Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Signature in the Cell 1 (RJS)

Signature in the Cell 1 (RJS)

Last updated on: December 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm by RJS

Signature in the Cell 1 (RJS) 2010-12-05T18:38:20-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Stephen C. Meyer has published a (very long, but readable) book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, outlining his argument in favor of intelligent design. This book essentially argues that life is very complex, the origin of life is a puzzle, and the information content in DNA cannot be explained by natural means. Meyer contends that the evidence supports an idealist not a materialist view of the universe, and more importantly, of life; where idealist means that there is an idea, a mind, behind the observed reality while materialist means that all can be explained without reference to a mind.

All Christians believe that the universe, and life, were created intelligently and for a purpose. This is not the issue. The real question here is whether God’s methods in creation can be explained through natural means or whether there is scientific evidence that demonstrates that a designer was involved. This is a question of interest to many – and I am going to focus several (3 or 4 or so) posts on this book.

In this series of posts we will look at Meyer’s argument and evidence and try to address one simple question:

Does Meyer make a sound scientific case for intelligent design? Does his argument make sense?

This series will continue – one post a week for several weeks. If you are interested, get the book and join the conversation. (You may also find Darrel Falk’s review interesting – it is located on the BioLogos blog Science and the Sacred – and his follow-up post as well.)

In Ch. 20 Why it Matters (p. 439-440) Meyer relates an incident, repeating a common pattern, when in 2005 he appeared on an MSNBC program called The Abrams Report.

But Abrams was setting a trap, one that, by this time, I knew all too well. If I answered truthfully (which I did) and told him that neither the evidence from biology nor the theory of intelligent design could prove the identity of the designer, he would accuse me of dishonesty … If on the other hand, I told him – again truthfully – that I thought that God had designed the universe and life, he would seize upon my words as proof that the theory of intelligent design was “religion,” thus establishing in his mind that it must lack any scientific basis.

This incident – and many more like it – demonstrate an important problem. Most discussions of intelligent design in other forums are derailed from the start by the underlying culture war at work in our society. The conversation quickly degenerates to name calling and guilt by association. We have Darwinists and evolutionists and creationists – uneducated ignoramuses defending superstition and conniving dishonest scientists fabricating evidence. I approach this series of posts with some trepidation – as I want no part of such a discussion.

Meyer continues as he relates his experience …

…But I was on Mr. Abram’s show to to discuss the theory of intelligent design, and the theory does not make claims about a deity, nor can it. It makes a more modest claim, based upon our uniform experience about the kind of cause – namely, an intelligent cause – that was responsible for the origin of biological form and information.

… Clearly, his question was legitimate. But I wanted to answer it after I had explained what the theory of intelligent design is and after I had established that there is scientific evidence for it.

OK – let’s take Meyer at his word. In this book Meyer explains what he means by the theory of intelligent design and outlines his argument for an intelligent designer. We will look at his argument.

First the ground rules – as always on this site:

Any comment that resorts to name calling, ridicule, or guilt by association will be unceremoniously deleted. In particular, in this series consider the words evolutionist, Darwinist, and creationist off limits – find another way to make your point.

Any comment that attacks persons, whether Meyer, other supporters of ID, opponents of ID, or other commenters, rather than ideas will be deleted. View
this as a conversation among friends over coffee – we wish to convince, explain, and consider, not score points.

I am explicit here because, as noted above, far too many posts elsewhere on this subject in general and this book in particular degenerate rapidly – this sheds no light and helps no one.

Second, I don’t think Meyer proves his case – he doesn’t demonstrate a sound scientific case for design.

To elaborate here we need to look at how Meyer defines intelligent design and the argument he finds persuasive. Perhaps the concluding paragraph of Chapter 20 provides the best summary.

But to detect the presence of mind, to detect the activity of intelligence in the echo of its effects, requires a mode of reasoning – indeed a form of knowledge – that science, or at least official biology, has long excluded. If living things – things we manifestly did not design ourselves – bear the hallmarks of design, if they exhibit a signature that would lead us to recognize intellectual activity in any other realm of existence, then perhaps it is time to rehabilitate this lost way of knowing and to rekindle our wonder in the intelligibility and design of nature that inspired the scientific revolution. (p. 452)

He makes essentially the same argument in other places as well – if it looks like design, the most reasonable conclusion is design. The inference to best explanation leads to intelligent design. Just a paragraph earlier he summarizes what he finds to be a persuasive argument for design:

For one hundred and fifty years many scientists have insisted that “chance and necessity” – happenstance and law – jointly suffice to explain the origin of life on earth. We now find however, that orthodox evolutionary thinking – with its reliance upon these twin pillars of material thought – has failed to explain the origin of the central feature of all living things: information. (p. 451)

Meyer’s proposal is that the information content of the cell – the DNA – and the origin of life based on this information cannot be explained by scientific reason, natural mechanism, that omits the mind of the maker.

I have read much of the book already and will read all of it as I continue this series. His argument does not convince me. But this leaves me with an obligation to explain why, and I will attempt to do so in future posts, at least in part. Feel free to disagree and offer reasons why.

But to start:

Do you think that recognition of a mind active in creation is necessary to understand the scientific underpinnings of life or the origin of life? Is this the only alternative to chance and happenstance?

It seems to me that there is a middle ground between the insistence that chance, happenstance, and law (the laws of physics) suffice to explain all and the suggestion that biology – life – can only be explained with reference to a creative mind. Alister McGrath (A Fine-Tuned Universe) and Simon Conway Morris (Life’s Solution) provide some insight into this middle ground. The fabric of the Universe makes life possible and inevitable – not a highly contingent accident. Thinking scientifically we look for the causally connected series of events that resulted in the present reality – as part of God’s method in creation.

On the other hand, science can explain, but not “understand” life. This is where another way of knowing comes into the picture. Human consciousness and purpose may be explained without reference to a creator, but they can only be “understood” with reference to the creator. But this does not impact the science of biology or the study of origins.

Responses and suggestions? What do you think?

If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

Science and Faith

Theology

Previous Post

January 7, 2010

Scofield and His Bible

Next Post

January 7, 2010 Acts and Mission 72

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Called from my mother's womb to be a prophet to the nations, I protested that I was too young. Who objected to this divine appointment?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jeremiah Samuel Ezekiel Isaiah