Stephen Meyer is in Brazil this week at the “Intelligent Design: Science and Religion” conference at Mackenzie University in Sao Paolo, one of Brazil’s oldest and most prestigious universities. He speaks tonight at 8:00PM, and tomorrow night as well, about Signature in The Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which soon will be published in Brazil in Portuguese. Also in attendance is University of Idaho biologist Scott Minnich, who will be speaking tomorrow morning at 10:30AM about “Irreducible Complexity and the Bacterial Flagellar Motor: Assessment of Recent Controversies”. On Wednesday at 10:30AM Minnich will be speaking about “Evolution and Pathogenesis: New Insights into one of Darwin’s Dilemmas.” On Wednesday night there will be a panel discussion at 7:30PM on the topic of “Intelligent Design: Science and Religion” which will feature Meyer, Minnich and others.
A new review of Signature in the Cell is just out in The Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry. It brings to the forefront of the overall debate the perspective of a software engineer and logician. Specifically, Harry Kanigel, former executive director, Information Technology at UBS Investment Bank, whose expertise is in computer algorithms. So he knows a thing or two about digital information. His reviews starts strong:
Stephen C. Meyer changes the game in the intelligent design fight with Signature in the Cell, a big book that methodically, but agreeably, constructs an argument that intelligence in some unspecified form, is responsidble for the bio-molecular machinery in the cell and, therefore, for first life. Meyer’s argument is, at its heart, logical and statistical but also strives for a reality check by engaging the reader’s day-to-day experience of cause and effect.
And finishes strong as well.
His long argument is encyclopedic yet lively and persuades that science is at an impasse in explaining the origin of life as the product of undirected processes. The work overall, technical at times, is directed to the general reader. The scientifically trained reader must decide whether a popular work is “trying to pull a fast one,” preferably guided by criteria that are consistently and dispassionately applied across historical sciences. The author’s passion for his argument is palpable but scrupulously controlled; he is ever mindful that it is the target of scornful attacks by opponents who are, to put it gently, not disinterested. Meyer delivers his argument in the manner of a dish best served cold, yet forcibly enough to shake the base of the materialistic paradigm.
You can read the whole six page review here.