Video: Signature in the Cell

_{Jack Cole

June 23, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Comments

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like the information itself was potential, but rather I was referring to the expression of information that could be characterized as such. As in "potentially expressed information," analogous to how energy is stored in its potential state before it is expressed as kinetic energy.PaulN_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Are you saying that the Big Bang was preceded by "potential information"? Can you explain what that means?R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

I'm sorry that sentence contained a redundancy. Let me rephrase. Is the big bang sufficient?PaulN_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Is the big bang sufficient enough?PaulN_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

PaulN:
I’m sure you can have potential information yet to be expressed without matter or energy.
Can you give an example?R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

After all, I'm sure the total configuration of all of the physical systems in the universe were predefined by something. Everything from the inverse square effect of gravity to the angular momentum of subatomic particles must be incredibly accurate and stable in order for the universe to exist as it does. I think this begs the question; could such entities exist without there first being the information that defines how they operate?PaulN_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Excession, I'm sure you can have potential information yet to be expressed without matter or energy. Akin to how you can have potential energy vs. kinetic energy. And with this perhaps matter and energy themselves are contingent upon information in that they are bits of information in various forms of expression.PaulN_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

I have to say it was the technical aspect of the presentation that disappointed me. Does the Heritage institute not own a lapel microphone so that you can hear the speaker when he leaves the podium? Was there nobody manning a camera to track Dr. Meyer as he went to the unseen screen, and at least show what was on the screen at that time? Occasionally the technician seemed to wake up and show a slide or two.SCheesman_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Joseph-13 Thanks but I was hoping for a definition that is a bit more formal, at least from a mathematical point of view. A blank disk weighs as much as a disk loaded with an OS and apps. So information is related to state rather than quantity of matter - although presumably you need stuff before you can have information, for example the number of bits you can store on a given disk platter is related to its size and mass. Put it another way, can you have information without matter or energy?Excession_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Signature in the Cell is currently #1200 or so on Amazon. Granted it just came out, but still quite impressive.Granville Sewell_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Excession, I have started reading the book "Signature of the Cell". I am still in the first chapter but it seems that the early chapters rehash/ combine most of his previous thoughts and writings on the subject. Information is neither matter nor energy. A blank disk weighs as much as a disk loaded with an OS and apps. Information is what allows us to communicate. It is what allows us to produce things. Information is what makes us what we are. Shannon's theory doesn't concern itself with content. To Shannon 1 million bits of random characters has more "information" than 900,000 bits of any operational computer prohram. And yet that 1 million bits doesn't contain any information at all.Joseph_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Interesting video, I'm not sure he really needs to talk about Evolution or darwinism as much as he does. As he concedes Evolutionary theory isn't a theory about the origin of life and Darwin didn't try to address it himself. Meyer's is limiting ID to a theory on the origin of life, or more specifically the origin of information but I thought it was a shame that he didn't give a more detailed account of what he meant by information. I can see some scientists objecting to his use of the term without drawing a line between his definition and that devised by Shannon for Information Theory.Excession_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Frost, "Secondly, the most powerful part of his argument is the part about the functions of the DNA and the coding of the proteins and such- that is how the digital code is actualized." What makes that argument powerful is in relation to origin of life questions. If the basic building blocks of life require the information first, where does the information come from? The DNA couldn't have developed into an information processing center without there first being an information processing center elsewhere. Where is the mechanism that processed the information necessary for life before the DNA? Furthermore, where is the mechanism for the processing of information prior to that point? That's the infinite regress problem again, which Darwinism does not satisfactorily address.CannuckianYankee_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

