Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a scholastic attempt at defending intelligent design as a theory worthy of inclusion within the halls of academia. The foundation of Dr. Stephen C Meyer’s argument lies with the information contained within the DNA molecule. Dr. Meyer argues that, like a computer program, DNA contains highly specified instructions for the creation of proteins that serve as the basis for life as we know it.
Dr. Meyer convincingly demonstrates that the highly specified information contained within DNA could not have possibly generated itself by chance alone. He uses Shannon’s Information Theory – the theory that “the amount of information conveyed by an event is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence” – to illustrate the almost near impossibility of this hypothesis.
To the scientific layperson, this idea seems intuitively obvious. If you would like an example, pick someone that you know and try to randomly guess their phone number. Even if you know the area code and the leading 3 digits, you’d still likely never guess it.
This is just a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the complexity contained within the DNA molecule.
For those that are interested, Dr. Meyer also describes the molecular biology processes behind his theory in textbook level detail.
It goes without saying that Dr. Meyer’s theory has not been well received by the scientific community. The most common charge leveled against Dr. Meyer and his work is the supposed inability to accurately project the probability that DNA arose by chance mutation alone. While this is a critical point to Dr. Meyer’s overall argument, it would seem that that doesn’t change the intuitively obvious truth of Dr. Meyer’s ideas.
Our own experience tells us that complex information always requires some “designing intelligence”. When archaeologists find a series of cave paintings, they don’t dismiss them out of hand as a “natural cause” that we haven’t yet discovered.
No, they make the most logical assumption. These paintings were made by some previous civilization that must have occupied this area at some point in the past. Why should biological information and its origins be treated differently?
Overall, I would recommend Signature in the Cell to anyone looking to learn more about intelligent design or just looking for an alternative to the standard Darwinian evolutionary theory. You can check it out for yourself at the link below:
If you’re interested in Dr. Meyer’s other works, check here:
If you enjoyed this post, check out our other blog posts on the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God. If you’re interested in learning more about how A Millennials Divine Defense came to be, click here.
Also, if you want to stay up to date with all of our posts, SUBSCRIBE!
6 Responses
Stephen Meyer has been refuted many times. His conclusions have no basis in fact and circular arguments are the crux of his arguments. The Intelligent Design thesis is a thinly veiled attempt to classify it as a ‘science’ in order to have it taught in public schools. The courts have always ruled against such arguments. Why would an ‘intelligent Designer’ decide cetain species were not good and allow them to become extinct? HIs ‘DNA’ proposal is the same one used several years ago regarding the eye. To summarize the ID eye argument: the present eye anatomy in the higher order life forms could not have been the result of evolution – it’s too complex. However, the evolutionary evidence has mutliple examples of eye deveolpment. The ID subscribers have no real scientific data to bolster their claims. There is no doubt in my mind that God is the Creator and sustainer of the Cosmos. Evolution is the way He nurtured His Creation and who are we to question His ways?
I think the crux of the argument doesn’t lie with how life has continued to evolve over thousands of millennia. Once life arrived on the scene, Darwin’s theory of natural selection works.
But in the beginning, how did the rocks suddenly come alive? How did life spring from nothing? How did the information contained within DNA assemble itself into anything resembling life instead of just gibberish? I think Dr. Meyer is correct to point out that believing that the complex, specified information contained within a single-celled organism, much less a human, randomly arose undirected is like believing a tornado swept through a junkyard and left a Boeing 787 in its wake.
Dr. Meyer doesn’t dispute evolution. He simply makes the point that it appears to be directed. With which, if I read your last sentence correctly, you seem to agree.
By the way, thanks for taking the time to read the blog and comment, Dr. Wood!
Yes, he does dispute evolution. He is one of the prime movers in the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement. To equate God with intelligence is an oxymoron. How can we say say, ‘God is intelligent?’ Nay, He is far beyond our descriptive powers. You are looking at the question through the wrong end of the telescope. The ‘Boeing’ example is a reworking of the ‘watch’ argument – you find a watch and conclude someone or something must have made it – it could not just appear out of thin air – too many moving parts. Well, a watch started out of a sundial, hourglass, or marks on a candle and on up the line because mankind wanted a way to mark the divisions of a day. As technology advanced, cogs and gears made it possible to better calibrate the movement of time so ‘clocks’ evolved. Meyer, Dembiski, and others use arguments based on syllogism (look it up) – basically something based on a false assumption. It works like this: (1) X is some (complex, functional) feature of the world; (2) only two possible explanations: a. natural (evolution) or b. transcendant (Intelligent Design); (3) Science (in principle) has no natural explanation of X; Therefore, a transcendendant Intelligent Designer created X. Ha! (3) is a false assumption – science does a far better job of explaining X – truckloads of evolutionary evidence are available.
Where does Dr. Meyer refute evolution. And you’re still not addressing Dr. Meyer’s core point. The clock example assumes someone understood time and desired a means to mark its passage (intelligence). Rocks didn’t randomly assemble themselves into a sundial so that the casual passerby recognized it and decided to improve upon it.
But I agree he could very easily be refuted. Demonstrate how DNA and RNA randomly emerged.
That I’d it. Case closed. Problem solved. You don’t even have to look anything up. 😁
I fail to follow your reasoning. Meyer refutes evolution by saying that DNA ‘could not have been the product of chance alone’. I agree. That’s a core principle of the evolutionary theories – take your pick – either the gradual or punctuated theories.
DNA evolved over time. Some species have more DNA components than others but all livng things (plants and animals) share some of the components. Yes, you and the tree in your yard have some common DNA elements. Man and monkyes share 98% of the same DNA. You need to read up on evolutionary theory. By the way, the scientific method works like this: facts lead to hypotheses, hypotheses lead to laws, and laws lead to theories (a theory is the best known way to explain something). Meyer et al have no facts, just assumptions – all derived by syllogisms. I believe God started the ball rolling and let it develop the way He has just to show us how incomprehensible and inscrutable His ways are. I am a Christian evolutionist.
My ignorance of the scientific method side (🙄), from a theological perspective, I fail to discern where you and I are in disagreement. Life on earth required God to get the ball rolling via RNA and DNA.
Are you saying that God set off the big bang and then sat back and watched? The fact that humans evolved higher than a house cat is just a happy coincidence?
Comments are closed.