Intelligent Design

Challenge to ID bashers

Spread the love

At BeliefNet, David Klinghoffer has posted:
A Challenge to Intelligent Design-Bashing Regulars on this Blog
Tuesday July 21, 2009
Categories: Life’s Origins & Evolution

You know who you are. Rather than go on grousing about how there’s no evidence for intelligent design, it’s not science, and so on and so forth, here’s my challenge to you personally. Read Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne). He lays out a massive evidentiary case. As a philosopher of science, he also explains what science is. If you really want to tell me there’s no positive scientific evidence that biological information coded in DNA reflects purposeful design, then go ahead and read Meyer’s book and report back to me your reasoned response.

If you tell me, “Yeah, I don’t need to read it, I know what he’s going to say” — then you’ve just proven to me that you’re not serious. On the other hand, if you’ll go ahead and read the whole book, including the appendix where he lists and describes 12 ways in which ID is testable, I will take your response very seriously. The most thoughtful response I receive I will highlight in this space. So it’s a contest! But remember, you have to read the book, not just about it.

What logical constructive arguments can be offered pro/con Klinghoffer’s challenge? Recommend posting there and here.

6 Replies to “Challenge to ID bashers

  1. 1
    herb says:

    I can see the logic in requiring skeptics to read the entire book before responding, but it would nice if we onlookers could see a list of the 12 tests of ID without getting the book.

  2. 2
    Flavius Id says:

    I’ve also spent a lot of time in the ID literature. I would want to know what precisely is new in this book. It might be more rhetorically powerful or better written. Very well. The question is, What will I learn that I have not found elsewhere?

  3. 3
    Kyrilluk says:

    It would be logic if the whole exercise wouldn’t be just another publicity stunt…
    I’m going to buy the book if someone can give me at least one argument used in the book that is original and compelling.
    I’ve bought Behe’s latest book and I found it worth while and very interesting. But not all books on ID are the same and some are just a remix of what already exists.

  4. 4
    Joseph says:


    The book is a collection of Dr Meyer’s thoughts on the OoL. Most of which have already been published.

    What this book does is to demonstrate the absolute futility behind all non-telic approaches to the OoL. All of Meyer’s thoughts on this are now in one place.

    That said it doesn’t go far enough.

    What I mean by that is the genetic information is not the sequence specificity.

    The genetic information is actually on/ in the DNA, RNA and other cellular structures just as a computer’s information is on the discs and in the PROMs.

    This is the information which sets the genetic code and guides the cellular processes.

  5. 5
    TRoutMac says:

    Kyrilluk wrote:
    “I’m going to buy the book if someone can give me at least one argument used in the book that is original and compelling.”

    Original and compelling by whose standard?

    This appears not to be a challenge made in good faith. This is a challenge whose goalposts are DESIGNED to be movable, and you will no doubt continue to move them further and further away as you see fit, and you will see fit rather quickly, I suspect.

    To suggest that an argument for design based on the knowledge (from human experience) that information always has an intelligent cause is neither original nor compelling is quite silly, particularly when the other side is unable to discover any way for information to appear ex nihilo sans intelligence.

  6. 6
    bernmutt says:

    Maybe the “new and compelling” thing is the book itself. Creationists will likely constantly refer to it, so that may be reason to buy it and be familiar with it. If you want to debate ID, the question you may get may be frequently “did you read the new book?”

Leave a Reply