Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Blown Away” Dan Peterson reviews Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell at The American Spectator

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell is reviewed by Dan Peterson in The American Spectator (September 1st, 2009). Here is an excerpt:

“Of the approaches taken by ID theorists, Signature in the Cell is most closely aligned with the pioneering work on design detection published over the last decade by mathematician William Dembski, one of Meyer’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute.  Dembski and Meyer both rely, at least in part, on information theory and probabilistic analysis to determine whether a phenomenon is best explained as the  product of unguided “chance and necessity,” or of design by an intelligence…

Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind.  For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate.  For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.”


Comments
MeganC,
I hope you’re aware that interfering with the post is a federal offense where I’m from.
Where are you from?Clive Hayden
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
PB: Tell you what – I’ll go to my local Barnes & Noble this weekend and buy a copy to read. Should I look in the “Science” or “Religion” section of the store? Not sure where B&N hides it. My local Borders shelves it under "Philosophy."riddick
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, I assume that the following was directed at myself: "You mean you are an adult?!? I find that hard to believe. I’ve seen your post" I hope you're aware that interfering with the post is a federal offense where I'm from. "For instance, on this very thread you seem to be confused by the title of tne book being discussed. You thought Signature in the Cell was referring to an actual written signature." What gave you the idea that I though that the book necessarily referred to an actual written signature? "Only a child was be subject tp being confused by such abstractions – or, perhaps an adult acting out as a child." I think you may be stalking the wrong Megan...MeganC
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett, I don't know where the book is shelved. One thing is for sure, if you allow for the Barnes and Noble cataloging system to dictate what you should read by virtue of what section they decide to shelve the books, you'll certainly always be impoverished. I don't know about you, but I don't allow Barnes and Noble employees to dictate what I read and what I consider valuable by their shelving system. :DClive Hayden
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Cabal:
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.
The only thing supported is the Creationists' position of baraminology. There isn't any genetic data to support universal common descent. Never mind UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Then there is a recent paper that demonstrates the difficulties in getting two specified mutations- just two.
The ID position is that some things in biology are too complex to be the result of natural forces, somebody must have done it.
That isn't ID's position.Joseph
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Joseph,
Paul Burnett, Blue Lotus and MeganC, If you don’t like the design inference all you have to do is to actually go out and find something that supports your position. But you have provided exactly nothing. So don’t blame ID for your failures.
Back to basics. IMHO, this is the entire controversy: The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research. No failure there. The ID position is that some things in biology are too complex to be the result of natural forces, somebody must have done it. (Can unbiased analysis point to anything but God as the most likely candidate for the role of designer?) To support that position we have the NFL theorem, Explanatory Filter, and Behe's mousetrap and Edge of evolution - all of which have been weighed by science and found too light. It seems to me the failure is more of an ID'ists wishful thinking than a fact.Cabal
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Paul Burnett, Blue Lotus and MeganC, If you don't like the design inference all you have to do is to actually go out and find something that supports your position. But you have provided exactly nothing. So don't blame ID for your failures.Joseph
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
KF (22) "And, that on the information accessible in 1986, an explicitly latched Weasel is a reasonable interpretation of showcased results and commentary on the power of cumulative selection" Except that it wasn't latched. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to keep banging on about latching when (a) the author of the software says it wasn't latched and (b) the results show latching's not necessary. Try Occam's razor.Gaz
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Onlookers (and Clive): This is sad. A glance at the above will amply demonstrate the point of identifying the routine resort to red herring to strawman to ad hominem -- including blame the victim -- rhetorical tactics in ever so easily observable use by all too many darwinists. BL, sadly, is one of several obvious exponents of these tactics here at UD. (And unsurprisingluy his characterisation of the previous discussions and exchanges is a case in point. Just follow up my previous link to see how I had to address a string of rhetorical gambits that amply demonstrate the above destructive rhetorical pattern by darwinists, step by step.) You will also observe that there is no response to the central issue for this thread, and that BL fails to mention that at EVERY comment I have ever made at UD, there is a link to a step by step presentation on the substantial scientific issues surrounding the ID question, one that is not without some slight merit as a scientific educational and correction- of- misconceptions venture. (Not to mention, since BL does not know me from Adam, he is in no position to assume or assert that I do not scientifically relevant work. [And, I need not defend my track record in education, applied science and policy to anonymous