Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chuck Colson Discusses Dr. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” at Break Point

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Chuck Colson at Break Point discusses Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell:

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer…

But here is your takeaway, and I’ll let Dr. Meyer do the talking: “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

“Indeed,” Dr. Meyer concludes, “it follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”

No wonder most evolutionists refuse to debate intelligent design.

Thanks to Dr. Meyer, the debate about the origins of life is entering a new phase. Maybe we could say, for the chance theory of creation, that is, the writing is on the wall.

Indeed.

Comments
#54 Thanks for the link. It is quite a long and dense paper and I do not have time to read it right now. Any chance of a precis in your own words?Mark Frank
September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958Upright BiPed
September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
House Street, I have expanded taste. Good stuffUpright BiPed
September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Art, As long as your brain is excreting the desire to come to UD, do you think you could get it to excete something of substance?Upright BiPed
September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
#41 Upright Biped I am always interested to discussion the evidence for various theories of evolution. My skills, for what they are worth, are in philosophy and statistics - not biology. So I tend to contribute to discussions about the nature of the evidence and the soundness of the argument from evidence to conclusion rather than discussing specifics which others know much more about. Having said that I cannot understand your paragraph: In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work. Yet, we are told that all phenomena are the result of purely physical processes. What is a "physico-dynamically inert process of information" and why should it be incompatible with physical processes?Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: Never provide Darwinists with well-thought-out, nuanced assertion. They will exploit its reasonableness, ignore the context, and seize on the qualifier. Hence, when speaking to a Darwinist, if you say, "I realize that these are not reviews in the strictest sense," [the nuanced qualification], "but one has to wonder why any self-respecting scientist would offer a positive comment to a book they felt promoted a pseudoscience. I don’t think that’s the case here. Several of these are very distinguished scientists in their field." [the main theme and context] The Darwinist will acknowledge only the qualifier, ignore the point, and follow up this way: "Now that you have confessed that these are not official reviews, where do we go from here?" Meanwhile, your main point gets lost in the twilight zone.StephenB
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, Why certainly. "The House, The Room, The Street" is a song by the band Gentle Giant. It was the tune I happened to be listening to when I signed up with wordpress (creative, I know). Unfortunately, nothing really too interesting. I just love this kind of music. It has a particularly thrilling orchestration/guitar break a few minutes in. The song in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN7UK0leK0Q In the event that you hated that, sorry!HouseStreetRoom
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Please feel free to challenge the evidence. Addressing my post at 41 would be a marvelous place to start.
I'll bite. #41:
In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work.
In biology, there is no such thing as a "physico-dynamically inert process of information at work". You've been reading too much Meyer and swallowing the koolaid way too willingly.Arthur Hunt
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
HouseStreetRoom, Since off topic comments are all the rage, may I ask; You have a most interesting moniker. Is there a story behind it?Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Mark, The conversation you came in on was started by fellow travelers Megan and Learned Hand in the first two posts of this thread. The vacancy of their responses was then challenged by me in the third post. You came in later offering tacit support of their pointless critique. As for being irritated, I do apologize. By all means, you are welcome to view my comments as nothing more than a mere demonstration of my point, rather than direct criticism of you. As an opponent regarding the book in question, I would like to cordially offer a simple piece of advice - a famous person once said "success is the greatest revenge". Please feel free to challenge the evidence. Addressing my post at 41 would be a marvelous place to start.Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
#44 I am nitpicking because I am slightly irritated at being criticised for being a Darwinist avoiding discussing what really matters when all I did was participate in a discussion begun by ID proponents (whether it be CannuckianYankee or somewhere further up the blog). It is admittedly trivial.Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Mark Frank, I'm confused as to your perturbation. CannuckianYankee did not "raise" any subject, as it had already been raised up-thread (those suggesting that a review by some potentially lackluster critic had any bearing on the content of the book itself etc). CY simply provided a list of other endorsements to dispel the far-fetched notion of doubtful qualification. Why are you nitpicking over such a minor detail? It's someone's title listed in the front cover of a book.HouseStreetRoom
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Mark, I suppose you're right. In science, chit chat over book reviews is not as hollow as ignoring the evidence.Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
#40 and #41 I repeat - was it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject that CannuckianYankee raised? If it was "meaningless chatter" than was CannuckianYankee not more guilty for starting the conversation? Why would his discussion of the credentials of reviwers be less offensive than mine?Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work. Yet, we are told that all phenomena are the result of purely physical processes. Put away the meaningless chatter, and give us your conceptualization of the preceding events. Reverse engineer the process by which we arrive at a physically inert information system.Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, Focus. The subject you critize is not important. Only the evidence is important. Address the evidence.
...tell us about naturally occuring algorithms and chemicals coordinating symbol systems of information
Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
#38 So was it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject that CannuckianYankee raised?Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
What am I saying? What I am saying I've already said clearly in the post that mentions your name:
