Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Darrel Falk Reviews Signature in the Cell

Darrel Falk of the BioLogos Foundation has also read Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. He strongly recommends the book on philosophical and theological grounds, arguing that Meyer has crafted a very readable book that addresses the philosophical nature of science and the scientific enterprise. Then the other shoe drops:
There is no question that large amounts information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it. What about at the very beginning, 3.5 billion years ago? Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be.
Indeed. It is indicative of the whole debate around ID that the debate is carried out in the public arena rather than the halls of science. Books like Meyer's are geared to the general public, not to the scientific community. William Dembski has, additionally, argued that by publishing books instead of articles, he can reach a broader audience. Maybe so, but he circumvents the review process when doing this, thus robbing ID of a much-needed credibility that it desperately needs.

Now playing: Steve Hackett - Firewall
via FoxyTunes


  1. Darwinians won't allow Meyers stuff to go into print. You fail to understand that non-Darwinians have to write books. They have no other choice.

    I just wish you were honest with yourself. Darwinians are a bunch of people who are not interested in science. They are interested in a story that affirms their worldview of naturalism.

    Darwinians have very little desire for the truth when it comes to matters of origin science.

    God Bless...

  2. Meyer did submit an article for a peer-review scientific journal. The problem was that he bypassed the typical review process intentionally and had the journal editor, Richard Sternberg review it himself, despite the fact that Sternberg was not qualified to do so. Of course, the scientists objected. I would have also. I have read the paper. The conclusions do not follow from the research and are not supportable.