Stephen C. Meyer Philosopher of Science
Topic

Signature in the Cell

wrapped book.jpg
wrapped gift kraft paper on a wooden background
Photo by timonko on Adobe Stock

On Not Reading Signature in the Cell

Dr. Francisco Ayala, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reviewed (or merely commented on at length, without reading?) Signature in the Cell for The Biologos Foundation’s blog, “Science & the Sacred.” Below is Dr. Meyer’s response. No doubt it happens all the time. There must be many book reviews written by reviewers who have scarcely cracked the pages of the books they purport to review. But those who decide to write such blind reviews typically make at least some effort to acquire information about the book in question so they can describe its content accurately — if, for no other reason, than to avoid embarrassing themselves. Unfortunately, in his review of my book Signature in the Read More ›

Stephen Meyer Responds to Fletcher in Times Literary Supplement

Signature in the Cell continues to stir up debate and attract attention as Thomas Nagel’s selection of SITC as one of the Books of the Year brought on an interesting series of letters, where Nagel was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. This week, author Stephen Meyer himself responds in a letter, with a shortened version published yesterday. (Nagel himself responded with a letter that is published on the same page by TLS.) >> see full response here

Stephen Meyer Responds to Fletcher in Times Literary Supplement

Signature in the Cell continues to stir up debate and attract attention as Thomas Nagel’s selection of SITC as one of the Books of the Year brought on an interesting series of letters, where Nagel was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. This week, author Stephen Meyer himself responds in a letter, with a shortened version published yesterday. (Nagel himself responded with a letter that is published on the same page by TLS.) Below is Meyer’s letter in its entirety: To the EditorThe Times Literary SupplementNatural Selection and the Origin of Biological InformationI’ve been honored by the recent attention my book Signature in the Cell has received in your letters section following Thomas Nagel’s Read More ›

Stephen Meyer Responds to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell

Dr. Darrel Falk, biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed Signature in the Cell for The Biologos Foundation’s blog, “Science & the Sacred.” Below is Dr. Meyer’s response. In 1985, I attended a conference that brought a fascinating problem in origin-of-life biology to my attention—the problem of explaining how the information necessary to produce the first living cell arose.  At the time, I was working as a geophysicist doing digital signal processing, a form of information analysis and technology. A year later, I enrolled in graduate school at the University of Cambridge, where I eventually completed a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science after doing interdisciplinary research on the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. In the ensuing years, I Read More ›
old-books-on-wooden-table-top-view-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Old books on wooden table, top view
Photo by Africa Studio on Adobe Stock

Signature in the Cell Named One of Top Books of the Year by Times Literary Supplement

Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is being named one of the top books of 2009 in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement (TLS) annual “Books of the Year” issue, officially due out later this week. The selection was made by prominent philosopher (and noted atheist) Thomas Nagel at New York University. The books issue is not online yet, but the TLS website has posted a preview of Nagel’s endorsement of the book: Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter — something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Read More ›

Blown Away by Signature in the Cell

The new issue of American Spectator is out with a rave review of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. Writer Dan Peterson opens with the revelation that this book wasn’t just good — it was a game-changer: When I learned that Dr. Stephen Meyer had written a new book on the evidence of design displayed in living cells, I expected to be impressed by it. I wasn’t prepared to have my mind blown — which is what happened. We’ve heard before that Dr. Meyer’s book is more than dangerous to the Darwinist case; it’s comprehensive and devastating: Meyer’s argument is a comprehensive one, rooted in multiple scientific and philosophical disciplines, and he is perhaps uniquely qualified to make it. His background is in physics and Read More ›
Combat de chevaliers en armure.jpg
Combat de chevaliers en armure - Spectacle médiéval et moyen-
Photo by Alonbou on Adobe Stock

Molecular ‘Chevaliers’ Rattle The Darwin-faithful

Robert Deyes continues his chapter by chapter analysis of Signature in the Cell at Uncommon Descent. Amidst the many memories that I cherish from my college undergraduate years are the get-togethers that friends and I would have to discuss the core textbook principles of molecular biology. Benjamin Lewin’s Genes IV stands out as one of the treasured resources we would pour over as we searched for the facts on the makeup of life. Perhaps most often visited amongst our topics of discussion were those of eukaryotic transcription and translation principally because for all of us there was something deeply unsettling about the naturalistic foundations upon which the emergence of these processes had been presented. So unsettled were we that we could Read More ›

Biological Information: The Puzzle of Life that Darwinism Hasn’t Solved

Today’s New York Times has yet another example of overhyping science. Recently Nature, Science, Wired, and now the Times are all gaga over alleged breakthroughs in discovering how life came to be. It turns out they are no closer now than they ever have been. It’s as if they’ve figured out the chemical components of ink and paper and how ink adheres to paper, but still can’t explain the meaning and information communicated by the New York Times each day with that ink and paper. Never mind figuring out where the ink and paper itself came from before it got hitched together. Here we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of Darwin and modern evolutionists are no closer to figure out where life comes from than Darwin himself Read More ›