Storm, I definitely want to say I appreciate your feedback. I personally know little about the Cambrian explosion because I have a large inclination it didn't happen, at least not the way evolutionists claim it happened. Do I know what happened? No, I am still trying to figure that out. Am I a creation proponent? sort of. I find it pretty hard to believe that I am the product of random chance but I try to keep my mind open to what actually happened. Do I believe there there is a loving intelligence guiding the universe either directly or indirectly? for the most part yes. Is Jesus God incarnate, I don't totally know but I seriously doubt it. look, if I thought I was still a Christian, I would still be in church. Would I be on a site like this trying to proselytize? maybe, but likely not for long. Is Meyers a Christian? from what I understand, yes. But just because someone is of a religious persuasion doesn't mean that what they say can be utterly dismissed. From what I understand, Newton was a Christian but that doesn't mean we can just dismiss the the theory of gravity because of it.

Storm, you may not realize this but I agree with you on many things. Does Meyers use ID as a battering ram for his religious persuasion? probably, to some extent or another. Youv'e got to remember that Christians are commanded by their leader to proselytize the world. Do I use it as a battering ram? basically yes. I want people to consider the idea that we are not the product of random chance, that their is design in living things or at the very least the appearance of design. I believe even Dawkins is willing to admit that. Does that imply a creator, you bet. Do I believe in a creator? I don't know.

Now does Meyers mean both meanings of materialism when he uses the term? I don't totally know for sure but I doubt it. I think he means it in the philosophical sense. Is he condescending? he seems pretty level headed to me. But if he is condescending in any way, I don't think it would help his cause at all and I think he knows that.

Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life, but simply how that life develops and evolves over time. So his first premise is fallacious right out of the gate.
'Materislistic world view?' What does THAT really mean? Everybody dislikes materialism, right?
The Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution in any way. It just indicates there's no fossil record of the soft-bodied organisms which came before, coupled with a quantum shift in global climate patterns.
How or why would a 'god' care about any of this anyway?

[discovery.org]

On the web page I thought this was interesting.

"Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience—his Origin of Species—not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves— and is receiving—serious consideration by the scientific community."

There is overwhelming evidence which supports evolution from many biological disciplines. The idea that there is any doubt among scientists about the validity of evolution is laughable and is only an attempt at casting doubt among the general populace.

No.

I understand he is not well liked by many here, but he does seem to make a point. I wonder if anyone has a good intellectual argument against his position.

"Stephen C. Meyer is an American scientist, college professor and author. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement."

Nuff said, he is a dickhead

Maybe I should have posted this in academic.