True, there's a whole taxonomy of completely discredited schools of thought adjacent to young earth creationism but different in their respective details.
'Bias' means a lot of things to a lot of people. I'm perfectly comfortable being called biased against criticisms of the modern synthesis, which is not the dig that you seem to think it is. I would reject the idea that I'm biased in the sense of predisposed to unfairly reject a legitimate idea due to pre-existing ideological commitments, but I suppose the devil is in the details on that one.
Suffice to say I don't think critics of evolution are rehabilitated into respectability just by noting that there are other forms than young earth creationism.
It's not just boring, it's almost certainly wrong. If you're going with the mainstream consensus just because it's the consensus, chances are almost 100% that you are wrong. The history of science proves this. At any given moment we only see one small facet of the truth, and we need real thinkers (not sheep who just echo "consensus") to reveal other facets. Your attitude impedes scientific development.
See Wronger Than Wrong by Isaac Asimov, which is about this exact argument:
>When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
>According to John Jenkins,[4] who reviewed The Relativity of Wrong, the title essay of Asimov's book is the one "which I think is important both for understanding Asimov's thinking about science and for arming oneself against the inevitable anti-science attack that one often hears – [that] theories are always preliminary and science really doesn't 'know' anything."
But how wrong? And more importantly, do you understand why that is an important question?
Dismissing the achievements of present-day science by appealing to the wrongness of the past -- to imply we are just as wrong now as we were then-- is to exhibit the very form of ignorance that Asimov was criticizing.
I see Meyer being favorably cited here, but his two major books have been pretty firmly rejected by real scientists from everything I have seen.
To the extent Meyer has been able to garner positive critical reception, it has been an in-between nether space of media, book reviews, and unfortunately academic philosophy. I actually would go so far as to say that folks like Nagel offering positive commentary on Meyer is an indictment of Nagel and a perfect illustration of how his school of anti-reductionist skepticism can go completely off the rails.
Openly stating. He was educated as a philosopher with a PhD in 'history of science.' His entry point to conversations on biology is from the perspective of a historian of science.
He also has a degree in physics and worked as a geophysicist for four years.. I'd say he is more educated in scientific matters than most people. Maybe including yourself?
From the google, I see that was a bachelors from 1981 to go into the private sector for work that had no connection to any scientific career.
What qualifies someone as a 'scientist' can be a fuzzy continuum, but that's on the weaker side of the spectrum. Especially for someone who isn't a biologist going against the mainstream consensus of biology.
Before you pick up a copy of Darwin's Doubt to learn about evolution, you should probably know the subtitle is "The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design."
He has master's and doctorate degrees from Cambridge in philosophy and history of science, and a bachelor's in physics, as well as having worked as a physicist for several years. He has also done extensive research on the issue and done lots of publishing on it. He's more qualified than almost any Hacker News poaster.
Every ounce of his scholarship has been firmly rejected by the scientific community at every step of his career. Any HN poster is perfectly qualified to assess his credentials and claims relative to those of the academic mainstream.
Edit to reply to comment below: Meyer himself agrees that it is in fact true, and would be the first to affirm that he has faced pretty stiff rejection by the scientific mainstream on questions of biology. One of his major talking points is his feeling that he's been ostracized from the scientific community. He would not agree with anyone claiming it's "not true" that he has clashed with modern scientific consensus.
