What do you think?
Rate this book
Signature in the Cell #1
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
“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� � American Spectator
Named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London), this controversial and compelling book from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID. If you enjoyed Francis Collins’s The Language of God, you’ll find much to ponder—about evolution, DNA, and intelligent design—in Signature in the Cell.
Named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London), this controversial and compelling book from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID. If you enjoyed Francis Collins’s The Language of God, you’ll find much to ponder—about evolution, DNA, and intelligent design—in Signature in the Cell.
626 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2009
785 people are currently reading
4,881 people want to read
About the author
Stephen C. Meyer
33Ìýbooks419ÌýfollowersThere is more than one author with this name in the database.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
October 18, 2020
Stephen Meyer is a very articulate author, who understands the subject of DNA and the researches into the origin of life very well. Unfortunately, he does not understand the very basis of the philosophy of science. He received a Ph.D. from University of Cambridge. How did this happen? He must have learned there how to fool his professors with fast talk and glib glosses with subtle illogical arguments.
The first third of this book is an excellent overview of the discovery of DNA, and descriptions of how DNA conveys information. The remainder of the book, unfortunately, makes totally unsubstantiated claims that Intelligent Design is the best theory that accounts for the origin of life.
Meyer defines Intelligent Design as an idea that living things are best explained by a rational agent, a guiding intelligence, rather than an undirected process. This very definition is faulty, as it makes it sound like an either-or proposition. Can't the origin of life be explained as the result of a natural process, that is not totally random, much like evolution by natural selection?
Meyer describes many computational and chemical explanations for the origin of life, and (rightly) shoots them all down. But why does he ignore Conway's game of life--which generates a huge, specific complexity out of random initial conditions and a few very simple rules? It is an excellent metaphor for biological life. It serves as as "analogy for the counter-intuitive notion that design and organization can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer." (Wikipedia) The philosopher Daniel Dennett used the analogyto illustrate the possible evolution of consciousness and free will.
Meyer lists the five requirements for an idea to become a scientific theory. He describes a number of criticisms that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, because it does not meet the criteria. Then, Meyer shoots the criticisms down, large using the "what-aboutism" approach. Meyer is wrong in using "what-aboutism" as a counter-criticism, because his arguments simply do not dig deeply enough into the criticisms.
One of the criticisms of Intelligent Design, is that it simply pushes back the problem. "If an intelligent agent designed life, then who or what designed the designer?" Meyer addresses this criticism with what I call a "what-aboutism". Meyers explains that if you ask who carved the sculptures on Easter Island come about, would you ask, "yes, but who designed the sculptors?" Of course you wouldn't ask that question, because we know that the sculptors were ordinary human beings. But, if you say that the origin of life is explained as a supernatural intelligent designer, then that deserves a lot more explanation.
Two of the requirements for a scientific theory are that it must be testable and falsifiable. But Meyer misunderstands these requirements. A theory that makes super-duper claims must have super-duper evidence to back it up! For Intelligent Design to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must make multiple predictions that can be tested--and if the predictions are not found to be true, they must falsify the theory. But no such predictions are made.
Yes, Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN the origin of life--but that does not prove it to be valid. Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN anything and everything.
Yes, but Meyer would say that no other extant scientific theory can explain the origin of life. Well, in ancient times, there was no scientific theory that could explain the origin of rainbows. Therefore a super-powerful super-natural agent must be responsible for rainbows. Does that make sense? No--scientists simply have not been able to explain the origin of life. The origin of life, and the source of consciousness are two very difficult questions that scientists are still researching, and they probably will continue for a long time. But theorizing that a supernatural intelligent agent is at work requires more than glib reasoning. It requires a LARGE NUMBER of scientific experiments, each of which is designed to potentially DISPROVE the theory. And each experiment must FAIL to disprove the theory.
The book sounds so much like the "god of the gaps". When creationists attempt to disprove evolution, they point to gaps in the fossil record. To a scientist, the origin of life is just a big gap, waiting to be closed.
The first third of this book is an excellent overview of the discovery of DNA, and descriptions of how DNA conveys information. The remainder of the book, unfortunately, makes totally unsubstantiated claims that Intelligent Design is the best theory that accounts for the origin of life.
Meyer defines Intelligent Design as an idea that living things are best explained by a rational agent, a guiding intelligence, rather than an undirected process. This very definition is faulty, as it makes it sound like an either-or proposition. Can't the origin of life be explained as the result of a natural process, that is not totally random, much like evolution by natural selection?
Meyer describes many computational and chemical explanations for the origin of life, and (rightly) shoots them all down. But why does he ignore Conway's game of life--which generates a huge, specific complexity out of random initial conditions and a few very simple rules? It is an excellent metaphor for biological life. It serves as as "analogy for the counter-intuitive notion that design and organization can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer." (Wikipedia) The philosopher Daniel Dennett used the analogyto illustrate the possible evolution of consciousness and free will.
Meyer lists the five requirements for an idea to become a scientific theory. He describes a number of criticisms that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, because it does not meet the criteria. Then, Meyer shoots the criticisms down, large using the "what-aboutism" approach. Meyer is wrong in using "what-aboutism" as a counter-criticism, because his arguments simply do not dig deeply enough into the criticisms.
One of the criticisms of Intelligent Design, is that it simply pushes back the problem. "If an intelligent agent designed life, then who or what designed the designer?" Meyer addresses this criticism with what I call a "what-aboutism". Meyers explains that if you ask who carved the sculptures on Easter Island come about, would you ask, "yes, but who designed the sculptors?" Of course you wouldn't ask that question, because we know that the sculptors were ordinary human beings. But, if you say that the origin of life is explained as a supernatural intelligent designer, then that deserves a lot more explanation.
Two of the requirements for a scientific theory are that it must be testable and falsifiable. But Meyer misunderstands these requirements. A theory that makes super-duper claims must have super-duper evidence to back it up! For Intelligent Design to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must make multiple predictions that can be tested--and if the predictions are not found to be true, they must falsify the theory. But no such predictions are made.
Yes, Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN the origin of life--but that does not prove it to be valid. Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN anything and everything.
Yes, but Meyer would say that no other extant scientific theory can explain the origin of life. Well, in ancient times, there was no scientific theory that could explain the origin of rainbows. Therefore a super-powerful super-natural agent must be responsible for rainbows. Does that make sense? No--scientists simply have not been able to explain the origin of life. The origin of life, and the source of consciousness are two very difficult questions that scientists are still researching, and they probably will continue for a long time. But theorizing that a supernatural intelligent agent is at work requires more than glib reasoning. It requires a LARGE NUMBER of scientific experiments, each of which is designed to potentially DISPROVE the theory. And each experiment must FAIL to disprove the theory.
The book sounds so much like the "god of the gaps". When creationists attempt to disprove evolution, they point to gaps in the fossil record. To a scientist, the origin of life is just a big gap, waiting to be closed.
August 26, 2009
This is a very long book (a tome?) and I don't have the time or energy to review it well. I doubt most of those who give it a one star rating, here and at Amazon, have even read it. Their "reviews" just seem like they're forced. They just have to get something off. The word I've made up to describe these types is: designophobe.
This book is a scaled down version of the author's doctoral dissertation at Cambridge on the question of the "DNA enigma." That is, how the information properties of the DNA came about. But reading a doctoral dissertation would be quite the chore for most readers. So Meyer offers his argument in the form of a kind of detective autobiography. He takes us with him from his undergraduate days up to and beyond (at times) his Cambridge days, carrying us along with him on his search to unravel the DNA enigma. In the process he discusses virtually every explanation of how the information arose. Almost every theory has other scientists that disagree with the theory. Meyer ultimately shows how none of them can explain the DNA enigma.
I admit I am not a scientist and so I can't really judge the arguments according to the technicalities. But from what I can judge, Meyer's case seems very strong. That's all I can do. I'm not a specialist and I can only listen to what the sides say and make up my mind (or withhold judgment). Almost all scientists admit that DNA is akin to an algorithm that might be used to design a computer. Not only that, the combinations of proteins etc., are functionally specified. So we have a clear case of information of a type that rules out a lot of explanations of its origin.
Meyer did not argue god-of-the-gaps nor did he claim that mere complexity implied design. He also showed how people tell chance events from designed ones and the constraints employed to do so. He pulled from all manner of non-Christian (though that caveat shouldn't need to be given) information and probability theorists here. Meyer also did a good job showing various types of ways to "do science". He used distinctions given by (again, non-Christians) scientists and philosophers of science, such as the distinction between historical and operations science. He showed that many scientists did not any or much original laboratory work (Watson and Crick, for example) and yet produced results that could be called "science".
Overall, I thought the book was good. The argument was good (having been accepted by one of the most prestigious and intellectually rigorous universities, Cambridge, once should expect this) and the way he told the story was well-done. But weighing in at over 500 pages, the book definitely needs more than one read (which I know not of the harsh reviewers have done!). The argument would probably work best as part of an cumulative case argument. Indeed, a cumulative case design argument (fine-tuning, proper function of cognitive faculties, Thomistic teleological arguments, etc).
This book is a scaled down version of the author's doctoral dissertation at Cambridge on the question of the "DNA enigma." That is, how the information properties of the DNA came about. But reading a doctoral dissertation would be quite the chore for most readers. So Meyer offers his argument in the form of a kind of detective autobiography. He takes us with him from his undergraduate days up to and beyond (at times) his Cambridge days, carrying us along with him on his search to unravel the DNA enigma. In the process he discusses virtually every explanation of how the information arose. Almost every theory has other scientists that disagree with the theory. Meyer ultimately shows how none of them can explain the DNA enigma.
I admit I am not a scientist and so I can't really judge the arguments according to the technicalities. But from what I can judge, Meyer's case seems very strong. That's all I can do. I'm not a specialist and I can only listen to what the sides say and make up my mind (or withhold judgment). Almost all scientists admit that DNA is akin to an algorithm that might be used to design a computer. Not only that, the combinations of proteins etc., are functionally specified. So we have a clear case of information of a type that rules out a lot of explanations of its origin.
Meyer did not argue god-of-the-gaps nor did he claim that mere complexity implied design. He also showed how people tell chance events from designed ones and the constraints employed to do so. He pulled from all manner of non-Christian (though that caveat shouldn't need to be given) information and probability theorists here. Meyer also did a good job showing various types of ways to "do science". He used distinctions given by (again, non-Christians) scientists and philosophers of science, such as the distinction between historical and operations science. He showed that many scientists did not any or much original laboratory work (Watson and Crick, for example) and yet produced results that could be called "science".
Overall, I thought the book was good. The argument was good (having been accepted by one of the most prestigious and intellectually rigorous universities, Cambridge, once should expect this) and the way he told the story was well-done. But weighing in at over 500 pages, the book definitely needs more than one read (which I know not of the harsh reviewers have done!). The argument would probably work best as part of an cumulative case argument. Indeed, a cumulative case design argument (fine-tuning, proper function of cognitive faculties, Thomistic teleological arguments, etc).
January 31, 2012
An excellent summary for the case for Intelligent Design (ID). Meyer answers critics who label ID as unscientific, citing Stephen Jay Gould, who described evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, etc. as “historical sciences.� Meyer explains how the theory of ID fits these parameters.
Clearly, the biological information contained in DNA is code-like, so much so that people like Dawkins and Crick have to remind scientists that it only “appears� that way. In his first premise, Meyer recounts a thorough history of the search for life’s origin and how each theory has yielded no results on how the genetic code evolved. For his second premise, he demonstrates that the only known cause for the generation of information (specified complexity) is an intelligent agent. We look at cave paintings and chipped flint and scientists determine that some sort of intelligence produced this work. SETI searches the galaxies for patterns of information that designate intelligence. Every one of us creates information daily.
The conclusion of Meyer’s argument is an inference that, as the only known cause of information, intelligence was the cause of the rise of DNA. This inference, incidentally, is the same logic used by Darwin himself (the observation of micro-evolution and the inference that chance and natural selection, stretched back over time, determined the origin of species).
One point I found interesting was the discussion of the predictions of evolution and ID concerning “junk DNA.� ID predicts non-protein coding sequences should perform biological functions. It shouldn’t be useless or junk. The model of natural selection predicts a genome “riddled with useless information, mistakes, and broken genes.� Scientists have labeled this area between genes as junk (“gene deserts�) and proof against design, but research coming out of the ENCODE Project () are showing these parts of the genome are in fact highly functional. As Philip Kitcher said, “Intelligent Design has deep roots in the history of cosmology, and in the earth and life sciences.� Kitcher’s argument against ID is this supposed inability to explain “junk DNA,� yet clearly, ID can be a guiding principle and theory.
This is a book for those that truly want to understand the theory of intelligent design. There is a hard break that scientists use (methodological naturalism) which excludes anything supernatural from being considered as scientific. This book explains, step by step (sometimes a bit too slowly, perhaps), why ID is a viable theory that only invokes intelligence as a causal agent. There are, of course, theistic implications, but there are anti-religious implications from evolutionary theory as well. Meyer’s approach, however, is completely evidence based. Meyer quotes Antony Flew, a long time atheist who now accepts ID, asserting, we must “follow the evidence wherever it leads,� regardless of the implications.
Clearly, the biological information contained in DNA is code-like, so much so that people like Dawkins and Crick have to remind scientists that it only “appears� that way. In his first premise, Meyer recounts a thorough history of the search for life’s origin and how each theory has yielded no results on how the genetic code evolved. For his second premise, he demonstrates that the only known cause for the generation of information (specified complexity) is an intelligent agent. We look at cave paintings and chipped flint and scientists determine that some sort of intelligence produced this work. SETI searches the galaxies for patterns of information that designate intelligence. Every one of us creates information daily.
The conclusion of Meyer’s argument is an inference that, as the only known cause of information, intelligence was the cause of the rise of DNA. This inference, incidentally, is the same logic used by Darwin himself (the observation of micro-evolution and the inference that chance and natural selection, stretched back over time, determined the origin of species).
One point I found interesting was the discussion of the predictions of evolution and ID concerning “junk DNA.� ID predicts non-protein coding sequences should perform biological functions. It shouldn’t be useless or junk. The model of natural selection predicts a genome “riddled with useless information, mistakes, and broken genes.� Scientists have labeled this area between genes as junk (“gene deserts�) and proof against design, but research coming out of the ENCODE Project () are showing these parts of the genome are in fact highly functional. As Philip Kitcher said, “Intelligent Design has deep roots in the history of cosmology, and in the earth and life sciences.� Kitcher’s argument against ID is this supposed inability to explain “junk DNA,� yet clearly, ID can be a guiding principle and theory.
This is a book for those that truly want to understand the theory of intelligent design. There is a hard break that scientists use (methodological naturalism) which excludes anything supernatural from being considered as scientific. This book explains, step by step (sometimes a bit too slowly, perhaps), why ID is a viable theory that only invokes intelligence as a causal agent. There are, of course, theistic implications, but there are anti-religious implications from evolutionary theory as well. Meyer’s approach, however, is completely evidence based. Meyer quotes Antony Flew, a long time atheist who now accepts ID, asserting, we must “follow the evidence wherever it leads,� regardless of the implications.
October 23, 2011
The year 2009 marked the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. This caused a lot of reflection about the legacy of Darwin, about what his greatest contribution is thought to be. Although the theory of evolution leaps to mind, many scholars believe that Darwin's legacy is not so much his theory per se but the consequences of his theory: that by providing a completely materialistic account of biological history he refuted the classical argument from design, the idea that nature bears witness to a designing intelligence. Richard Dawkins echoes this sentiment in his book The Blind Watchmaker: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The operative word here is "appearance" because it is thought that unguided material processes can counterfeit the appearance of design, that design is in fact illusory.
It is a legitimate question to ask, was Darwin right? Can every appearance of design in biology be accounted for by undirected material processes? With these questions in mind, Stephen Meyer turns his attention to an area of biology that Darwin left unaddressed, and that is the origin of the first life. What was once thought to be a fairly straightforward question in Darwin's day and for almost a century thereafter turned out to be something entirely different with a discovery made by Francis Crick in 1957. Four years after discovering, along with James Watson, the structure of the DNA molecule, Crick formulated his "sequence hypothesis." This was the realization that the four chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule functioned just like alphabetical characters in a written language or digital characters in a machine code.
DNA, then, is the carrier of vast amounts of complex specified information. Where did this information come from? To answer this question Meyer utilized the same method of scientific reasoning that Darwin used, and that is one of multiple competing hypotheses. You compare different possible causal explanations to try to explain a given effect or event in the remote past. You evaluate them to see which cause best explains the evidence and then you infer that cause which provides the best explanation. What constitutes the best explanation? According to Darwin it was the one that referred to a cause which is known from our uniform and repeated experience to produce the effect in question. And according to Darwin's scientific mentor, Charles Lyell, the famous geologist, we should be looking for causes now in operation.
Now, an obvious cause of information-rich sequences is intelligence. That is not controversial. Computer programs are designed by programmers, and the similarity between DNA and computer software is uncanny, so certainly here we have a strong appearance of design. We know that intelligence has the causal power to produce information. But perhaps unguided material processes are actually a better explanation for the origin of information in living things. To answer this question Meyer devotes a lengthy part of the book to review the history of chemical evolution, the attempts to explain how life came from non-life, using only unguided material processes. These fall into the categories of chance, necessity, or some combination of the two. After his lengthy survey he concludes that none are satisfactory, and that even Richard Dawkins, "not known for rhetorical restraint in support of evolutionary orthodoxy, candidly admitted in 2008 that 'no one knows' how life arose in the first place" (p.333).
Thus Meyer concludes that, using Darwin's own method, if you look at all the competing classes of causal explanations that have been proposed to explain the origin of information, that intelligent design is the best explanation. Neither chance, law-like necessity, nor the combination of the two have demonstrated the power to produce information. But intelligent agents have repeatedly done so. Now, this principle is conceded by scientists in other fields such as those in the SETI project, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. If they were to find information embedded in a radio signal coming from outer space, they would assume it was coming from an intelligence. In any other realm of experience (eg. archeology, forensics, cryptography) when we find the hallmarks of information we readily infer design.
That is the essence of the argument at the first-order level, the level of evidence and reasoning to a conclusion. But with intelligent design the debate is also at the second-order level. This is the level of discussion where the nature of science, knowledge, and rationality are at issue. Frequently it is hard to get to the first-order questions of evidence because people get hung up on the second-order issues. So Meyer devotes the last portion of the book addressing these questions, ones like is intelligent design science? He argues that, since the early 1980's, philosophers of science have rejected demarcation criteria that have been used to distinguish science from pseudo-science because any given demarcation criteria, whether it is observability, explains by natural law, or what have you, if it is applied too stringently it ends up excluding not only intelligent design but also areas that are already accepted as part of science.
Meyer makes the interesting point that insisting that intelligent design is not science merely reclassifies it; it does nothing to answer the question of whether it might be true. We know that both natural and intelligent (or agent) causes are interwoven in our everyday experiences, and we can distinguish between them. How do we know from the outset that only natural causes played a part in the history of biology? Is science to be the search for truth, or merely the search for the best naturalistic explanation?
Those who are willing to concede that design might in principle be empirically detectable, but who nevertheless think that intelligent design is a dead end for science would do well to read this section of the book. Meyer gives a whole host of research questions that are suggested by a design paradigm, some of which are already being pursued. For example, Jonathan Wells has suggested that centrioles, tiny structures involved in cell division, are actually tiny molecular machines, turbines, which possibly malfunction when the abnormal cell division of cancer occurs. This is not a question that occurs to those operating in a evolutionary paradigm, who think of cancer as arising exclusively from mutations in the DNA (p.487).
Meyer lists other testable predictions that intelligent design makes that can be compared to those made by evolutionary science. For example, until fairly recently it was thought that the preponderance of "junk DNA" in the genome was evidence not of design but of undirected evolutionary processes. Design theorists back in the early 1990's, however, predicted that most of this "junk DNA" would in fact turn out to serve useful functions, and that is precisely what we are seeing with recent discoveries.
Design was properly a part of biology prior to 1859. It is ironic that, as Darwin's one long argument in the Origin seemed to render this idea irrelevant except to the eyes of faith, now Stephen Meyer, by using Darwin's own method of argumentation, has made design once again a necessary explanatory concept in the natural world.
For those interested in a summary of Meyer's argument but who get bogged down in this long book, I would recommend a one-hour lecture he gives, entitled "DNA by Design", available on DVD from Access Research Network.
It is a legitimate question to ask, was Darwin right? Can every appearance of design in biology be accounted for by undirected material processes? With these questions in mind, Stephen Meyer turns his attention to an area of biology that Darwin left unaddressed, and that is the origin of the first life. What was once thought to be a fairly straightforward question in Darwin's day and for almost a century thereafter turned out to be something entirely different with a discovery made by Francis Crick in 1957. Four years after discovering, along with James Watson, the structure of the DNA molecule, Crick formulated his "sequence hypothesis." This was the realization that the four chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule functioned just like alphabetical characters in a written language or digital characters in a machine code.
DNA, then, is the carrier of vast amounts of complex specified information. Where did this information come from? To answer this question Meyer utilized the same method of scientific reasoning that Darwin used, and that is one of multiple competing hypotheses. You compare different possible causal explanations to try to explain a given effect or event in the remote past. You evaluate them to see which cause best explains the evidence and then you infer that cause which provides the best explanation. What constitutes the best explanation? According to Darwin it was the one that referred to a cause which is known from our uniform and repeated experience to produce the effect in question. And according to Darwin's scientific mentor, Charles Lyell, the famous geologist, we should be looking for causes now in operation.
Now, an obvious cause of information-rich sequences is intelligence. That is not controversial. Computer programs are designed by programmers, and the similarity between DNA and computer software is uncanny, so certainly here we have a strong appearance of design. We know that intelligence has the causal power to produce information. But perhaps unguided material processes are actually a better explanation for the origin of information in living things. To answer this question Meyer devotes a lengthy part of the book to review the history of chemical evolution, the attempts to explain how life came from non-life, using only unguided material processes. These fall into the categories of chance, necessity, or some combination of the two. After his lengthy survey he concludes that none are satisfactory, and that even Richard Dawkins, "not known for rhetorical restraint in support of evolutionary orthodoxy, candidly admitted in 2008 that 'no one knows' how life arose in the first place" (p.333).
Thus Meyer concludes that, using Darwin's own method, if you look at all the competing classes of causal explanations that have been proposed to explain the origin of information, that intelligent design is the best explanation. Neither chance, law-like necessity, nor the combination of the two have demonstrated the power to produce information. But intelligent agents have repeatedly done so. Now, this principle is conceded by scientists in other fields such as those in the SETI project, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. If they were to find information embedded in a radio signal coming from outer space, they would assume it was coming from an intelligence. In any other realm of experience (eg. archeology, forensics, cryptography) when we find the hallmarks of information we readily infer design.
That is the essence of the argument at the first-order level, the level of evidence and reasoning to a conclusion. But with intelligent design the debate is also at the second-order level. This is the level of discussion where the nature of science, knowledge, and rationality are at issue. Frequently it is hard to get to the first-order questions of evidence because people get hung up on the second-order issues. So Meyer devotes the last portion of the book addressing these questions, ones like is intelligent design science? He argues that, since the early 1980's, philosophers of science have rejected demarcation criteria that have been used to distinguish science from pseudo-science because any given demarcation criteria, whether it is observability, explains by natural law, or what have you, if it is applied too stringently it ends up excluding not only intelligent design but also areas that are already accepted as part of science.
Meyer makes the interesting point that insisting that intelligent design is not science merely reclassifies it; it does nothing to answer the question of whether it might be true. We know that both natural and intelligent (or agent) causes are interwoven in our everyday experiences, and we can distinguish between them. How do we know from the outset that only natural causes played a part in the history of biology? Is science to be the search for truth, or merely the search for the best naturalistic explanation?
Those who are willing to concede that design might in principle be empirically detectable, but who nevertheless think that intelligent design is a dead end for science would do well to read this section of the book. Meyer gives a whole host of research questions that are suggested by a design paradigm, some of which are already being pursued. For example, Jonathan Wells has suggested that centrioles, tiny structures involved in cell division, are actually tiny molecular machines, turbines, which possibly malfunction when the abnormal cell division of cancer occurs. This is not a question that occurs to those operating in a evolutionary paradigm, who think of cancer as arising exclusively from mutations in the DNA (p.487).
Meyer lists other testable predictions that intelligent design makes that can be compared to those made by evolutionary science. For example, until fairly recently it was thought that the preponderance of "junk DNA" in the genome was evidence not of design but of undirected evolutionary processes. Design theorists back in the early 1990's, however, predicted that most of this "junk DNA" would in fact turn out to serve useful functions, and that is precisely what we are seeing with recent discoveries.
Design was properly a part of biology prior to 1859. It is ironic that, as Darwin's one long argument in the Origin seemed to render this idea irrelevant except to the eyes of faith, now Stephen Meyer, by using Darwin's own method of argumentation, has made design once again a necessary explanatory concept in the natural world.
For those interested in a summary of Meyer's argument but who get bogged down in this long book, I would recommend a one-hour lecture he gives, entitled "DNA by Design", available on DVD from Access Research Network.
August 27, 2009
While this book is portrayed as a new approach in the understanding of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, but there is nothing new here. It uses many of the same arguments in much the same old way and introduces nothing new. While the author claims it is a scientific study, it is really a philosophical approach that doesn't advance his position at all. It's not even published by a scientific journal, but HarperOne, the religious imprint of Harper-Collins. I found it in the Christian Living section of my local bookstore.
Anyone who actually thinks this is science needs to re-evaluate their understanding of scientific methodology. Because while Meyer uses lots of scientific terminology and even quite a bit of history, he repeatedly ends everything with his unsupported philosophy as if it was scientific. He really needs to learn how to support his ideas with more than just jargon and wishful thinking.
Why can't there be a rating called "Don't waste your time"
Anyone who actually thinks this is science needs to re-evaluate their understanding of scientific methodology. Because while Meyer uses lots of scientific terminology and even quite a bit of history, he repeatedly ends everything with his unsupported philosophy as if it was scientific. He really needs to learn how to support his ideas with more than just jargon and wishful thinking.
Why can't there be a rating called "Don't waste your time"
September 27, 2012
He never touched religion in this, which was a wise move. I have always had a nagging disbelief of evolution and this book with a few others just sealed the deal. Pure science, not big corporate science, will leave evolution in the scrap pile with Marxism and Freud. The fossil record is a joke, you can't test evolution, and the fact the Darwinists get so mad is proof that the legs of evolution are built on sand. Lets move science into the next century and get the atheists out of it.
April 21, 2020
EDITORIAL REVIEWS:
“A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science.� - Dr. , member, National Academy of Sciences, and Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus at Pennsylvania State University.
“A defining work in the discussion of life’s origins... the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate... an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.� - American Spectator
“A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science.� - Dr. , member, National Academy of Sciences, and Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus at Pennsylvania State University.
“A defining work in the discussion of life’s origins... the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate... an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.� - American Spectator
January 12, 2012
In his rather tendentious, often dull, treatise on behalf of Intelligent Design and its potential implications for resolving the mystery of the origin of life, Stephen Meyer has written yet another manifesto of the kind we’ve come to expect from Meyer and his fellow Discovery Institute colleagues; one that is long on style and rather short on substance. In “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design� Meyer contends that Intelligent Design is a better scientific alternative than modern evolutionary theory in explaining the origin of life, and perhaps most notably, offers a series of testable hypotheses in a technically-minded Appendix that could establish Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory capable of making many important predictions and discoveries in all aspects of biology, especially, for example, in molecular biology and epidemiology. Of course this merely begs the question as to why Intelligent Design advocates like Meyer have waited more than twenty years to proclaim Intelligent Design as a “theory� capable of ushering a scientific revolution as notable as those wrought by Newton’s Classical Mechanics, Einstein’s theories of Relativity, and Planck’s Quantum Mechanics. Where have you been Stephen? Why have you kept us waiting so long for your earth-shattering discoveries that should demonstrate to anyone why Intelligent Design is a better, more comprehensive, explanation than modern evolutionary theory in accounting for the history and current composition of Planet Earth’s biodiversity?
Despite ample claims to the contrary, Meyer’s book is merely an intellectual exercise in smoke and mirrors, aimed at an audience which is either sympathetic to the preposterous claims made by Meyer and his colleagues at the Seattle, WA-based Discovery Institute (more aptly named “Dishonesty Institute� for reasons that will become all too clear shortly) or so impressed with Meyer’s condescending comments about the flaws in “Neo � Darwinian� thought that he must of course be absolutely right. Meyer contends that the most important task for modern evolutionary theory is to discern how � and even why � life originated on Planet Earth. Really? That’s a ridiculous assumption on Meyer’s part, when Darwin � and later, his younger colleague and rival, Wallace � were more interested in discerning what Darwin referred to as the “mystery of mysteries�, in trying to understand how, under natural laws, species undergo “transformations� or rather, “transmutations�, yielding a biosphere truly teeming with life. While the very question of the origin of life is quite an interesting and an important one; it is nonetheless a question more appropriately addressed by chemists, biochemists and geochemists, among others, not by evolutionary biologists (As a former evolutionary biologist myself, I was interested primarily in understanding the patterns and the underlying processes responsible for the rich history of life that is well documented in the Phanerozoic fossil record (approximately the last half billion years) and in the molecular biological evidence found in genomic sequence data. I frankly couldn’t care less whether Yahweh, Mother Goose or the Klingons were somehow responsible for creating life on Planet Earth.).
To help make his case, Meyer relies on the construction of “straw men� by claiming that there are really profound differences between historical sciences like biology and geology with other “experimental� sciences such as chemistry and physics. As a historian and philosopher of science � and as a former geophysicist too - Meyer should know better. There are many notable instances whereby well-conceived experiments have yielded important results confirming long-established scientific principles (or even challenging them) in biology and geology. Our understanding as to how Natural Selection does act on populations has been greatly enriched by such classic experiments as microbiologist Richard Lenski’s ongoing two decade-long laboratory experiment on strains of E. coli � the bacterium found within the human gut � and by evolutionary ecologist John Endler’s classic field experiments on pigmentation in Trinidad guppies. In the 1960s, ecologist Daniel Simberloff � then a graduate student of E. O. Wilson � confirmed via his field experiments several of the important predictions made by Wilson and ecologist Robert MacArthur in their theory of island biogeography.
So should we accept Meyer’s proposition that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory simply because it produces testable hypotheses? What hypotheses? For example, he asserts on Page 489, “Design hypotheses envisioning discrete intelligent action also predict a pattern of fossil evidence showing large discontinuous or ‘quantum� increases in biological form and information at intervals in the history of life. Advocates of this kind of design hypothesis would expect to see a pattern of sudden appearance of sudden appearance of major forms of life as well as morphological stasis.� Moreover, he claims “…they would also predict a ‘top-down� pattern of appearance in which large-scale differences in form (‘disparity� between many separate body plans) emerge suddenly and prior to the occurrence of lower-level (i.e., species and genus) differences in form. Neo-Darwinism and front-loaded hypotheses expect the opposite pattern, a ‘bottom-up� pattern in which small differences in form accumulate first (differentiating species and genera from each other) and then only much later building to the large-scale differences in form that differentiate higher taxonomic categories such as phyla and classes.�
Granted, life would be a lot simpler for paleontologists and paleobiologists if they heeded Meyer’s most generous advice. We wouldn’t have to worry about long-term persistence of ecological communities replete with morphological stasis of their constituent taxa over considerable spans of geological time or those unfortunate “accidents� known as mass extinctions which have “reshuffled the deck� that is Earth’s biodiversity not just once, but at least seven times over the past five hundred fifty-odd million years. After each of these “accidents� we do see eventual recovery of the Earth’s biosphere via the “bottom-up� pattern that Meyer so clearly disdains. What we don’t see however, is any indication of some Intelligent Designer(s) acting to ensure some kind of restoration of our planet’s biodiversity. All the patterns seen in the fossil record are due to natural laws and processes acting on populations of organisms, not through the direct intervention of Intelligent Designer(s) like Mother Goose, Yahweh or the Klingons.
But what more can we expect from someone like Stephen Meyer or his peers and colleagues at the Discovery Institute? For more than twenty years they have refused to engage meaningfully with the mainstream scientific community, acting under the well-established rules of peer review and journal publication that have been the cornerstones of scientific research and publication for nearly two centuries. Instead, they have resorted to substantial omissions and gross distortions of published scientific data, harsh attacks upon their critics, including censorship (which, for example, Meyer’s friend Bill Dembski tried unsuccessfully with one of my previous Amazon.com reviews critical of Intelligent Design two years ago), and, in one rather notorious instance, outright theft. And while Meyer may insist that his infamous article on the so-called “Cambrian Explosion� published in a most obscure Washington, DC science journal is a classic case of a “Darwinist� witch hunt, the sad fact remains that no Intelligent Design advocate has ever published a scientific paper in which one or more key predictions of Intelligent Design were ever substantiated. Nor will such a paper ever be published, since Intelligent Design has never demonstrated that it is indeed a viable, scientific, alternative to modern evolutionary theory. Instead, the dubious, often scandalous, conduct exhibited by Meyer and his Discovery Institute colleagues should demonstrate to any truly objective reader of their work that they are not genuine scholars, but instead, mendacious intellectual pornographers merely interested in disseminating their religiously-derived “scientific� mendacious intellectual porn. I will concede that Meyer is uncommonly good, but he’s uncommonly good as both a shill for the Dishonesty Institute and as a mendacious intellectual pornographer pretending to be a credible historian and philosopher of science.
(Reposted from my 2009 Amazon review)
Despite ample claims to the contrary, Meyer’s book is merely an intellectual exercise in smoke and mirrors, aimed at an audience which is either sympathetic to the preposterous claims made by Meyer and his colleagues at the Seattle, WA-based Discovery Institute (more aptly named “Dishonesty Institute� for reasons that will become all too clear shortly) or so impressed with Meyer’s condescending comments about the flaws in “Neo � Darwinian� thought that he must of course be absolutely right. Meyer contends that the most important task for modern evolutionary theory is to discern how � and even why � life originated on Planet Earth. Really? That’s a ridiculous assumption on Meyer’s part, when Darwin � and later, his younger colleague and rival, Wallace � were more interested in discerning what Darwin referred to as the “mystery of mysteries�, in trying to understand how, under natural laws, species undergo “transformations� or rather, “transmutations�, yielding a biosphere truly teeming with life. While the very question of the origin of life is quite an interesting and an important one; it is nonetheless a question more appropriately addressed by chemists, biochemists and geochemists, among others, not by evolutionary biologists (As a former evolutionary biologist myself, I was interested primarily in understanding the patterns and the underlying processes responsible for the rich history of life that is well documented in the Phanerozoic fossil record (approximately the last half billion years) and in the molecular biological evidence found in genomic sequence data. I frankly couldn’t care less whether Yahweh, Mother Goose or the Klingons were somehow responsible for creating life on Planet Earth.).
To help make his case, Meyer relies on the construction of “straw men� by claiming that there are really profound differences between historical sciences like biology and geology with other “experimental� sciences such as chemistry and physics. As a historian and philosopher of science � and as a former geophysicist too - Meyer should know better. There are many notable instances whereby well-conceived experiments have yielded important results confirming long-established scientific principles (or even challenging them) in biology and geology. Our understanding as to how Natural Selection does act on populations has been greatly enriched by such classic experiments as microbiologist Richard Lenski’s ongoing two decade-long laboratory experiment on strains of E. coli � the bacterium found within the human gut � and by evolutionary ecologist John Endler’s classic field experiments on pigmentation in Trinidad guppies. In the 1960s, ecologist Daniel Simberloff � then a graduate student of E. O. Wilson � confirmed via his field experiments several of the important predictions made by Wilson and ecologist Robert MacArthur in their theory of island biogeography.
So should we accept Meyer’s proposition that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory simply because it produces testable hypotheses? What hypotheses? For example, he asserts on Page 489, “Design hypotheses envisioning discrete intelligent action also predict a pattern of fossil evidence showing large discontinuous or ‘quantum� increases in biological form and information at intervals in the history of life. Advocates of this kind of design hypothesis would expect to see a pattern of sudden appearance of sudden appearance of major forms of life as well as morphological stasis.� Moreover, he claims “…they would also predict a ‘top-down� pattern of appearance in which large-scale differences in form (‘disparity� between many separate body plans) emerge suddenly and prior to the occurrence of lower-level (i.e., species and genus) differences in form. Neo-Darwinism and front-loaded hypotheses expect the opposite pattern, a ‘bottom-up� pattern in which small differences in form accumulate first (differentiating species and genera from each other) and then only much later building to the large-scale differences in form that differentiate higher taxonomic categories such as phyla and classes.�
Granted, life would be a lot simpler for paleontologists and paleobiologists if they heeded Meyer’s most generous advice. We wouldn’t have to worry about long-term persistence of ecological communities replete with morphological stasis of their constituent taxa over considerable spans of geological time or those unfortunate “accidents� known as mass extinctions which have “reshuffled the deck� that is Earth’s biodiversity not just once, but at least seven times over the past five hundred fifty-odd million years. After each of these “accidents� we do see eventual recovery of the Earth’s biosphere via the “bottom-up� pattern that Meyer so clearly disdains. What we don’t see however, is any indication of some Intelligent Designer(s) acting to ensure some kind of restoration of our planet’s biodiversity. All the patterns seen in the fossil record are due to natural laws and processes acting on populations of organisms, not through the direct intervention of Intelligent Designer(s) like Mother Goose, Yahweh or the Klingons.
But what more can we expect from someone like Stephen Meyer or his peers and colleagues at the Discovery Institute? For more than twenty years they have refused to engage meaningfully with the mainstream scientific community, acting under the well-established rules of peer review and journal publication that have been the cornerstones of scientific research and publication for nearly two centuries. Instead, they have resorted to substantial omissions and gross distortions of published scientific data, harsh attacks upon their critics, including censorship (which, for example, Meyer’s friend Bill Dembski tried unsuccessfully with one of my previous Amazon.com reviews critical of Intelligent Design two years ago), and, in one rather notorious instance, outright theft. And while Meyer may insist that his infamous article on the so-called “Cambrian Explosion� published in a most obscure Washington, DC science journal is a classic case of a “Darwinist� witch hunt, the sad fact remains that no Intelligent Design advocate has ever published a scientific paper in which one or more key predictions of Intelligent Design were ever substantiated. Nor will such a paper ever be published, since Intelligent Design has never demonstrated that it is indeed a viable, scientific, alternative to modern evolutionary theory. Instead, the dubious, often scandalous, conduct exhibited by Meyer and his Discovery Institute colleagues should demonstrate to any truly objective reader of their work that they are not genuine scholars, but instead, mendacious intellectual pornographers merely interested in disseminating their religiously-derived “scientific� mendacious intellectual porn. I will concede that Meyer is uncommonly good, but he’s uncommonly good as both a shill for the Dishonesty Institute and as a mendacious intellectual pornographer pretending to be a credible historian and philosopher of science.
(Reposted from my 2009 Amazon review)
December 17, 2009
Greetings!
This is a must read for very one interested in the origin of life issues. Steven Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, takes the reader on a breath-taking journey through modern scientist's findings that definitively demonstrates the improbability of life arising by chance. Don't miss this journey.
Loaded with references, the Stephen Meyer takes you through his journey of discovery during his lifetime.
Richard William Nelson
This is a must read for very one interested in the origin of life issues. Steven Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, takes the reader on a breath-taking journey through modern scientist's findings that definitively demonstrates the improbability of life arising by chance. Don't miss this journey.
Loaded with references, the Stephen Meyer takes you through his journey of discovery during his lifetime.
Richard William Nelson
October 6, 2010
A really good Intelligent Design apologetic. Along the lines of Behe, Meyer shows how the new understanding of DNA eliminates chance as a possible explanation for the the origins of life, DNA, RNA and enzymes.
After reading this book one wonders how the theory of Evolution can survive, except that its opponents will continue to be dismissed in the media or silenced in academia.
After reading this book one wonders how the theory of Evolution can survive, except that its opponents will continue to be dismissed in the media or silenced in academia.
February 23, 2011
This was a very heavy read(i.e. loaded with science content), but well worth the effort. Meyer does a phenomenal job putting forth a step by step argument for the theory of intelligent design.
December 22, 2009
i liked the book, i enjoyed reading it, the only problem is that he is wrong.
first, id, is fruitless as a research theory, mostly because it causes the discussion to rise from the science level to the theolological, it is a lot more interesting to discuss the designer than it is to talk about how.
second, is that he is really discussing abiogenesis and through a sleight of hand trick says that this criticism makes the neo-darwinian synthesis suspect. nope, creating the first replicator is not the same thing as evolution.
third is the usual confusion of levels that happens in these discussions. partly it is about what is science and what is metaphysics, partly it's a confusion over the term chance, which straddles the line between these levels.
but the biggest one is that it really is a god of the gaps argument. as a Christian i see everything as the will of God, when it rains on my house and when it doesn't. but as a student of science i find god elusive and invisible, to explain why it didn't rain on my house last night i don't resort to God's nature but to meteorology. but that doesn't challenge my faith that God is in control. but a god of the gaps argument seems to find god only in those ever-diminishing gaps, not everywhere as the final and most important reference.
anyhow, it's good, take the time to read and understand it, a good entry into the debate.
first, id, is fruitless as a research theory, mostly because it causes the discussion to rise from the science level to the theolological, it is a lot more interesting to discuss the designer than it is to talk about how.
second, is that he is really discussing abiogenesis and through a sleight of hand trick says that this criticism makes the neo-darwinian synthesis suspect. nope, creating the first replicator is not the same thing as evolution.
third is the usual confusion of levels that happens in these discussions. partly it is about what is science and what is metaphysics, partly it's a confusion over the term chance, which straddles the line between these levels.
but the biggest one is that it really is a god of the gaps argument. as a Christian i see everything as the will of God, when it rains on my house and when it doesn't. but as a student of science i find god elusive and invisible, to explain why it didn't rain on my house last night i don't resort to God's nature but to meteorology. but that doesn't challenge my faith that God is in control. but a god of the gaps argument seems to find god only in those ever-diminishing gaps, not everywhere as the final and most important reference.
anyhow, it's good, take the time to read and understand it, a good entry into the debate.
August 8, 2011
I’m not sure I can say more than what’s already been said about this. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel called it one of the best books of 2009 (albeit, the paperback came out in 2010) and the American Spectator called it a “defining work in the origins debate.� It was really long (around 625 pages, if you include the footnotes), but definitely went beyond what I was expecting. I’m a layman, and therefore can’t think of any wondrous objections to it, but I’m still waiting to see how things turn out as it’s fairly new. Be careful in looking for criticisms though, as some of the people who gave bad remarks about it didn’t actually read it (Jerry Coyne and Fransisco Ayala, to name a few).
September 26, 2013
If you don't know anything of the origins of life this book is a very impressive read. So many have been taken in by it. Myer simply does not mention lots of important research directly relevant to the issues and if you don't know the field you don't know what you're missing. Myer employs Occams Broom as the evil tool that it is to sweep the facts under the carpet.
December 22, 2017
Dubious scientific thinking in line with the agenda shared by the author and Discovery Institute.
Painful attempt to forward a concept that has no basis as scientific theory, observed evidence or recognised research and peddle it to a preferred market.
Scientific easy listening for the religiously inclined.
Shameless pseudoscientific wishful-thinking which panders to the anti-scientism tendencies of a fundamentalist religious community which wishes to cherry-pick its scientific "truths".
The author has autocreated, and attempts to propogate, a non-existent "controversy" with evolutionary theory and has cultivated a myth of "victimisation" and exclusion from scientific debate behind which he hides the fact that he has contributed nothing of substance to recognised research and peer-reviewed debate.
Pulp-fiction masquerading as a scientific treatise.
