cells-background-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
cells background
Photo by Maksim Shebeko on Adobe Stock
Stephen C. Meyer Philosopher of Science
The Latest

Moshe Averick Responds to British Geneticist Robert Saunders’s Review of Signature in the Cell

Published at The Algemeiner

Here’s a spot-on reply to UK geneticist Robert Saunders’s recent review of Dr. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. Averick is particularly good at pointing out the faith, presuppositions and ideological blinders that constrain Saunders’s view, even if the scientist doesn’t seem to recognize it:

[Saunders] is, in effect, admitting that Science has no explanation for the origin of life and the huge amounts of information necessary for life to exist, but asks us to have faith that Science will yet discover a purely naturalistic answer to the question. Here Saunders makes it clear that he has shut off his mind from even considering the possibility of Intelligent Design, which is, of course, a theory that is proposed to explain the origin of life. In the nearly 600 pages of  Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer rigorously, meticulously, and painstakingly explains why it is — by any reasonable standard — a valid scientific hypotheses.

It is also crucial to point out that Scientists clearly understand that “unknown” intelligence can be detected. It is not necessary at all “to identify who or what  the designer is”  or “the means” by which the designer performed his task in order to identify intelligent causation. If this were not true what would have been  the point to spending millions of dollars on the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Project? These scientists were looking for patterns of radio-signals from distant galaxies that would indicate some form of intelligent causation. If Morse Code messages were detected originating from a galaxy a million light years away, only someone who had completely lost touch with reality would deny that this was proof of intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. If such signals were detected, scientists would not know anything at all about the nature of these intelligent beings. They wouldn’t know who they were,  what they looked like,  how they lived, nor would they necessarily know what means were used to generate the message; in fact, they would not even know if they were physical beings. The only conclusions they could draw would be that they possessed intelligence, consciousness, and creativity.

Continue reading Moshe Averick’s full response at The Algemeiner