Internet critics only interested to poison the well. All I will say -- on the first of these -- is that this very week my first former student to become a PhD in straight physics was celebrated on the local news; previously my students who went on to earn such did so in extensions or applied fields such as geophysics/ geology/ volcanology -- unsurprisingly.]) GEM of TKI PS: I need to pause to address certain strawman tactics above. What BL means about what is the track and what is off track is that he does not approve of my pointing out the underlying context that Weasel 1986 as targetted search rewarding incrementally closer to target non functional "nonsense phrases" cannot be a good analogy to the claimed power of random variation and natural selection by differential functional performance. (I of course went on to address and demonstrate why Weasel, contrary to the latest talking points, can properly be understood as an implicitly latched search that through its latching is amenable to the analysis in the current Dembski and Marks IEEE paper, and also how it comes to illustrate the power of injected active information in gaining an advantage over random walk search. And, that on the information accessible in 1986, an explicitly latched Weasel is a reasonable interpretation of showcased results and commentary on the power of cumulative selection -- indeed, c. 2000 an Australian university team developed an explicitly latched version and had to be instructed by agents of Mr Dawkins that this was not what he did in 1986. But, hopefully, this necessary defence in the face of abusive strawmannish commentary will not e allowed to side track this discussion.] PPS: And cf BL's remarks on Gonzalez and Sternberg above -- BTW, G DID bring in money (which was not a stated criterion of tenure . . .) and S's real crime was being open minded enough to publish a properly per revierwed article that met with the disapproval of the NCSE thought police (any and all errors that could be found or claimeed are being used to poison the well here . . . ) -- with the linked on both Sternberg and Gonzalez to see what blaming the victim is, and how it serves as enabling behaviour to destructive oppressive agendas. in short, BL amply demonstrates the points I have made.kairosfocus
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Kariosfocus
To see a survey of all too typical darwinist debate tactics, kindly cf the recent thread from here on.
I would recommend onlookers read that thread to see what passes for "debate" with Kariosfocus.
1–> Drag a distractive, subject-changing red herring across the track of inconvenient truth.
What KF means here is when people try to drag the conversation back to the topic at hand KF will insist on "islands of functionality" being relevant whatever the subject, and 1000 other distractions. Kariosfocus does not "debate" by have a back and forth about the issues. He has his position and it never ever changes. He is right, and you will just learn to like it.
2 –> Lead it out to a strawman misrepresentation of the argument being objected to.
Oddly this sums up KF and Weasel to a tee. His constant references to Hoyle and the origin of life serve to simply confuse the "debate" about Weasel and latching and distract from the fact that KF is not debating at all, just recycling posts from previous "debates".
3 –> Soak same in subtle or blatant ad hominem mischaracterisations and slanders or innuendos.
Alot like when KF implys that people who refuse to accept his argument are irrational or refuse to see the truth because of ideological blinkers. Pot, Kettle?
4 –> Spectacularly ignite, clouding, confusing, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere.
If anything is poisoning the atmosphere it is your 10,000 word posts that nobody bothers to read anymore.
5 –> Thus, shift from a discussion towards the truth and constrained by fact and logic to the provocation of a fight by resort to routine incivility.
Perhaps people would be more civil if you listened to what they had to say and if an argument of yours was defeated accept it.
6 –> Abuse institutional power to club down those who dare differ with you in that resulting fight. (The cases of Sternberg and Gonzalez are classics.)
Yes, classics. Gonzalez who did not bring in the $$$ and Stenberg who thought he was above refilling preservatives in artifacts he was examining. Anybody else? And, KF, if you ever cracked open a journal you'd see that opinons differ all the time on many subjects. It's only the ID lot that use that an excuse for not even trying (tell me again why you refuse to write up and submit your FSCI claim to a proper journal?).
7 –> Turnabout blame for the confrontation, and slander the victim as the one who “hit [back] first.”
We know you like to throw accusations of slander about. Try doing some science instead.
It is time to expose and demand correction of such destructive tactics. In defense of civil society.
Your contortions refusing to admit the obvious in the Weasel thread are open to all to see. We'll lets the onlookers decide who is using destructive tactics eh?Blue Lotus
September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Onlookers: To see a survey of all too typical darwinist debate tactics, kindly cf the recent thread from here on. UB and many others above are all too correct to highlight that the now plainly standard Darwinist rhetorical tactics of making endless distractive objections are:
1--> Drag a distractive, subject-changing red herring across the track of inconvenient truth. 2 --> Lead it out to a strawman misrepresentation of the argument being objected to. 3 --> Soak same in subtle or blatant ad hominem mischaracterisations and slanders or innuendos. 4 --> Spectacularly ignite, clouding, confusing, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere. 5 --> Thus, shift from a discussion towards the truth and constrained by fact and logic to the provocation of a fight by resort to routine incivility. 6 --> Abuse institutional power to club down those who dare differ with you in that resulting fight. (The cases of Sternberg and Gonzalez are classics.) 7 --> Turnabout blame for the confrontation, and slander the victim as the one who "hit [back] first."