Painful attempt to forward a concept that has no basis as scientific theory, observed evidence or recognised research and peddle it to a preferred market.
Scientific easy listening for the religiously inclined.
Shameless pseudoscientific wishful-thinking which panders to the anti-scientism tendencies of a fundamentalist religious community which wishes to cherry-pick its scientific "truths".
The author has autocreated, and attempts to propogate, a non-existent "controversy" with evolutionary theory and has cultivated a myth of "victimisation" and exclusion from scientific debate behind which he hides the fact that he has contributed nothing of substance to recognised research and peer-reviewed debate.
Pulp-fiction masquerading as a scientific treatise.
February 14, 2019
One of the most articulate speakers and writers I have heard or read, Stephen C. Meyer makes what I would assess to be an irrefutable case for Intelligent Design…based upon the bankruptcy of unguided materialistic processes to explain the biological information needed for DNA in living cells to get up and running…to reach the state of functional survival and reproduction.
Meyer’s excellent writing style combined with the interesting subject-matter of the origin of life and the specified complexity needed to originate and sustain life…kept me reading page after page.
Meyer finds just the right blend between popular accessibility and scholarly detail. At 508 pages long it is worth reading every page.
For anyone interested in this important current topic…I would highly recommend this book.
Meyer’s excellent writing style combined with the interesting subject-matter of the origin of life and the specified complexity needed to originate and sustain life…kept me reading page after page.
Meyer finds just the right blend between popular accessibility and scholarly detail. At 508 pages long it is worth reading every page.
For anyone interested in this important current topic…I would highly recommend this book.
December 6, 2011
Meyer does a convincing job of showing why intelligent design should be considered a scientific theory for the origin of life. As a scientist himself, Meyer can at times be over the head of the casual reader, but the gist of it is, that the information that is contained within the cell had to have originated somewhere, and current theories fail to adequately explain how it did so. He makes the case that intelligent design is the best explanation for how DNA and the coded information thereon came about.
June 27, 2012
Every bit as good as I expected. Stephen Meyer doesn't much leave room for rebuttal; he's almost obnoxiously thorough in his arguments. Brilliant book though. It will stand for a long time, I would wager.
January 13, 2019
Stephen C. Meyer has a Ph.D from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science and is a former geophysicist and college professor. He currently is the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute of Seattle, Washington the hub of the modern Intelligent Design (ID) movement.
The book is a hefty volume at 624 total pages (slightly over 500 pages of actual text excluding indexes, etc.) with 20 chapters and an epilogue and two appendixes.
I find Meyer's prose engaging and easy to read and his telling of some of the history of science and his explanation of the concept of the inference to the best explanation (IBE) to be quite interesting and informative. That said I found little to agree with as far as his arguments go.
Overview
Meyer's overall approach is to argue that life is too complex to have originated naturally and that none of the current theories of life's origin (at least up through circa 2009 when the book was written) can explain how complexity and information arose by natural processes. His thesis is that the information in the genetic code came from an intelligent mind, just as we see in our everyday experiences, when computer programs are written, they are written by human minds.
The nature of science
Meyer discusses the problems with defining science in such a way as to exclude intelligent design. I am actually inclined to agree. Attempting to define science one way or another we immediately run into the issue of the demarcation problem. One can see the same problem when attempting to define religion. Instead of saying that ID isn't science because it fails this or that definition I look to see if it has sufficient evidence to support it's claims. Just as with young earth creationism I simply find the evidence against their position to be insurmountable especially up against biological evolution.
The question of information
There are a number of concepts related to information which can be broadly divided into four categories: Thermodynamics, Capacity, Syntax, and Semantics[1]. When most people think of information theory what usually comes to mind is Shannon information and/or Kolmogorov information (these fall into the Syntax category). The ID movement argues that their view of information: functional information (which falls into the Semantics category and is based on the content of the message) or specified complexity, is neither Shannon or Kolmogorov information indeed Claude Shannon explicitly rejected the idea of content from information theory.
Although the idea of "specified complexity" goes back to origins of life researcher Leslie Orgel it seems that creationist advocates Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley[2] took it up and gave it their own particular twist which was then adopted by William Dembski and subsequently by Stephen Meyer. There is nothing inherently wrong with idea of "functional information," there have been a number of papers published on it and in fact there is a paper by origins of life researchers Robert Hazen, Jack Szostak, et. al. entitled "Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity"[3] that would be worth reading.
Here's how Meyer describes the ID understanding of functional information and its relation to intelligence:
"...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 strictly a material process."[4]
The key to understanding the relationship between intelligence and information is that of abstraction. If abstraction is part of the information then we can be assured that intelligence was involved, if no abstraction then there's no reason to involve intelligence. Information in DNA is based on its physical properties related to chemistry and physics, and not abstraction.
To further illustrate, Randy Isaac[4] argues that "functional information" in the way Meyer and others describe requires that there be an "abstract relationship" as we see for example with computer code, language, phone numbers, engineering designs, etc. whereas biological systems do not have such a relationship, hence, do not require an intelligent mind. Isaac argues that biological systems such as reproduction, mutations, etc. generate new information but do not require an intelligent mind.
- abstract reasoning is a defining hallmark of intelligence
- functionality in human-designed systems is determined by abstract relationships
-> intelligence is required
- functionality in biological systems is determined by offspring survival and success in reproduction
-> no intelligence is required[5]
Meyer is also pretty adamant that new information cannot be created by natural processes. Rather than going into any detail I'll point the interested reader to two articles (and the literature discussed) that get into some of the weeds of the question but firmly answer that new information can and does originate by natural processes and doesn't require an intelligent mind.[6]
The origin of life
Meyer claims that he has reviewed all of the relevant research and concluded that there is no current explanation on how natural processes could have generated the first life and with it the genetic code and its complex information. On this score he is basically correct, but the problem is that origins of life research is still being conducted and continues to advance. Meyer would have something to say here if that type of research had come to a stand still, but it has not. Indeed much of the current debate surrounds the question of life originating on land or the deep sea[7] where hydro-thermal vents are located. I recently read one of these latter works that I would highly recommend by Nick Lane[8] that shows that Meyer is simply mistaken in his views of origins of life research. Granted, we still do not have a consensus position but that doesn't justify his position that the answer to the origins of life question is intelligent design. Nor does it make it the inference to the best explanation.
Conclusion
What kind of book is this supposed to be? Meyer wants it to be a book about science but it ultimately is a book about philosophy and principally an apologetic for his particular metaphysics (see his frequent references to "materialism"). All in all I found his arguments not very persuasive and somewhat reflective of what one would normally find in anti-evolutionary literature. Despite his engaging and easy to read prose his arguments have been and continue to be challenged by main stream science. I cannot recommend this book to further one's understanding of the origins of life or the nature or origins of biological information.
There is so much in the book that could be commented on (including Meyer's 12 predictions of ID) but is best left for a blog series[9,10] or even an entire book, but that would have to be done by someone with the relevant expertise that I do not have.
Notes
[1] Randy Isaac, "Information, Intelligence, and the Origins of Life," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4 (2011): 219�30.
[2] The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Walter L. Bradley, Charles B. Thaxton, Roger L. Olsen, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1984.
[3] "Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity" by Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, Jack W. Szostak in In the Light of Evolution, Volume 1: Adaptation and Complex Design edited by John C. Avise, Francisco J. Ayala, National Academies Press, 2007. Pages 25-43.
[4] Signature, p. 347.
[5] Taken from slides by Randy Isaac entitled "In Defense of Theistic Evolution," .
[6] Jonathan K. Watts, "Biological Information, Molecular Structure, and the Origins Debate," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4 (2011): 219-230; Stephen Freeland, "The Evolutionary Origins of Genetic Inforamtion," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4: 240-254.
[7] Hydrothermal Vents and the Origins of Life by Rachel Brazil, .
[8] "The origin of life in alkaline hydrothermal vents," Sojo V, Herschy B, Whicher A, Camprubi E, Lane N. Astrobiology. 16(2): 181-197; 2016, . See also Nick Lane, The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), 368 pages.
[9] Dennis R. Venema, Letters to the Duchess: ID and Information, .
[10] Stephen Matheson, Book Review: Signature in the Cell, .
The book is a hefty volume at 624 total pages (slightly over 500 pages of actual text excluding indexes, etc.) with 20 chapters and an epilogue and two appendixes.
I find Meyer's prose engaging and easy to read and his telling of some of the history of science and his explanation of the concept of the inference to the best explanation (IBE) to be quite interesting and informative. That said I found little to agree with as far as his arguments go.
Overview
Meyer's overall approach is to argue that life is too complex to have originated naturally and that none of the current theories of life's origin (at least up through circa 2009 when the book was written) can explain how complexity and information arose by natural processes. His thesis is that the information in the genetic code came from an intelligent mind, just as we see in our everyday experiences, when computer programs are written, they are written by human minds.
The nature of science
Meyer discusses the problems with defining science in such a way as to exclude intelligent design. I am actually inclined to agree. Attempting to define science one way or another we immediately run into the issue of the demarcation problem. One can see the same problem when attempting to define religion. Instead of saying that ID isn't science because it fails this or that definition I look to see if it has sufficient evidence to support it's claims. Just as with young earth creationism I simply find the evidence against their position to be insurmountable especially up against biological evolution.
The question of information
There are a number of concepts related to information which can be broadly divided into four categories: Thermodynamics, Capacity, Syntax, and Semantics[1]. When most people think of information theory what usually comes to mind is Shannon information and/or Kolmogorov information (these fall into the Syntax category). The ID movement argues that their view of information: functional information (which falls into the Semantics category and is based on the content of the message) or specified complexity, is neither Shannon or Kolmogorov information indeed Claude Shannon explicitly rejected the idea of content from information theory.
Although the idea of "specified complexity" goes back to origins of life researcher Leslie Orgel it seems that creationist advocates Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley[2] took it up and gave it their own particular twist which was then adopted by William Dembski and subsequently by Stephen Meyer. There is nothing inherently wrong with idea of "functional information," there have been a number of papers published on it and in fact there is a paper by origins of life researchers Robert Hazen, Jack Szostak, et. al. entitled "Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity"[3] that would be worth reading.
Here's how Meyer describes the ID understanding of functional information and its relation to intelligence:
"...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 strictly a material process."[4]
The key to understanding the relationship between intelligence and information is that of abstraction. If abstraction is part of the information then we can be assured that intelligence was involved, if no abstraction then there's no reason to involve intelligence. Information in DNA is based on its physical properties related to chemistry and physics, and not abstraction.
To further illustrate, Randy Isaac[4] argues that "functional information" in the way Meyer and others describe requires that there be an "abstract relationship" as we see for example with computer code, language, phone numbers, engineering designs, etc. whereas biological systems do not have such a relationship, hence, do not require an intelligent mind. Isaac argues that biological systems such as reproduction, mutations, etc. generate new information but do not require an intelligent mind.
- abstract reasoning is a defining hallmark of intelligence
- functionality in human-designed systems is determined by abstract relationships
-> intelligence is required
- functionality in biological systems is determined by offspring survival and success in reproduction
-> no intelligence is required[5]
Meyer is also pretty adamant that new information cannot be created by natural processes. Rather than going into any detail I'll point the interested reader to two articles (and the literature discussed) that get into some of the weeds of the question but firmly answer that new information can and does originate by natural processes and doesn't require an intelligent mind.[6]
The origin of life
Meyer claims that he has reviewed all of the relevant research and concluded that there is no current explanation on how natural processes could have generated the first life and with it the genetic code and its complex information. On this score he is basically correct, but the problem is that origins of life research is still being conducted and continues to advance. Meyer would have something to say here if that type of research had come to a stand still, but it has not. Indeed much of the current debate surrounds the question of life originating on land or the deep sea[7] where hydro-thermal vents are located. I recently read one of these latter works that I would highly recommend by Nick Lane[8] that shows that Meyer is simply mistaken in his views of origins of life research. Granted, we still do not have a consensus position but that doesn't justify his position that the answer to the origins of life question is intelligent design. Nor does it make it the inference to the best explanation.
Conclusion
What kind of book is this supposed to be? Meyer wants it to be a book about science but it ultimately is a book about philosophy and principally an apologetic for his particular metaphysics (see his frequent references to "materialism"). All in all I found his arguments not very persuasive and somewhat reflective of what one would normally find in anti-evolutionary literature. Despite his engaging and easy to read prose his arguments have been and continue to be challenged by main stream science. I cannot recommend this book to further one's understanding of the origins of life or the nature or origins of biological information.
There is so much in the book that could be commented on (including Meyer's 12 predictions of ID) but is best left for a blog series[9,10] or even an entire book, but that would have to be done by someone with the relevant expertise that I do not have.
Notes
[1] Randy Isaac, "Information, Intelligence, and the Origins of Life," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4 (2011): 219�30.
[2] The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Walter L. Bradley, Charles B. Thaxton, Roger L. Olsen, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1984.
[3] "Functional Information and the Emergence of Biocomplexity" by Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, Jack W. Szostak in In the Light of Evolution, Volume 1: Adaptation and Complex Design edited by John C. Avise, Francisco J. Ayala, National Academies Press, 2007. Pages 25-43.
[4] Signature, p. 347.
[5] Taken from slides by Randy Isaac entitled "In Defense of Theistic Evolution," .
[6] Jonathan K. Watts, "Biological Information, Molecular Structure, and the Origins Debate," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4 (2011): 219-230; Stephen Freeland, "The Evolutionary Origins of Genetic Inforamtion," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 4: 240-254.
[7] Hydrothermal Vents and the Origins of Life by Rachel Brazil, .
[8] "The origin of life in alkaline hydrothermal vents," Sojo V, Herschy B, Whicher A, Camprubi E, Lane N. Astrobiology. 16(2): 181-197; 2016, . See also Nick Lane, The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), 368 pages.
[9] Dennis R. Venema, Letters to the Duchess: ID and Information, .
[10] Stephen Matheson, Book Review: Signature in the Cell, .
Read
March 13, 2024This book deals specifically with DNA. Meyer provides a decent overview of science history and how DNA is thought to work, but his style of writing style doesn't appeal to me and I ended up skimming a bit. The book provides food for thought, but should be read in conjunction with The Vital Question by Nick Lane.
September 23, 2012
What a great book. It is dense and intellegent, but I also found it accessable. I can understand how atheists get upset with this book as it picks apart neoDarwinism (the religion of many atheists), but this theory does not say who is the designer. It just says one exists.
September 23, 2014
I love this book. It offers some very clear arguments to help understand how DNA functions as "information". So far the only source of information we have identified is intelligent agents so there are sound arguments for concluding "intelligent design" as the source of the information in DNA.
Meyer also leads through how the historical sciences use a different method and criteria than do the sciences that use an empirical approach. The sciences that use a historical method include forensics, geology, and those investigating origins.
Meyer also leads through how the historical sciences use a different method and criteria than do the sciences that use an empirical approach. The sciences that use a historical method include forensics, geology, and those investigating origins.
December 15, 2010
It is f***king amazing like my rating! With more than 5 hundred pages literally!
The writer teach us about history of DNA research from A to Z.
It is important since DNA is the key for intellegent design (information).
Continued with DNA enigma and lots of arguments from academic societies.
Then the Intellegent Design (ID) ideology itself where it shown us that ID has deep roots in the history of cosmology, and in the earth and life sciences.
The writer teach us about history of DNA research from A to Z.
It is important since DNA is the key for intellegent design (information).
Continued with DNA enigma and lots of arguments from academic societies.
Then the Intellegent Design (ID) ideology itself where it shown us that ID has deep roots in the history of cosmology, and in the earth and life sciences.
May 3, 2011
Provides an excellent summary of the Intelligent Design argument, and effectively answers many of the criticisms currently brought against the scientists who dare to disavow Darwinian evolution as the best possible explanation for the origin of life.
July 14, 2015
While the biochemistry sections made for some tough sledding, Meyer's analysis of the arguments of Darwinists is clear and easy to follow. This is a laudable work and should be read by all who care, one way or the other, about the intelligent design debate.
October 30, 2022
Sadly Signature in the cell is full of misplaced and fallacious questions, such as: "Does the persistence of our perception of design, and the use of incorrigibly teleological language, indicate anything about the origin of life or the adequacy of scientific theories that deny (actual) design in the origin of living systems?", or "Should we trust our intuitions (namely the existence of a designer) about living organisms or accept the standard evolutionary account of biological origins?", which are somewhat of the same power as: "Does the undeniable habit of flies rubbing their hands indicate anything about their plotting against human race?". I hate how manipulating the author is; he reports other people's theories and presents them in a way that makes them appear wrong (e.g. Shannon's information theory). In many cases the use of the conditional tense would be enough to avoid the trap, but he deliberately uses the indicative to show how his thinking is right and that of others is not. The mention of teleological language is really unnecessary and dull. Concepts are more important than words. Asking about the purposes of certain biological aspects is not the same as looking for prime causes or intentions inherent in matter, but has a much more scientific significance: we know that in other areas of science everything happens for a reason (e.g. energy); what are the reasons for biology? Why is life propagated and information transmitted? What's the analogue of energy in biology? Reading this book is like facing an interminable fallacious syllogism, summarized as: "Since genetic information is organized in a very similar way to digital information, and digital information is produced by an intelligence (the human one), then isn't it very likely that another intelligence organized the biological information necessary for life in DNA?". What kind of logic is this? Isn't it much more sensible to think that since our basic information is organized in a certain way, we are naturally inclined to organize other forms of information in exactly the same way? I really can't understand this urge for an alleged creator; from a scientific point of view, what's to be gained by such a theory? So, we are created, or better: we are designed by some intelligence. And what about this intelligence? How is its information organized? Or stored? Another DNA? And where did it come from? Who organized it this time? The truth is that postulating the existence of a prior intelligence simply adds another gap between ourselves and the answers we are looking for. It doesn't explain anything.
