Several years in the making, the book arrives just as the information age is coming to biology and scientists are delving deeper into the mystery of the origins of life. In Signature in the Cell Dr. Meyer lays out a radical new and comprehensive argument for intelligent design that readers will likely never have encountered before, and which materialist scientists cannot counter. That was written in this space exactly one year ago today when Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design arrived in book stores and since then has been named a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year, an Amazon.com best-selling science book and began to change the shape of the debate over intelligent design. Now, it is available in paperback. Since its publication some things have Read More ›
Last week we highlighted Stephen Meyer’s article More Than Matter and Energy which was the basis for a Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson. Listen in here.
Click play to watch Meyer’s interview on the evidence for intelligent design, which aired Friday, June 18, on The 700 Club.
Video Dr. Meyer’s interview on the evidence for intelligent design, which aired Friday, June 18
Stephen Meyer has just published a new essay about Craig Ventner’s recent claims to have created synthetic life. Not so quick, Meyer says. A biologist in California has summoned headlines around the world, some distressed and some celebratory, by supposedly doing in reality what Dr. Frankenstein did in fiction: giving life to lifeless matter. The Vatican worries that, by swapping artificial DNA for the real thing in a simple bacterial cell, Dr. Craig Venter is “playing God.” But most voices from the media welcome his success. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan applauds the end of the myth that life is “sacred, special, ineffable.” According to Caplan, Venter has shown that life can be readily produced from its material parts, thus refuting “the argument Read More ›
In the May issue of Christianity Today, the magazine’s Village Green section posed the following question to Stephen Meyer, as well as to theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson and young earth creationist Marcus Ross: How can the intelligent design movement gain academic credibility? Below is Meyer’s response: Asking what advocates of intelligent design must do to gain credibility in the academy is a bit like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. Such a question makes a prejudicial assumption. When queried about his history of spousal abuse, an innocent man should say, “I don’t concede the premise of your question.” Similarly, I would suggest that behind the Village Green question lurk some false assumptions. Indeed, the question seems to presuppose three things: Read More ›
I was not in Los Angeles on May 14, when Stephen Meyer debated Stephen Matheson and Arthur Hunt at Biola University. But I have followed some of the blog war that preceded and followed the debate—a blog war that now includes Richard Sternberg and Laurence Moran. Since Matheson, Hunt and Moran are all tenured professors at institutions of higher learning, one might have expected a discussion based on reason and conducted in a collegial spirit. And since the discussion is about science, one might have expected lots of references to evidence published in the scientific literature. But Matheson, Hunt and Moran have abandoned reason and resorted to ridicule; and instead of citing evidence they expect us to bow to their authority. Round Read More ›
At Evolution News & Views Jay Richards weighs in on whether Francisco Ayala read and understood Signature in the Cell: Over at BioLogos, Professor Francisco Ayala has responded to Signature of Controversy—the collection of responses to criticisms of Signature in the Cell. As with the previous Ayala response at BioLogos, this one includes an introduction by Darrell Falk. The burden of Ayala’s response is to wax indignant that some of us have suggested, based on his original “response” to Signature in the Cell, that he had not actually read the book. Why would we suggest that? Well, because he so profoundly misrepresented Meyer’s thesis. Here’s what he said: “The keystone argument of Signature [sic] of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the Read More ›
At Evolution News & Views, Richard Sternberg responds to Steve Matheson’s continued attacks on Signature in the Cell: On Friday, May 14, I watched as Steve Meyer faced his critics—two of them anyway, Art Hunt and Steve Matheson—at Biola University in Los Angeles. Matheson had previously claimed that Meyer misrepresented introns in his book, Signature in the Cell. (Introns are non-protein-coding sequences of DNA that occur within protein-coding regions.) In a blog post dated February 14, Matheson had accused Meyer of “some combination of ignorance, sloth, and duplicity” for stating in his book that although introns do not encode proteins they nevertheless “play many important functional roles in the cell.” Calling Meyer’s statement “ludicrous,” Matheson wrote on his blog that biologists have identified functional roles for only Read More ›