In this engaging 2010 interview, Dr. Meyer outlines the scientific discoveries that point to a designing intelligence in the origin and development of life and the universe. Watch Meyer’s interview on the evidence for intelligent design, which aired Friday, June 18, on The 700 Club.
Playing God? 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 that life requires a special force or power to exist.” Others have called Venter’s achievement “a complete victory for materialism,” predicting that many atheists will cite it as Read More ›
Playing God? 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 that life requires a special force or power to exist.” Others have called Venter’s achievement “a complete victory for materialism,” predicting that many atheists 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: the 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 genomes of 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 ›
Click here to listen. This episode of ID the Future features an excerpt from an interview on the Albert Mohler program featuring CSC Director Stephen Meyer, author of the recent book, Signature in the Cell. Was there intelligent design in the recent experiments on artificial life? Listen in as Meyer discusses the science behind the latest headlines.
Over the years, ID proponents have spent much of their time developing the theoretical tools for inferring design and developing the empirical case for design in fields such as cosmology, astronomy, origin of life studies, and molecular biology. In contrast, many critics have spent their time attacking the supposed theology behind ID. In the last few weeks, The Guardian (in the UK) has been publishing responses to the following question: “Is Intelligent Design Bad Theology?” Philosophers Michael Ruse and Stephen Fuller have weighed in on the question. Recently, Mark Vernon responded to the question by “reviewing” Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell. Based on his interpretation of Meyer’s argument, Vernon concludes that ID is “bad science, bad theology, and blasphemy.” That puts it strongly. Read More ›
Q: Which Steve said design is an excellent and irrefutable explanation? Hint: He didn’t write Signature in the Cell. This incredible interaction came at last Friday night’s presentation of Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer at Biola University in front of 1,400 attendees and hundreds more watching the event streamed live on the internet. In a panel discussion after his lecture, Meyer met two of his critics head-on, one of whom essentially conceded that intelligent design is a better explanation than an unguided process like Darwinian evolution. You can view a video of the Q&A and Debate here. The critics were Steve Matheson, a theistic evolutionist from Calvin College, and Arthur Hunt, a Darwinist and biologist from the University of Kentucky. Both have written critically of SITC and intelligent design and Read More ›
Readers in Southern California should take note: Dr. Stephen Meyer is going to present his groundbreaking work, Signature in the Cell, at a free event at Biola University in less than two weeks. This is the same book which garnered accolades (Times Literary Supplement and “Daniel of the Year“) and earned the ire of Meyer’s critics, some of whom will be on a panel responding to him at this event. Dr. Meyer has presented at Heritage Foundation, the Seattle Art Museum, at Mackenzie Presbyterian University in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and various other spots stateside — but this is his first time presenting SITC in SoCal. The details are below: May 14, 2010 Signature in the Cell Event hosted by Biola UniversityTime: 7 – 10 Read More ›