Product Description
One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin revolutionized biology, but did he refute intelligent design (ID)? In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer argues that he did not. Much confusion surrounds the theory of intelligent design. Frequently misrepresented by the media, politicians, and local school boards, intelligent design can be defended on purely scientific grounds in accordance with the same rigorous methods that apply to every proposed origin-of-life theor… More >>
#1 by David Marshall on June 26, 2010 - 9:55 am
I come to this book with two peeves, one pet, the other a stray that is beginning to wear out its welcome.
My pet peeve is fanatics who attack ID out of ideological compulsion, rather than using the “think” cells hidden deep within their brains to evaluate and argue. That includes most of the reviewers who gave the book 1 or 2 stars so far. Meyer, we are told, is “lazy,” a “creationist,” “idiot,” “fraud,” and “liar” who hawks “error-prone” “snake-oil,” “gobbledygook,” “pseudo-science.” We should read Richard Dawkins new Greatest Show on Earth instead (I did — it isn’t about the origin of life, you numbskulls). One “reviewer” blasts the book after reading four sentences, and gets 69 of 128 “helpful” votes. Another “reviews” the first few pages and calls Meyer a liar.
Hardly any negative reviews even try to point to any scientific errors. Two exceptions: reviews by A Miller and K. M. Sternberg are worth reading. Sternberg’s is particularly eloquent. (Though having written a couple books on the historical Jesus, I tend to wonder about the objectivity, awareness, and / or good sense of someone who thinks there is no evidence for the life of Jesus!)
My second peeve is a growing dislike for the way Discovery Institute often packages its arguments. I visited DI a year ago when another ID book came out — I won’t name it, seeing no need to embarrass the author. His presentation essentially said, “Look at all the wonders of creation. How can evolution possibly explain all that?” When Q & A time came, I was the only one to ask any critical questions. “That sounds impressive, but why don’t you engage the explanations evolutionary biologists offer for those features?” Like the talk, the book (he gave me a copy) simply ignored detailed arguments.
This book does much better. Meyer’s critics to the contrary, he does offer detailed scientific and philosophical arguments. Signature is NOT mainly about evolution per se – it is about the origin of life. It is, therefore, not strictly parallel to Dawkins’ books or arguments — ID is in a sense broader than evolution as a theory, since it seeks to explain things that evolution does not.
My main beef is the book is too long. While many of Meyer’s illustrations are interesting, he uses too many, and repeats himself too often. Meyer should chop out some of the remedial 7th Grade biology, cut some stories and the “I was in Akron when I thought A and in Baton Rouge when B occurred to me” stuff, and cut the book in half.
The first-person auto-biographical is overworked. No one thinks you’re neutral, Stephen — so just argue! Don’t pretend your conversion to ID was purely scientific — reasonable people understand that people act under a mixture of motives, and the unreasonable ones are not worth arguing with. Dawkins, Behe, Stephen Hawking, and Darwin for that matter write serious arguments without losing ordinary readers; models that Meyer could profitably shoot for.
But the issue here is the origin of life, and when Meyer finally gets to it, he argues it well, I think. The central chapters seem to cover most of the main issues well. He discusses different solutions, and explains fairly clearly why they do not work, and why some sort of design seems preferable. It is interesting that none of Meyer’s critics here dispute those arguments. (Again, Miller and Sternberg come closest, but do not really engage his most important points.) I wish, however, that Meyer had expanded those central chapters, and discussed in more detail leading rival contemporary hypotheses.
Many of his secondary arguments work, too. I suppose one can’t complain if a philosopher of science writes a lot about the philosophy of science, and I suppose those arguments are made necessary by attempts to marginalize ID proponents through the sheer power of wordplay. Pardon the self-indulgence, but as I wrote in Truth Behind the New Atheism, in response to Dawkins’ attempts to marginalize ID proponents: “David Bohm once defended science as ‘openness to evidence.’ The best scientist — or theologian — is not someone who shouts ‘heresy!’ when he hears strange views, but one who listens carefully and responds with reason and evidence. When it comes to ultimate questions, ‘openness to evidence’ is the definition that counts.”
The scientific evidence is what matters, and I would have liked to have seen more detail on that. Still, all in all, a strong ID perspective on the origin of life.
Rating: 4 / 5
#2 by R. Beach on June 26, 2010 - 12:39 pm
First a note on the reviews I have been reading on this book:
A lot of the one star book reviews seem to be attacking Dr. Meyers, and not the topic of his book. Please let us get something out of the way up front. “Signature of the Cell” is not about Stephen Meyer, the Discovery Institute or God for that matter. It is about an argument, and a lot of the negative (and positive, let’s be honest) reviews seem to overlook this fact. There is a lot of spin on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate. One side often states that Judge Jones III was appointed by George W Bush, while another side makes certain we know that Judge Jones III was previously a former Head of a Liquor Control Board. Please let us approach this topic with reason and give our honest-if biased-opinions.
In “Signature in the Cell”, Dr. Meyers walks us through what information is and the different ways information is defined, created and discovered. He also goes into great detail on probability theory and the history of scientific reasoning. He then lays out the history of origins of life research including a fascinating exposition of the discovery of the DNA double helix, and the surprise of specified information that lies within. Dr. Meyers argues why the current OOL theories fail to explain how the first cell could have arisen by chance alone due to the insufficient probabilistic resources (temporal as well as physical) of the universe. He further argues why self organization/bio-chemical predestination models do not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of life. He also explains why the RNA world and other current models fail to explain the OOL, or what Dr Meyers calls the “DNA enigma”
The DNA Enigma is that which researchers have not been able to uncover. That is, the origin of specified information or digital code in every living cell. The information in the DNA molecule is not only complex, but has specified complexity. All of the current OOL models Dr. Meyer critiques contain what he terms the “displacement problem” That is they push back the source of the information or assume that the information simply occured or merely ignore the source, and put it on the back burner. In the book Dr. Meyers explains why evolutionary computer simulations and that why trying to manufacture “life in the lab” are actually very good examples of ID and are ideal cases for design theory.
Dr. Meyer does not make an appeal from ignorance or a “God of the Gaps” argument, but makes a positive case for design in OOL. Dr. Meyer appeals to the same historical branch of science that Darwin employed, and argues that if ID theory is arbitrarily deemed unscientific then Darwin’s theory would fail to be classified as scientific on the same reasoning.
For those that say that “ID is not science”, please read chapter 18 of the book-”But is it Science?” Following are the headings for the reasons Dr. Meyers regards ID as science, specifically historically scientific..
Reason 1: The case for ID is based on Empirical Evidence.
Reason 2: Advocates of ID use Established Scientific Methods.
Reason 3: ID is a Testable Theory.
Reason 4: The Case for ID Exemplifies Historical Scientific Reasoning.
Reason 5: ID Addresses a Specific Question in Evolutionary Biology (OOL).
Reason 6: ID Is Supported by Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.
(You’ll have to read the book for the details.)
“Signature in the Cell” is not “Creationist Tripe”, but a 600 page argument. Dr. Meyers does not necessarily argue for a God as the intelligent agent behind the OOL, but that an intelligent agent is the most likely cause of the specified information in the double helix and information processing systems of the cell. Dr. Meyers argument is not that “It is way too complicated to understand
so therefore God did it” but an appeal to what we know about how information is created and that information comes from minds, or agents. As some like to say and I’m paraphrasing several ID opponents here..”Let’s not kid ourselves, we all know who Dr. Meyers means when he says an intelligent agent, he means God” Well maybe, or if your ontology will allow, probably, but both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick believe in, or are at least sympathetic to an intelligent agent as the cause of life on earth. They just believe that the intelligent agent was or could have been extra-terrestrial. The panspermia theory too has it’s problems, and ultimately pushes back the OOL or “DNA Enigma” to an earlier time and certainly from what we know of the universe, one is stopped by the previously mentioned wall of probabilistic resources.
In the epilouge Dr. Meyers opens the door to some of the latest discoveries of the hierarchical nature of DNA information storage. Quite interesting really, Super folders, folders within folders in optimized locations for efficient retrieval. He also touches briefly on what used to thought of as “Junk DNA” or non protein coding regions of the DNA molecule. What was once considered to be only leftovers and redundancies from transcriptions can now be shown to work as a sort of operating system. It will be interesting to see what comes from the ongoing research..
Dr. Meyer concludes the book in Appendix B with solid critique of multiverse theories and in chapter 17 provides a very powerful answer(rebuttal) to the ubiquitous “Who designed the designer?” question (challenge).
There IS an answer to the DNA Enigma, and Dr Meyer’s positive argument is that life on earth was caused ~3-4 billion years ago by an intelligent agent, most likely God. Perhaps he is correct.
Rating: 5 / 5
#3 by John M. Roe on June 26, 2010 - 1:15 pm
As a former agnostic who had his eyes opened in micro and
cellular biology classes as a pre-med student I very much
appreciated such a concise work by one of the greatest
intellects in the field.
I was amazed as a student at the blind unquestioning way
that my peers accepted that the genetic code and impossibly
complex, and easily demostrated irreducibly complex structures
and functions of the cell “just happened”.
That was when I realized that a lot of “educated” people were
simply idealogues plodding along a path determined not by the
facts and science, but by their apriori assumptions.
This book is refreshing and validating for real free-thinkers
and truth-seekers willing to follow the facts rather than their
prejudices.
A must read.
Rating: 5 / 5
#4 by Mark (Greek for "Hammer") on June 26, 2010 - 2:10 pm
Stephen Meyer answers this question. But why was the creation of this excellent work necessary? What could motivate Stephen Meyer to make himself (and his family) a target for the inevitable derogation and questioning of his credentials, intellect and character? The simple fact is this; the evolutionists have declared war on any thought not of their origin, indeed academia is generally intolerant of any ideas not of their creation, aggressively intolerant. A recent quote by one of the god’s of evolutionary dogma; “It is absolutely safe to say, that if you meet somebody who does not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane”, the tone of this sediment is ubiquitous. That the disagreement between divergent points of view has been passionate is nothing new, the tone and overt antagonism from those with a naturalist view point, perhaps is. The purpose of this tactic is to shut down any discussion or disagreement with their orthodoxy; this to me displays a lack of confidence with the premise of their belief and argument, obfuscation by derogation.
Stephen Meyer not only explains with clarity why what the evolutionists believe is simply not possible or even remotely possible, but gives creditable proof of design, intent and purpose in the architecture of cells. The hostility towards Meyer in exposing the inherent flaws in the theory of evolution take a tone of religious zealotry. The false superiority, arrogance and condescension of the vast majority scientist and academics make this work (and others like it) necessary.
This work begins with the concept of what is the best explanation possible for the origin of life based on “historical scientific reasoning”. To answer this question Meyer reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA. He dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem, I will not bore you with the details of the competing theories. Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10/164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 10/65 atoms in the known universe. Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 10/41,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brook and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his)
He continues on the theme of what provides for the best explanation possible for the origin of life which begins his argument in favor of intelligent design. His discussion develops on what does the evidence suggest? Below is a sample;
“Intelligence is the only known cause of complex functionally integrated information processing system. It follows once again, that intelligent design stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself”.
Meyer then concludes his work with a discussion of the “implications” regarding the theory of Intelligent Design, which does after all get to the real problem secularists have with any compromise regarding ID as a scientifically relevant concept. One thing that is particularly well illustrated in the final chapters is that any argument against ID as a legitimate scientific concept apply with equal (perhaps more so) weight against the theory of evolution.
Lastly I would to thank Mr. Meyer for the elevated tone and substance of his latest work, this book contains no vitriol, condescendence, arrogance or anything remotely unpleasant. It does contain well reasoned arguments for his points of view with extensive documentation in the notes and Bibliography. Meyer has taken no cheap shots at the scientists who do not happen to share his point of view, this in marked contrast to the screeds presented to the public as legitimate scientific discussion by the evolutionists. While I at times enjoy returning the fire of evolutionary zealots with a nuclear weapon, Meyer has chosen his words with the upmost care and demonstrated a particular graciousness to those who will not and perhaps cannot reciprocate this courtesy, this in my mind demonstrates the confidence and pure scientific ability bought to this study. I give the highest endorsement possible to the purchase of this worthy publication.
Rating: 5 / 5
#5 by E. K. Thomas on June 26, 2010 - 2:22 pm
Stephen Meyer has produced a superb book which traces the history of the research into DNA and the unravelling of some of its mysteries. He also gives some personal history and the processes that led him ultimately to the writing of this book. There have been a good number of reviews giving the detail and main contents of the book and so I will not go over that ground again.
It is clear that this book is the result of much painstaking effort to find out what scientists’ research has unearthed regarding the astonishing information and coding found in DNA. To date however there has been no satisfactory answer as to where the information originated from. In the end Stephen Meyer suggests what is really the most sensible and obvious answer, which is that there was an intelligence behind this. It is this Occam’s Razor suggestion that has stirred up the hornets’ nest of anti -ID abuse and rage. I suspect this review will generate some more.
It seems strange to me that the oft recited cries of “It’s not science” and similar dismissive phrases completely miss the main point which is, “Is it true?” I have never heard of any scientific tests, or requirements of falsifiabilty applied to the Rosetta stone. Common sense is enough to instantly recognise that information of this sort can only be the product of an intelligent mind. Why the blindness and blinkered attitude when it comes to recognising the information in DNA as also being of intelligent origin? The answer I suspect is all down to the implications that this might have. Perhaps indeed it would be doing the unthinkable viz. letting a Divine foot in the door.
I have read many of the reviews of this book including the negative ones, but I have yet to come across any argument that negates the concept that intelligent agency was involved in DNA. There has been plenty of obfuscation in addition to the unfortunate rantings, but a good solid argument countering what Stephen Meyer has written and showing that DNA was not the product of an intelligent agency is nowhere to be found.
An excellent book which I strongly recommend.
Rating: 5 / 5