It is time to expose and demand correction of such destructive tactics. In defense of civil society. So now, Darwinists: kindly, answer the case made on the merits, or show yourselves to be enabling the indefensible in support of a destructive agenda. to help focus the matter, let's now pick the money quote paragraph -- and I hate it when a PDF is just an image -- as a focus for the case you need to answer: ___________ >> In Signature in the Cell Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the "computer code" in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind.>> ___________ Okay, that in a nutshell is the case be answered on inference to best, empirically anchored explanation [a classic core scientific reasoning approach] -- and I see that FSCI is now being picked up by significant players as a convenient summary of the core point. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Maybe in your haste you misunderstood my comment. The non sequitur is in trying to defeat an argument by discrediting where the argument appears. Perhaps, in your haste, you misunderstood Mr. Burnett's. I take two points by implication from his comment; the first is that, as a non-scientist, the reviewer is unqualified to review the book. The second is that the publication has an ideological predisposition to favor the book. You have not even attempted to engage the first point. The second is also not a non-sequitur; if the magazine would have given a positive review on the basis of the book's ideology, regardless of its contents, what weight does the review carry? As Mr. Burnett notes, the reviews of experts in Dr. Meyers' field are more significant than those of laypeople who already shared Dr. Meyers' conclusions. What do the experts have to say about Signature?Learned Hand
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden (#15) wrote: "The non sequitur is in trying to defeat an argument by discrediting where the argument appears." Okay - is it a non sequitur to try to defeat an argument by crediting where the argument does not appear? Remember the Sherlock Holmes story where the clue was the dog that did not bark in the night? As I said earlier, show me a (positive) review in Science or Nature or Cell and I'll be impressed. (I was kidding about Scientific American - that would be only slightly more impressive than a review in Science News or Popular Science.) Tell you what - I'll go to my local Barnes & Noble this weekend and buy a copy to read. Should I look in the "Science" or "Religion" section of the store?PaulBurnett
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
"The non sequitur is in trying to defeat an argument by discrediting where the argument appears." Mr. Burnett brought this same non sequitur to other forum comments about the book as well. It seems as though he has either not read the book, or he refuses to engage the arguments in the book, hoping that his distraction will be enough. As I remember, it was either on a Beliefnet forum, or on Amazon.com. It seems that anytime an ID advocate makes a comment about ID somewhere outside the sphere of scientific respectability, Mr. Burnett is there to point out the flaw. Has not Scientific American featured articles of questionable scientific validity and speculation? What makes their rag an authority on what is kosher to science? Blue Lotus: "What I don’t understand is why the argument is even being made. Why not just do the actual research and provide the physical evidence itself? I’ve not read the book mind you. But the point stand regardless." Why not go and acutally read the book then - and come back and comment when you actually have an argument against it? I have read the book, and I find it intellectually compelling. I don't care if the book was scribbled on toilet paper. It provided me with an exceptional refutation of the standard Darwinian thesis, as well as a well-researched and expanded ID alternative.CannuckianYankee
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
It seems its always the same thing: Flank the argument Flank the argument Flank the argument Create a distraction, change the subject, misrepresent the details, ignore the evidence at all costs (including any lingering vestiges of integrity). The level of intelligent curiosity is particularily appalling. Dr Hunter's central thesis is in full display.Upright BiPed
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Blue Lotus,
So, given that there is already a believing audience in place I feel it is entirely relevant for PaulBurnett to note that he awaits a serious review in a serious science journal.
There are other scientists that "believe" in the assertions of The Signature in the Cell. Waiting on a science journal to write a book review is purely a matter of personal preference, and is in no way an actual argument against the contents of the book.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Learned Hand,
The original post is an excerpt from the review. How is a comment about that review a non sequitur?
I give you more credit than this comment warrants. Maybe in your haste you misunderstood my comment. The non sequitur is in trying to defeat an argument by discrediting where the argument appears.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Several post from the opposition...yet not a single refutation of a single pemise in the book. (here, or elswhere). Lets be honest about it, there won't be one.Upright BiPed
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Clive,
There is an argument being made, it doesn’t matter if it’s scribbled on parchment paper or a napkin.