Ah…yet another day and still the materialists refuse to actually address the observables. I see Mark Frank has made an appearance to throw yet another personality under the bus. In the face of not having a handy unused term of indignation, I suppose pity is in order. How it must drag on one’s air of enlightenment to come here knowing that you can never actually confront the evidence against you. (see comment 3)
Upright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
#35 "nice pass" Are you saying that it was not CannuckianYankee that raised the subject? Or is it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject he raised?Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
#35 nice pass perhaps no one will noticeUpright BiPed
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
#34 My interest is in the evidence itself. If you’d like to react to something, why not react to that. It wasn't me who raised the credentials of reviewers as a subject. If you object to this a subject take it up with CannuckianYankee.Mark Frank
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
MF #31 My interest is in the evidence itself. If you'd like to react to something, why not react to that. "Come on materialist, tell us about naturally occuring algorithms and chemicals coordinating symbol systems of information."Upright BiPed
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
Re #30 CannuckianYankee Yes, well I fully expected such accusations from Darwinists when I posted the list. Not surpirsing. Pretty lame, but not surprising. Why lame? Do you not think the description of Alestair Noble as "Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science – Scotland" when he is nothing of the kind, is rather misleading?Mark Frank
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
#24 Upright Biped I see Mark Frank has made an appearance to throw yet another personality under the bus. I have nothing against Alestair Noble and I am sure he does a great job. I was just reacting to the misleading description in the blurb and the idea that he was somehow a Scottish equivalent to Richard Dawkins. If someone argues that the credentials of the reviewers are a good reason for reading the book then it is surely reasonable to point out that those credentials have been misleadingly described?Mark Frank
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
"I think the blurb writers are teetering on the edge of lying." Yes, well I fully expected such accusations from Darwinists when I posted the list. Not surpirsing. Pretty lame, but not surprising.CannuckianYankee
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Clive, Nor does your doctrinally-oriented presumption give me any reason to think the book is not of any interest to a reader who is or isn’t already a fellow traveler. Goose, gander. Lots of negatives in that sentence. Having untangled it, I’m still not really sure what your point is. Are you comparing my comments to Colson’s? I haven’t read or reviewed the book, or purported to do so, so what’s the similarity? I have only given you my reasons for believing that the book isn’t important; I don’t expect you to share that belief. And what does it mean to be a fellow traveler? Does it mean those interested in the origin of life? That’s all it could mean, unless you beg the question of dismissing that science because of your metaphysical prejudice. A “fellow traveler” is someone to shares the ideology of a specific group or movement without explicitly belonging to it. Here, it obviously refers to those who already share Meyer’s ideology. I don’t know why you think it could only mean “those interested in the origin of life.” There are lots of people who are “interested in the origin of life” who don’t share Dr. Meyer’s ideology. Pretty much all biologists, for example. Do you have scientific proof of this? If you don’t agree with me that ID will eventually triumph on its own merits, assuming it develops any, then how can ID ever triumph? Is the wedge necessary to get ID into the mainstream even if ID does have merit? And you keep forgetting the world’s most notorious atheist turned deist Antony Flew based on ID findings. No, I just find him irrelevant. I don’t see why the conversion of a philosopher, who is not conversant with the technical details underlying ID, really matters. People convert all the time, for better and worse reasons. Frankly, the fact that Flew’s conversion was atheist to believer strikes me as an indictment of ID on two grounds. First, he is essentially a layperson with regard to the technical merits of ID’s arguments. His conversion reminds us that ID can’t quite seem to gain any ground among experts in the field. Where are the evolutionary biologists being converted? The information scientists? Second, of course, Flew’s conversion was a religious conversion. ID will always have a hard time distancing itself from its religious assumptions, roots, and methods while it relies on the religious conversion of an atheist as one of its only success stories.Learned Hand
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
I've read the book and I find zero mention of positive experimental results that cut the very heart out of Meyer's thesis. I propose an experiment - someone buy a copy of the book and remove every page that has an argument of the form "the experiment has not been done, therefore evolution NO!, therefore ID!". I predict that the book will be much, much slimmer.Arthur Hunt
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
How about this, LH, (and EVERYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T READ IT) we'll discuss the book after you've actually read it, cool? And that way we can stop all of this ridiculous arguing over motive mongering and get down to brass tacks of the science itself, deal?Clive Hayden
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
LH, ------"The proof is in the pudding; if Dr. Meyer’s ideas are actually sound, we’ll see them gain momentum outside his ideological enclave. It hasn’t ever happened with any other ID book, and there’s no sign that it’s happening with this one, but it’s always possible." Do you have scientific proof of this? And you keep forgetting the world's most notorious atheist turned deist Antony Flew based on ID findings.Clive Hayden
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
LH, ------"I didn’t dismiss the book, I dismissed the review. Glowing, doctrinally-oriented reviews from laypeople give me no reason to think the book is of any interest to a reader who isn’t already a fellow traveler. The book is on my reading list, but this review doesn’t make me look forward to it." Nor does your doctrinally-oriented presumption give me any reason to think the book is not of any interest to a reader who is or isn't already a fellow traveler. Goose, gander. And what does it mean to be a fellow traveler? Does it mean those interested in the origin of life? That's all it could mean, unless you beg the question of dismissing that science because of your metaphysical prejudice. The same kind of prejudice, in effect, that you like to fault ID folks for having (which they don't have, by the way).Clive Hayden
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply