Signature of Controversy

Review of Signature of Controversy

Posted on

Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell (Signature in the Cell #2)Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell by David Klinghoffer

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Signature in the Cell (SitC) details the history and premises of the intelligent design theory. Signature of Controversy details the reactions to SitC from a culture of science that seems to have no place for it. This book is a collection of articles that critique the reviewers of SitC and answers them clearly. Amazingly, some reviewers of SitC have clearly not even read the book, yet have felt compelled to review it (negatively). Some mischaracterize the argument completely. Some are just plain uncivil and even obnoxious. None are really able to refute the argument of the theory, though, which, simply put, is as follows:

1. There is no materialistic explanation for the origin of biological information (specified complexity) in DNA.
2. The only known cause of information is an intelligent agent.
3. Since there is no materialistic explanation for the origin of biological information, an inference can be made to an intelligent cause

Signature of Controversy is a must read for those who have read SitC. You will learn more details why recent origin of life experiments, that supposedly tag ID as a dead-end, actually supplement the design argument. It will bring you into the dialogue that is going on in the blogosphere. Be prepared to access blog sites to read these SitC reviews first hand. It will position you to look objectively at the communities of scientists that are discussing this theory. This book has also helped to solidify the intelligent design argument for me, and hopefully it will do the same for you.

View all my reviews

Signature of Controversy, part 2

Posted on

Dishonesty. And some religion…

David Klinghoffer’s article in this book, titled “Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?”, sums up the Darwinian atheist activism against SitC. He details how Coyne, Fletcher, P.Z. Myer, and even hordes of pseudo-reviewers have not read the book and simply trash it. How can a person of reason truly review or comment on something they have not read??  Not just to comment, but to post comments such as, “religious speculation,” “a stinker,” and “drivel.” It is completely intellectually dishonest.

How am I to respect evolution with disciples such as these? Do I throw out evolution because of this? Or do I learn what the evidence is, how it applies to our observation of nature, and assign it a place. Natural selection does occur, on a limited observable scale. There is hard evidence for common descent. There is no evidence for the generation of biological information by natural means.

But I don’t think they are scared to read the book. I think it is the religion of philosophical naturalism that drives these people. This is not my idea. I have heard Nancy Pearcey speak on this in her book, Total Truth. As british chemist John C. Walton wrote:

It is an amusing irony that while castigating students of religion for believing in the supernatural, [Fletcher] offers in its place an entirely imaginary “RNA world” the only support for which is speculation!

Klinghoffer concludes:

Alas, carelessness and dishonesty are hallmarks of the Darwinian propagandists. Hordes of whom, by the way, have been trying to overwhelm Signature’s Amazon page . They post abusive “reviews” making, again, little pretense of having turned a single page even as they then try to boost their own phony evaluations by gathering in mobs generated by email lists and clicking on the Yes button at the question, “Was this review helpful to you?” Per Amazon’s easily exploited house rules, this has the effect of boosting the “review” to enhanced prominence. It’s a fraudulent tactic, and sadly typical.

Is it really so? Can these people seriously, seriously, not detect their loathsome dishonest behaviour? Can they not see how hate taints their minds and body, degenerating their reasoning, and dehumanizing them into the true products of their theory of evolution, mere animals?

Signature of Controversy, part 1

Posted on

Ok, it is a bit frustrating to get into a conversation that has been going on for years. Intelligent design for me is now less about learning what the theory is, but rather what everyone thinks about it. I’m going to try and reserve opinion and judgement, in general. I think I will just try and chronicle the dialogue as I see it detailed in Signature of Controversy. (And I still need to summarize the notes I took on Signature in the Cell (SitC) and write a post!)

First, there is Franciso Ayala (“one of Biology’s living legends”) who supposedly reviewed SitC. I agree with Meyer and Klinghoffer; it doesn’t appear that Ayala actually read the book. Dr. Darrel Falk had asked Ayala to review the book (Falk’s review is found here). Meyer does respond to both Falk and to Ayala, but Meyer’s response to Ayala is prefaced by Falk, who says Ayala was responding to Falk’s essay, not SitC. But the review by Ayala clearly states that BioLogos sent him a copy of SitC . Huh. And Falk said he asked Meyer to respond only to Ayala’s philosophical and theological concerns. (“We will now take a moment to refrain from the whole purpose of BioLogos… Your handcuffs, sir.”) Double huh. Klinghoffer points out that Ayala opens his salvo on Meyer by claiming his main premise is an argument against chance…which it isn’t…and isn’t mentioned by Falk…whose essay he was supposedly responding to. Triple huh. Jay Richards also agrees that Ayala could not have read Meyer’s book. There was apparently a commentary from Falk on Ayala’s review, but it has been  (perhaps wisely) brought down. Quadruple…oh never mind.

Secondly, there is Jerry Coyne. I have seen his name and his book Why Evolution Is True, and he has a blog where he has written posts attacking Meyer’s book. I would like to peruse his site and see what he writes and stands for. From what I have seen though, just briefly, he is an opinionated militant atheist. From Signature of Controversy, Klinghoffer cites that in one particular post, Coyne accuses Meyer of lying. That particular post has been deleted, though.  Klinghoffer points out some of the things Coyne has gotten wrong about Meyer, yet Meyer is a “lying liar.” Huh.

Next, there was a back and forth attack by Stephen Fletcher against Thomas Nagel for selecting SitC as one of the Times Supplement Books of the Year. Fletcher’s argument is based on evidence data in favor of the RNA world theory of life’s origins. (This is a theory I would like to know more details about.) His claim (and the claim made by Falk, essentially) is that scientific developments have “overtaken Meyer’s book.” 

From one study Flether cites experiments leading to the synthesis of a pyrimidine ribonucleotide (an RNA molecule). Meyer’s criticism of this experiment is the same he has made in his book: it is only a letter and does not explain the origin of the “words” and “sentences” in DNA; and the molecule was synthesized in steps, selecting only R-isomers, purifying intermediates from impurities and cross reactions. Scientists had to intervene, adding “active intelligence” to the “unguided” process. This is the problem I am learning about experiments concerning our origins. A scientist always intervenes, and it doesn’t explain the origin of the code.

David Berlinski also responds to Fletcher.

If experiments conducted in the here and now are to shed light on the there and then, they must meet two conditions: They must demonstrate in the first place the existence of a detailed chemical pathway between RNA precursors and a form of self-replicating RNA; and they must provide in the second place a demonstration that the spontaneous appearance of this pathway is plausible under pre-biotic conditions….

Questions of pre-biotic plausibility remain. Can the results of Powner et al. be reproduced without Powner et al.? It is a question that Powner raises himself: “My ultimate goal,” he has remarked, “is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment.”

Let us by all means have that pot, and then we shall see further.