What I don't understand is why the argument is even being made. Why not just do the actual research and provide the physical evidence itself? I've not read the book mind you. But the point stand regardless - what does it matter if a lay audience believes there is such a signature or not! A signature which proves life was designed. They already believe in THE original "Intelligent Designer", you've no need to make them into converts! So, given that there is already a believing audience in place I feel it is entirely relevant for PaulBurnett to note that he awaits a serious review in a serious science journal. Given that the lay audience already believes, who is left but the scientific audience? It's not going to happen via facebook I can tell you that!! :) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Signature-in-the-Cell/90296428497?_fb_noscript=1Blue Lotus
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
You mean you are an adult?!? I find that hard to believe. I've seen your post For instance, on this very thread you seem to be confused by the title of tne book being discussed. You thought Signature in the Cell was referring to an actual written signature. Only a child was be subject tp being confused by such abstractions - or, perhaps an adult acting out as a child.Upright BiPed
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Please, for the sake of us here with common sense, stop making this non sequitur argument that impresses no one. The original post is an excerpt from the review. How is a comment about that review a non sequitur? An observation as to the qualifications and bias of the reviewer and publication is directly relevant to the review.Learned Hand
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett,
Show me a review of The Signature in the Cell in an actual science journal (Science, Nature…heck, even Scientific American) by an actual scientist and I’ll be impressed. So far the only reviews have been in religious and right-wing publications, haven’t they?
It's incredible how you cite again and again the irrelevant. There is an argument being made, it doesn't matter if it's scribbled on parchment paper or a napkin. Notice how your argument, itself, is not published in any scientific publication. And notice too that this is what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism", of which you would do well to read in its entirety, but here is an excerpt which gets to the point:
The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth [and Twenty-First] Century. –C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism,” in God in the Dock, p. 273
Please, for the sake of us here with common sense, stop making this non sequitur argument that impresses no one. By your own argument, Origin of Species, when it was published, died the same fate that you claim is detrimental to The Signature in the Cell. This doesn't get at the actual argument, and is not persuasive to anyone with even a modicum of sense. Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, "Does you mommy know you are on the computer?" Her ashes are nearby, so I guess the answer to your question would depend your 'worldview'.MeganC
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Megan, Does you mommy know you are on the computer?Upright BiPed
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
I have some questions about this book: Does it have any actual pictures of "The Signature in the Cell"? What cells have "The Signature in the Cell"? Whose signature is "The Signature in the Cell"? When was "The Signature in the Cell" first signed? Does each new cell require a new signature? Are all the signatures the same? If not, how are they different, and why?MeganC
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
One of the things that Meyer's book made me realize is that there has been no mathematical support for the claim that the categorical forces of "random" mutation and natural selection can produce what they are claimed to be producing. ID is also a categorical description of results; while "random" describes a category of results one expects within the probability bound of the system in question, and from "natural selection" one expects an algorithmic sorting process from a simple survival-differential, they don't explain the class of results we see being produced by evolution. I'm eager to see how the more open-minded and unbiased members of the scientific community respond to the FSCI challenge presented in Meyer's book and in the recently published ID papers. What they don't seem to comprehend is the nature of the argument; just because there exists a potential pathway to a result doesn't mean that your vehicle has the capacity to make the trip. Describing how molecular changes can occur and how they can bind and how they can accumulate doesn't express any capacity for RM & NS to actually do so.William J. Murray
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett: Show me a review of The Signature in the Cell in an actual science journal (Science, Nature…heck, even Scientific American) by an actual scientist and I’ll be impressed. So far the only reviews have...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....
It's not likely you'll find any worthwhile (honest) reviews from the religiously-motivated conventionalists at the aforementioned magazines. If you're not interested in that whole "honesty" thing (and your posting history suggests that you're not), then just be patient. I'm sure some of the more creative Liars for Darwin will eventually concoct a nice strawman-filled fairytale to "refute" the intellectually superior Meyer's arguments in due time. In the mean time, my suggestion would be to search around for Stephen C. Meyer debates. He's presented the arguments from Signature in the Cell in many of them. I've yet to find anything I would call a significant rebuttal of Meyer's work, but I have a hunch my standards are slightly higher than your own.ShawnBoy
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Paul, Thank you for pointing out the obvious bias, prejudice and fascist Darwinistas who refuse to participate in open discussions and reviews. Last time an ID paper was published, the Darwinian Fascist took apart Dr Sternberg at the Smithsonian and treated him with scorn and ridicule. Showing they are little more than monkeys. They cannot think for themselves or lift themselves up high enough among the dogmatic fascism that is Darwinism today. Scientific American has been blatantly atheist. LOL.... what a bunch of barking buffoons, but keep on living in your little world of "holocaust denial."DATCG
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
"The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics" - (Wikipedia). The American Spectator is not a science journal, and does not typically cover science topics. Dan Peterson is a lawyer, not a scientist. Show me a review of The Signature in the Cell in an actual science journal (Science, Nature...heck, even Scientific American) by an actual scientist and I'll be impressed. So far the only reviews have been in religious and right-wing publications, haven't they?PaulBurnett
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
There's still no audio version...... Stephen??Gods iPod
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply