Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell [Paperback]

Notwithstanding the offenses heaped upon opponents of Darwinism, the Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, and specifically the book of the controversy, "Signature in the Cell", and its author, Stephen C. Meyer, their defenders manage to largely abstain from such offenses and engage more pertinently, especially in the present case, in careful argumentation, absent in many disputes.

There is a strong emphasis on correcting accusations of "Creationism" and other "unscientific" approaches, by highlighting as one of Dr. Meyer's chief forms of argument (in his own words) "the method of inferring to the best explanation", which "necessarily requires an examination of the main competing hypotheses that scientists have proposed to explain a given event" (p.18). This is indeed a dominant, "hypothetico-deductive", scientific method, used by Darwin as well, with probabilistic problems. A drawback is its near fallacy of "affirming the consequent", ((A implies B) does not imply (B implies A)). That is why hypotheses, predicting known occurrences, are always subject to change.

In any event, Dr. Meyer makes in his book "a positive case for intelligent design by showing that the activity of conscious and rational agents is the only known cause by which large amounts of new functional information arise" (p.19). Expressions like "functional information", related to "information-bearing properties of DNA", sound a little too vague to me. "Information" in DNA is admittedly a metaphor, since one can simply speak of causation, and "functional" can likewise apply to causes, functioning in producing certain effects. But the argument is sound, by concerning the functional forms of organisms in the sense that they function to attain certain purposes. And "the activity of conscious and rational agents is the only known cause" of objects in our world that function to attain certain purposes.

We are dealing of course with man-made, inanimate, objects, and it may be questioned whether the same rules apply to the animate, the living. As a matter of fact, the animate is rather decisive in this respect, as I have endeavored to demonstrate, if with listeners not inclined to "think outside the box". The box is the "natural-explanation" mindset, which limits causes (e.g. pp.109-110) to "undirected", "unguided", physical or chemical forces. No one considers "directed" forces as part of nature; they would be relegated to the supernatural. Prominently the former, to be sure, are our own directed, purposeful, actions. But this is dismissed as somehow a result of "blind" Darwinian forces, mysteriously unexplained.

There is much more though to the "directed", "guided", in nature. Not only our actions are directed, but so are the activities of our bodies. They are obviously known to be directed toward the goal of self-preservation, as are activities in all organisms, making them alive. There is accordingly no need to seek unobserved guidance, purpose, in the functional structure of organisms. The guidance is observed in their behavior, aimed at survival, which is correspondingly also responsible for their adaptation, refuting "unguided" natural selection.

Allow me to also mention the matter of reviews and accompanying items on Amazon (p.53). I understand too well the feelings generated by "abusive 'reviews' making...little pretense of having turned a single page", etc. I fare much worse then what I see concerning Dr. Meyer's book. Overlooking the attacks on him, he is a well-respected member of a large constituency widely sharing his views. I have myself a book featured on Amazon, and of 4 "reviews" only one writer saw the book, with a favorable result. The other writers were displeased with my reviews and comments, of which I do many, regarding other books. They engage in the nastiest behavior, including "tags" that are meant to characterize my book and have nothing to do with it. Ironically, they associate me with the Discovery Institute, although I am a totally independent thinker, as may be gleaned from the above.

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.

I loved the book. Reading is extremely pleasant. The authors of the chapters, for their advocacy of the non-dominant view, must always be wary of criticism by the mass of Darwinists. I especially enjoyed the chapters 13-15 (Richard Sternberg). By the way, Ayala: First read carefully the books you want to review or criticize.