Frost, My response in 9 was to 7, and not 8. apparently we were both typing at the same time and you beat me to the punch. :)CannuckianYankee_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Frost, I agree with you to an extent. However, I think he might have lost his audience if he had done so in the presentation - that is - discuss the broader philosophical history of design v. naturalism. I think it gets more complicated sometimes than the science itself. Also, I think there is some prejudice among many scientific theorists and researchers that philosophers of science cannot really talk empirically about science; and Meyer aims to prove them wrong by arguing within just the empirical stream, and not exclusively outside that perspective. If he can pursuade within that context, he can then go on into the broader context with what IS going on and what HAS BEEN going on philosophically. It's a strategy that begins within a certain limit in order to win over some to the larger perspective of what is really happening. Let's face it; the Darwinists are not listening to our philosophy. They want us to demnostrate ID empirically - well, that might not be quite right, but that is what they keep demanding from us (I speak for the scientists as a non-scientist). Meyer (and others) seems to be giving them what they supposedly want. The Darwinists are using what I would call a paradoxical tactic. They don't think we have the goods, so they are challenging us to produce them, in order to prove that we don't have them. I'm familiar with this tactic, as I use it a lot in behavioral health. When I have a person who is obviously seeking my attention through the threat of negative and destructive behavior, by saying: "if you don't give me such and such, I'm going to do such and such;" they are accostomed to people responding: "oh, please don't do such and such," or "if you don't do such and such, I'll let you have such and such." The paradoxical response is to not give them what they expect. I do that by saying. "Go ahead and do such and such, we'll deal with whatever you decide to do." Usually the response is to not do the threatened behavior, because I challenged them to go ahead and do it. The Darwinists do not believe us nor trust us. They do not believe that we are going to "do such and such" (produce evidence for design). Why? Because they believe they have evolution all warpped up and bagged. So they challenge us to produce the goods because they don't think we could possibly have them. It does us no good to start with the philosophical arguments if their attention is on how we handle their empirically defined demands. We should deliver the goods, and indeed, ID theorists have been and continue to do so. Of course, they will reinterpret, and have been reinterpreting the evidence to further support Darwinism - that is to be expected; but ultimately truth will prevail because eventually some will catch on to the tactics, and that realization will grow exponentially. And this will ultimately redefine the parameters of how science is accepted among a much broader group, because we have brought in some theists and atheists, who normally argue outside of science, into the picture. Sorry, I always try to look at the broader picture - not suggesting that you don't.CannuckianYankee_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Lastly two more things, First in regards to the definition of science issue... When I was in middle school al my science teacher would say is that "ology" meant "the study of" To Psy-chology was the study of the psyche Sociology was the study of society. Geology etc All of these "ologys" were sciences so to me the word science as the sphere under which all these studies fall, is basically the "The study of subjects." Secondly, the most powerful part of his argument is the part about the functions of the DNA and the coding of the proteins and such- that is how the digital code is actualized. I thought he did an ok job explaining this but I hope will will get a little better at making the distinction between matter, function and information in the future. Overall he did a good job though. I just want this argument from digital information in biology to really manifest and stick because i think it is super cogent and ultimately, true.Frost122585_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Cannukian, My point is that Meyer's degree is in Philosophy and so I would have loved a little talk about Plato, Epicurus, Kant and now with the discoveries in the cell and in cosmology such as the big bang (which Meyer noted) and all of the other privileged planet arguments- how the view of science and philiosphy has changed. Plato the great meta physicist, then Epicurus the great materialist/empiricist - then you had Hume and finally Kant who tried to synthesize them. In Kant's COPR he shows why the supernatural must be left open to reason but that it is no good if it does not "explain" or shed light on the question at hand. Well with the new discoveries in the cell Design really does she light on how the information required for these systems must have or could have come from outside of matter and laws alone. This constitutes an enlightening distinction which can result in a reverse engineering perspective for science one that Francis Crick used when elucidating the structure and function of DNA. My my point in a nut shell is that ID looses at the intellectual level when the materialists define the rules of the debate. This is exactly what you said above about supernaturalism- Meyer and others need to do a slightly better job at defining a concise history of philosophy and explain why ID - that is an appeal to a non-empirically detected agent - or an agent only detected by its effects- or a supernatural agent- is perfectly within cogent reasoning and rationalization and is hence scientific so long as it is based on the real world evidence- that it makes it's case across competing lines of explanatory power- and sheds some useful light on the topic/question at hand. Science seeks a better and more accurate understanding of things. Science is the study of anyhting or the search for true knowledge - or even more simply it is the search for Truth. The "Scientific Method" is the process whereby it is done- Sceince is NOT a verb- the reason the materialists want to define science as a verb and al of that (even though if you look it up in the dictionary it is a noun by no surprise) s because they are seeking to redefine it to be an unguided process itself. If they can liberate science from the shackles of truthfulness then they can illegitimately limit it's domain to only the kinds of things they like- "material" things that is.Frost122585_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