For all these reasons I consider the book inadequate from a scientific point of view. Another minor aspect that I hated is the way the author reports historical events. He's an awful storyteller. He manages to make interesting things appear boring and tremendously banal; a glaring example that comes to mind is the description of Watson and Crick. These are introduced as two runaways without much knowledge of the subject matter, almost parasites in their laboratory and data thieves. I don't doubt most of it to be true, and a better writer would have managed to portray the situation, ironic in itself, certainly in a more engaging way. Not Meyer. Reading his version of events, I immediately hated the air of superiority with which he apostrophises the two scientists. In fact, this is exactly his seminal problem. His imprint is too present, his thoughts seem to impose themselves on everything. By thinking he's always right he also affirms concepts that are now recognised as incorrect, for example the need for a protein to have a structure (and a three-dimensional one at that) in order to perform a function. Today we know that the structure-function binomial is not always valid, but apparently not according to Meyer. Reading his book I often found myself thinking I was facing information filtered by others, not accurate; plus, the theories exposed aren't justified in any convincing way. In the end, the only justification the author is able to produce on his hypothesis' account is: 'nEwToN sAiD iT'. All considered, Signature in the cell was a big disappointment. I am currently looking for a way to dispose of it ecologically, as its presence in my library embarrasses me.
For all these reasons I consider the book inadequate from a scientific point of view. Another minor aspect that I hated is the way the author reports historical events. He's an awful storyteller. He manages to make interesting things appear boring and tremendously banal; a glaring example that comes to mind is the description of Watson and Crick. These are introduced as two runaways without much knowledge of the subject matter, almost parasites in their laboratory and data thieves. I don't doubt most of it to be true, and a better writer would have managed to portray the situation, ironic in itself, certainly in a more engaging way. Not Meyer. Reading his version of events, I immediately hated the air of superiority with which he apostrophises the two scientists. In fact, this is exactly his seminal problem. His imprint is too present, his thoughts seem to impose themselves on everything. By thinking he's always right he also affirms concepts that are now recognised as incorrect, for example the need for a protein to have a structure (and a three-dimensional one at that) in order to perform a function. Today we know that the structure-function binomial is not always valid, but apparently not according to Meyer. Reading his book I often found myself thinking I was facing information filtered by others, not accurate; plus, the theories exposed aren't justified in any convincing way. In the end, the only justification the author is able to produce on his hypothesis' account is: 'nEwToN sAiD iT'. All considered, Signature in the cell was a big disappointment. I am currently looking for a way to dispose of it ecologically, as its presence in my library embarrasses me.
January 11, 2014
I read this book before Darwin's Doubt, which I don't recommend especially if you are new to genetics topics.
I learned a heap from this book. I finally understand what gene expression it, how proteins are made, how DNA directs protein creation, what proteins do, how unbelievable complex DNA is and also how complex proteins are. There is a great animation at showing the basics of how it works. Amazing stuff.
Further amazing is how improbable random mutations and natural selections can account for the information that is inherent in DNA and proteins and how epi-genetics operate etc. Meyer shows that there has not been enough time for enough events to have occurred since the creation of the universe to randomly create just a simple protein - such is the complexity of the amino acids that make a protein. And there are several hundred of these in the human body.
It is a long book and covers a lot of ground. Meyer makes his case that Darwinism is unable to explain the origins of the information in the cell. The amount of information coded in the DNA, proteins and all the bits that go together to make a cell function - is astounding. This complexity of specified information is far better explained by an intelligent design that random undirected mutations. That is his thesis. Meyer also spends time showing the ID is a science in the same sense of evolution being a science, that you cannot rule out ID without also ruling out darwinism by the same rule.
I wasn't aware that the definition of science was such a hard topic, there is no universally accepted definition of science.
Personally I was really impressed to see the strength of the argument for Intelligent Design. Meyer spends a few chapters explaining why it cannot be simply written off as religion or non-science. If you want to refute ID then you have a massive task in front of you. Many have tried, so far no one has succeeded.
Meyer has made a strong case to write off Darwinism as being a good enough explanation for the origin of the information in the cell though. If you don't believe me then read the book and make up your own mind about how strong a case he makes. You may be surprised.
I learned a heap from this book. I finally understand what gene expression it, how proteins are made, how DNA directs protein creation, what proteins do, how unbelievable complex DNA is and also how complex proteins are. There is a great animation at showing the basics of how it works. Amazing stuff.
Further amazing is how improbable random mutations and natural selections can account for the information that is inherent in DNA and proteins and how epi-genetics operate etc. Meyer shows that there has not been enough time for enough events to have occurred since the creation of the universe to randomly create just a simple protein - such is the complexity of the amino acids that make a protein. And there are several hundred of these in the human body.
It is a long book and covers a lot of ground. Meyer makes his case that Darwinism is unable to explain the origins of the information in the cell. The amount of information coded in the DNA, proteins and all the bits that go together to make a cell function - is astounding. This complexity of specified information is far better explained by an intelligent design that random undirected mutations. That is his thesis. Meyer also spends time showing the ID is a science in the same sense of evolution being a science, that you cannot rule out ID without also ruling out darwinism by the same rule.
I wasn't aware that the definition of science was such a hard topic, there is no universally accepted definition of science.
Personally I was really impressed to see the strength of the argument for Intelligent Design. Meyer spends a few chapters explaining why it cannot be simply written off as religion or non-science. If you want to refute ID then you have a massive task in front of you. Many have tried, so far no one has succeeded.
Meyer has made a strong case to write off Darwinism as being a good enough explanation for the origin of the information in the cell though. If you don't believe me then read the book and make up your own mind about how strong a case he makes. You may be surprised.
June 21, 2018
Dr. Meyer is doing an excellent job of presenting his argument in a very complete and organized manner. The descriptions of intracellular processes are easy to understand for non-scientific readers, yet they are detailed enough to inform those who have the most interest. One thing I really admire is that unlike many who have an opinion in this area, it does not dive into calling names or making fun of opponents. It refers to hypocrisy and bias. His analysis of intracellular complexity, along with the very specific information contained in DNA sets a very positive argument for intelligent design. As he likes to point out, this is not just a refutation of Darwinism. It is the construction of a state of the only source we know about the arrival of life and the vast amounts of specific information contained in cells: intelligence.
Certainly, Dr. Mayer has certified creative intelligence as a source of life in the universe, and the forerunner of the "laws of biology" is not only more credible but almost convincingly persuasive. "Signature in the Cell" is an excellent book.
Certainly, Dr. Mayer has certified creative intelligence as a source of life in the universe, and the forerunner of the "laws of biology" is not only more credible but almost convincingly persuasive. "Signature in the Cell" is an excellent book.
March 21, 2011
A solid intellectual defense of Intelligent Design. I particularly enjoyed the history of DNA's discovery.
February 7, 2022
Whether the origin of life was by design or default is a debate that I think will continue to surge in the upcoming future. Whatever your beliefs are, there will always be a counterargument to it and you will find yourself questioning your beliefs and ideas.
“Signature in the Cell� by Stephen C. Meyer will get you thinking, will get you exploring, and will get you looking into the nooks and cronies of scientific research to get an answer. The ideas and concepts in this book are so comprehensively analyzed and presented that it will compel you to see intelligent design as an instrumental drive for the origin of life, even if you are not a believer in it.
I took my time with this book because this past month I got a few opportunities to be a part of seminars and talks on the same topic and it blew my mind to understand how extensively researched and analyzed this subject is. Every discovery adds a piece to this never-ending puzzle yet each of them leaves the mind confused and asking for more.
I, personally have always been in favor of intelligent design, so to find concrete pieces of evidence and arguments in support of the same is a huge driving for me to continue exploring this domain a bit more.
To be honest, it’s a huge book and there is a lot of scientific and biological jargon in it, so I will not really suggest this book to people who are not very familiar with these subjects. However, if you are related to these in any way, then you can check out this book.
“Signature in the Cell� by Stephen C. Meyer will get you thinking, will get you exploring, and will get you looking into the nooks and cronies of scientific research to get an answer. The ideas and concepts in this book are so comprehensively analyzed and presented that it will compel you to see intelligent design as an instrumental drive for the origin of life, even if you are not a believer in it.
I took my time with this book because this past month I got a few opportunities to be a part of seminars and talks on the same topic and it blew my mind to understand how extensively researched and analyzed this subject is. Every discovery adds a piece to this never-ending puzzle yet each of them leaves the mind confused and asking for more.
I, personally have always been in favor of intelligent design, so to find concrete pieces of evidence and arguments in support of the same is a huge driving for me to continue exploring this domain a bit more.
To be honest, it’s a huge book and there is a lot of scientific and biological jargon in it, so I will not really suggest this book to people who are not very familiar with these subjects. However, if you are related to these in any way, then you can check out this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.