve done the legwork, and I&#8217;ve been able to make up my own mind as to whether or not I want to subject myself to the contents within the movie. (Answer: I have better things to do with two hours. Like perform a bowel movement)</p>
<p>There comes a point where there is sufficient supporting evidence for the contents of a book or film to be known without reading it. Myers position is no secret, and he pimps his position all over the web, writes articles, speaks at conferences, etc. It&#8217;s a pretty good assumption that the book is just a rehash of these arguments.</p>
<p>Similarly, if you&#8217;re not into Dawkins, you&#8217;d pretty much be able to know the contents of his latest book through the comments, reviews, and publicity surrounding the book. However, having read &#8220;Greatest Show on Earth&#8221;, I can tell you that his stance (which is publicly known) is supported by a huge amount of evidence in the book &#8211; Dawkins has publicly announced that this would be inside the book. He cites several experiments which were set up to &#8220;prove&#8221; evolution occurs. The now famous E-Coli experiment not only proved that characteristics of an organism can be adapted to external pressures, it also collected an unbroken chain of &#8220;transitional fossils&#8221; frozen at every generation so that the branching chain of the new citric-acid-eating species could be located down the family tree. This was an experiment run over 21 years, began with a hypothesis, went through a procedure, and could be falsified. Data was collected from which conclusions could be reached, and if possible, they can be repeated at any step of the process.</p>
<p>One might say I&#8217;m biased towards the pro-evolution side, but honestly, if there was one shred of evidence that Myers could present, or has presented in his book, he would have done the same. Cite one &#8211; just ONE &#8211; experiment which is set up to show design. It&#8217;s so easy: Hypothesis: DNA was designed. Come up with a procedure to test this, falsify it, and produce conclusive evidence. Is such an experiment was laid out in detail in Myers&#8217; book &#8211; that would sell it for me. That kind of statement is nowhere to be found, forcing me to conclude it would be filled with the usual &#8220;Evolution does not account for the complexity of life, therefore, it had to be designed by something more complex, but which I could never begin to explain&#8221;. This suspicion is confirmed by Geoff above, who has read it, and now I really, truly don&#8217;t have to. Thanks, Geoff!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tenth place is apparently worthy of a medal to the Discovery Institute - Homologous Legs</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Tenth place is apparently worthy of a medal to the Discovery Institute - Homologous Legs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-8</guid>
		<description>[...] mentioned this on Homologous Legs Mini a couple of weeks ago, but I&#8217;ve been super-busy recently, so I never got around to fleshing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] mentioned this on Homologous Legs Mini a couple of weeks ago, but I&#8217;ve been super-busy recently, so I never got around to fleshing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: naontiotami</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>naontiotami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Chase Nelson:

Oh, I plan to eventually read it, I just haven&#039;t yet. However, as it is a book that restates everything the ID movement has been saying for the past four years, albeit supposedly brilliantly, according to the ID sites I read (Evo News &amp; Views, Uncommon Descent etc.), I feel pretty safe saying that it doesn&#039;t have many groundbreaking ideas in it that I&#039;ve never seen before. 

I could be proven wrong of course, once I read the book, but that&#039;s a while away.

I did actually ask for a free copy of the book from the &quot;author and friends&quot; (http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=721), but they didn&#039;t respond for some reason. Their loss, if the book is as great as everyone is saying it is.

And I never said those words that you quoted. Perhaps you could make it clear that you were paraphrasing? Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chase Nelson:</p>
<p>Oh, I plan to eventually read it, I just haven&#8217;t yet. However, as it is a book that restates everything the ID movement has been saying for the past four years, albeit supposedly brilliantly, according to the ID sites I read (Evo News &#038; Views, Uncommon Descent etc.), I feel pretty safe saying that it doesn&#8217;t have many groundbreaking ideas in it that I&#8217;ve never seen before. </p>
<p>I could be proven wrong of course, once I read the book, but that&#8217;s a while away.</p>
<p>I did actually ask for a free copy of the book from the &#8220;author and friends&#8221; (<a href="http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=721" rel="nofollow">http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=721</a>), but they didn&#8217;t respond for some reason. Their loss, if the book is as great as everyone is saying it is.</p>
<p>And I never said those words that you quoted. Perhaps you could make it clear that you were paraphrasing? Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chase Nelson</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Chase Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-6</guid>
		<description>&quot;I haven&#039;t read it, but I know what it says; it&#039;s certainly not scientific.&quot;

Sounds rather like a fundamentalist conservative refusing to read any pro-gay marriage literature to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I haven&#8217;t read it, but I know what it says; it&#8217;s certainly not scientific.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sounds rather like a fundamentalist conservative refusing to read any pro-gay marriage literature to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Well take it from someone who has read the book (unfortunately).

Shorter &lt;i&gt;Signature in the Cell&lt;/i&gt;:

I can&#039;t possibly believe this all happened by chance, ergo Goddiddit.

And BTW, Fortune cookies have more philosophy in them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well take it from someone who has read the book (unfortunately).</p>
<p>Shorter <i>Signature in the Cell</i>:</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t possibly believe this all happened by chance, ergo Goddiddit.</p>
<p>And BTW, Fortune cookies have more philosophy in them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: naontiotami</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>naontiotami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-4</guid>
		<description>I put &quot;shocking&quot; in quotes because I don&#039;t think it&#039;s shocking that it selling well - the Discovery Institute and the rest of the mainstream intelligent design movement has been hyping this book for the last six months. It&#039;s no wonder people are buying it. 

Since the subject of the book ties into the interests of a large book-buying constituency (the highly religious in the US) it&#039;s no surprise it&#039;s being bought faster off the shelves than other books in the &quot;Science&quot; category that would not attract their interests - a book on evolution, for example. 

If they were suddenly interested in &quot;The Greatest Show on Earth&quot;, I could guarantee you that that book would stay at No. 1 for months. 

I&#039;m glad you &lt;i&gt;Signature&lt;/i&gt;. I plan on reading it someday, but since I have better things to do at this present time, like learn a university genetics textbook before my first year of uni (something that will be more useful than reading &lt;i&gt;Signature&lt;/i&gt;, I promise) it can wait.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I put &#8220;shocking&#8221; in quotes because I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s shocking that it selling well &#8211; the Discovery Institute and the rest of the mainstream intelligent design movement has been hyping this book for the last six months. It&#8217;s no wonder people are buying it. </p>
<p>Since the subject of the book ties into the interests of a large book-buying constituency (the highly religious in the US) it&#8217;s no surprise it&#8217;s being bought faster off the shelves than other books in the &#8220;Science&#8221; category that would not attract their interests &#8211; a book on evolution, for example. </p>
<p>If they were suddenly interested in &#8220;The Greatest Show on Earth&#8221;, I could guarantee you that that book would stay at No. 1 for months. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you <i>Signature</i>. I plan on reading it someday, but since I have better things to do at this present time, like learn a university genetics textbook before my first year of uni (something that will be more useful than reading <i>Signature</i>, I promise) it can wait.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Groothuis</title>
		<link>http://mini.naontiotami.com/2009/11/stephen-c-meyer-science-amazon/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Groothuis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mini.naontiotami.com/?p=16#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Well, you haven&#039;t read it, so how do you know it is &quot;shocking&quot; that it is selling well? Perhaps it is well-written, well-argued, and well-documented. This, in fact, is true. Take it from someone who has read all 508 pages, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and who deems it the best philosophy of science book he has ever read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, you haven&#8217;t read it, so how do you know it is &#8220;shocking&#8221; that it is selling well? Perhaps it is well-written, well-argued, and well-documented. This, in fact, is true. Take it from someone who has read all 508 pages, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and who deems it the best philosophy of science book he has ever read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