Meyer is superb. I've witnessed a number of debates in which he has participated. He always stays on topic concerning science, logic, and evidence, while his opponents almost invariably bring up irrelevant arguments concerning the problem of evil, the inevitable destruction of science by people who dare to propose the ID hypothesis, and the dangers of an impending theocracy should ID be considered as a valid proposition. It seems to me that Darwinists are almost universally desperate to defend the indefensible in light of modern science, as they should be.GilDodgen_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Frost, "An intelligent designer which is not in time and space is the most likely candidate for the complex life forms and the process required to account for the complexity in life." Correct, but the real issue is how we synthesize the designer with science. Some say it can't be done. I say it can't be done to an extent. We can't assume that the designer is necessarily outside of nature, because we are currently positing (with strong objections from the other side) that evidence for design is right inside of nature. There are also very legitimate theological objections to this synthesis. We don't want to view God as an object for scientific investigation, because such an act might diminish our reverence for Him; but that is a consideration, obviously, only for believers. Now scripture states: "My ways are past finding out," which is admittedly a theological argument. However, this makes some logical sense to me as well. We can't discover how the designer designed, because perhaps the answer is so infinitely complex that once a question is answered it leads to another question ad infinitum (or at least beyond our limited comprehension). But as Dr. Behe wrote "The Edge of Evolution," where is the "Edge of design?" Does it lie in the limits of discerning the "is" of design and confining the "how" of design to speculation, or to simply an unknown? The materialists state there is no design, yet they still argue about the "supernatural" as if it were an actuality - "science cannot deal with the supernatural." Correct, but who says that design is going on supernaturally? That seems to be a prior assumption we will have to arguably and forcefully do away with if we are to reach an agreement in science as to what constitutes evidence for design. Otherwise we will continue to have the debate ad infinitum in the same way that scripture argues "My ways are past finding out." I think what is going on right now is that ID is attempting to argue it's case within the rules set out by methodological naturalism, and in so doing; limiting what can be discussed to the design itself (the "is") and not going beyond into the "how." If we can demonstrate more cleary that MN is philosophically driven by a prior commitment to philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism, which on one hand denies the "supernatural," and then on the other states that science cannot deal with the "supernatural" (and of course we can ask, "which is it?"), then I think we can open the door to where ID can proceed. Right now I think we're at a roadblock because of the predominance of methodological naturalism. Darwinists (I think rightfully so) ask us why we don't talk about who the designer is and how [He] designed as a discussion within science, but they fail to understand our contention that we are limited by their refusal to broaden the definition of science. I don't mean that the definition of science needs to be broadened to allow all "supernatural" ideas, but to broaden the definition to allow evidence for what we now call "supernatural" if such evidence could be shown. In other words, what is sufficient for doing science is not defined by methodological naturalism, but is broader - going wherever the evidence may lead. Meyers makes these distinctions, but you are correct that he did not do so in this presentation. Perhaps the book will go into these issues more in-depth; at least more in-depth than I can go.CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

I really would have liked for Meyer to have gotten into the debate of whether a transcendent intelligent explanation is scientific. I would have liked some Plato quotes and an explanation of how physical and metaphysical philosophy have always been at heads- how there have always been those who say mind gives rise to existence and those who say existence gave rise to mind. Plato said that geometry was the study of the eternal- that was based on his concept that a circle was the highest geometric character and that it only had one said with no beginning and no end- a closed loop. But now we know fro the big bang evidence and non-euclidean geometry that things are not as simple as a circle- that there most likely has been a singularity - an dhence a beginnig and that within a system when singularities turn into super specified complex feilds there is required some sort of explanation for that process. I guess I just would have liked a little philosophy of science education about why the argument that a metaphysical explanation (rooted in a real experience based cause and effect explanation (ID)) should not be ruled out scientifically by any rational authority- person or argument. Science has a method which ID fallows (hypothesis, data collection/evidence, experimentation with probabilities and reverse engineering, etc)- but Science itself is fundamentally the search for new discoveries and the best understanding of the world. And of course this includes discoveries and understandings which are first and foremost true.Frost122585_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

In regards to the point about the power of chance as an explanitory tool in biology, I have to demurr. I think that chance cannot really be an explanation but in fact only a gap stop. "Chance of the gaps"- You see when human beings talk about chance there is a materialistic illusion - call it "the chance delusion" to be tongue-in-cheek. When chance is usually implied one is usually saying that something happened (like a mutation) for no other reason than the fact that it just happened-perhaps because ti was bound to by a natural law like shuffle of the field. But one does not know really whether a designer is acting or not in a given mutation regardless of what the chances are- especially if they are very low as in complex biology.- What chance actually denotes is the "unpredictability" of a specific event or mean quantity of events. But unpredictability is actually more of a statement about "prophesy" than proximate causality or adequate explanation. Take cards for example- you have 2 aces and low and behold on your next hit you get another ace. Assuming that no one is rigging the deck that ace would be said to have come up by chance. But it really did nothing of the kind. That ace obeyed laws of physics, necessity and contingency, and actual step by step events to reach your hand. Some event - in the regress- (say the shuffle) resulted in the order of the cards so that the ace was dealt. As a general, and ultimate rule, you always need to appeal back to more and more complexity and specificity in order to get the resources and information necessary to account and explain the origin of a SC structure. There is no chance in materialism. Chance is really an illusion in materialism because it is besides the point. There is a physical explanation of "how" things occur and how likely they are to occur only makes the origin more or less rich in information. So the question is ONLY "is there meditated or premeditated design involved in the organization of life? We can talk about chance and likelihood and do probabilities all day to see how likely an event is based on what we know about the event- but ultimately the information must come from some event itself- and that event needs a scientifically adequate explanation or description. An intelligent designer which is not in time and space is the most likely candidate for the complex life forms and the process required to account for the complexity in life.Frost122585_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I think that he uses the "best explanation" argument to avoid something that the other side seems to do sometimes, and that is to assume that evolution is not contingent - that it is a final explanation. I think he's merely being modest in understanding that no scientific theory has the final word. We merely rely on the best explanation. Not that we are wrong, it's just allowing that we either might be, or that new information will substantiate the basics of what we now see, but possibly either refute some of the specifics, or expand on what we already know. Not long ago Heliocentrism was the best explanation. It proved to be incorrect, but based on the evidence that was then available, it was scientifically correct. Dr. Meyer is allowing for new information that might either refute the argument for design, or perhaps enhance it with more explicit detail. I liked the presentation as well. I'm definitely going to purchase the book. Then I think we'll see his argument for the DEGREEE to which ID is the best explanation, and I think that would be of greater interest to me. Will he wow us or merely restate what has already been stated elsewhere?CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Very nice presentation. Even though I am an ID proponent, I am not satisfied with the "best explanation" argument used by Dr. Meyer. I am not sure why he feels the need to use it since his intial argument re the exponential explosion of DNA coding possibilities, destroys all naturalistic explanations for the origin of cellular life. The only explanation left is intelligent design. What could be simpler? So, in my opinion, there is no need to use the "best explanation" argument.Mapou_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply