BioLogos Reviews "Signature in the Cell"

Signature

Reviewer Darrel Falk:

"I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

No."

Read the review here.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pm and is filed under Cell, Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

30 Responses to “BioLogos Reviews "Signature in the Cell"”

Mung Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 12:36 am
It is important to emphasize, however, that the Intelligent Design movement is not purported to be philosophical or religious in nature.

ID most definitely *IS* philosophical in nature.

On the negative side, it's a denial of philosophical naturalism. On the affirmative side, it's a broadlay Aristotelian philosophy, perhaps even Cartesian. For example, some Christians reject ID because they perceive it to accept as a given the mechanical philosophy.

Comment by Mung — December 29, 2009 @ 12:36 am

Bradford Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I think the reviewer misses many of Meyer's better points but that is what we are here for- to go where no OOLer has gone before. I was disappointed by the tendency to argue from authority. Sure Joyce and Szostak are distinguished but you do not need to harp on credentials when the data speaks for itself. Too much emphasis is placed on promissory notes but what the heck it's the rage in America today. From the President on down it's about someday in the future.

Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2009 @ 1:04 am

Mung Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 3:41 am
More from the review:

Meyer suggests that the two different conditions for making two of the key building blocks that characterize an RNA molecule are incompatible (p. 303). In other words, the conditions under which one building block could have been synthesized on the early earth would have resulted in the destruction of the second building block, and vice versa. Since there is no way that both could have been produced simultaneously on a primitive earth, Meyer declares that RNA could not arise without the input of a mind. As he was writing these words, however, some elegant experiments were taking place at the University of Manchester that showed there is a way, a very feasible way that both building blocks could have been produced through natural processes.

ok, let's see about that. From his link:

Given that we have at least an outline of potential pathways leading to the nucleobases, sugars and phosphate, the next logical step would be to properly connect these components. This step, however, is the one that has caused the most intense frustration in prebiotic chemistry research for the past several decades.

This spring—to the field’s great excitement—John Sutherland and his co-workers at the University of Manchester in England announced that they found a much more plausible way that nucleotides could have formed, which also sidesteps the issue of ribose’s instability. These creative chemists abandoned the tradition of attempting to make nucleotides by joining a nucleobase, sugar and phosphate.

A complex web of reactions—with phosphate acting as a crucial catalyst at several steps along the way—produced a small molecule called 2-aminooxazole, which can be viewed as a fragment of a sugar joined to a piece of a nucleobase.

lol. Followed by a lot of handwaving, and voila, problem solved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth&page=3

Meyer, you've misled us all!

Comment by Mung — December 29, 2009 @ 3:41 am

ID guy Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
The Tracy/ Lincoln paper shows us that it takes quite a bit of intervention just to get an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing one bond.

The SciAm article Falk references doesn't help- unless speculation and imagination have taken the place of scientific data.

Dr Sutherland et al., were directly involved with the synthesis of those nucleotides- IOW without their help there wouldn't have been a "succesful" result.

IOW as I said in another post that should be evidence as to how the designer(s) could have done it.

Comment by ID guy — December 29, 2009 @ 11:15 am

chunkdz Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
ID Guy: Dr Sutherland et al., were directly involved with the synthesis of those nucleotides- IOW without their help there wouldn't have been a "succesful" result.

Actually, I believe the Sutherland experiment tried to replicate plausible prebiotic conditions on Earth. The solution was to accomplish one part of the process in one primordial puddle of a certain chemical composition, then after some intermediate steps of vaporization and condensation, complete the process in another primordial puddle of a complementary chemical composition. Possible? Yes, but the Rube Goldberg machine just got way wackier. All to produce a single nucleotide.

Comment by chunkdz — December 29, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Bilbo Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
My comment to Darrel Falk was:

Darrel,

You, as other RNA -world proponents, fail to mention that all the prebiotic experiments are carried out with purefied chemicals, in very carefully sequenced reactions…something that never would have happened in pre-biotic conditions. The agnostic chemist Robert Shapiro has said this over and over ad nauseam, apparently to no avail.

So continue to believe in the RNA-world. But it is a religious faith that carries you on, not a scientific one.

Comment by Bilbo — December 29, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Mung Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
But it is a religious faith that carries you on, not a scientific one.

Please, let's stop lifting their beliefs to the level of religious faith. It's not faith, it's irrational wishful thinking.

Comment by Mung — December 29, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

ID guy Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
chunkdz,

Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry

IOW what they "tried" to do and what they did are not one in the same.

But what they did is a start, of something….

Comment by ID guy — December 29, 2009 @ 10:46 pm

ID guy Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Bilbo,

They "need" the RNA world because the DNA-first scenario has already been dismissed…

Comment by ID guy — December 29, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
ID Guy: IOW what they "tried" to do and what they did are not one in the same.

You have to remember that in origins research we are not looking for what actually happened. We are simply looking for possible pathways. With that said, all the conditions set up by Sutherland (isolated enantomeres, pH, temperature, no contaminants, and the tightly regulated sequencing of vaporization, hydration etc are all within the realm of "possible" given plausible prebiotic conditions.

Is it likely that this happened in the wild? Laughable.

It's a game of Mousetrap. The wildest Rube-Goldberg machine you ever saw. A fun game to play, but couldn't actually catch a mouse even if you played it for a billion years non-stop.

Comment by chunkdz — December 29, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

ID guy Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:05 am
chunkdz,

Did you read what I linked to?

As far as being relevant to OOL, the chemistry has all of the usual problems. The starting materials are "plausibly" obtainable by abiotic means, but need to be kept isolated from one another until the right step, as Sutherland admits. One of the starting materials is a single mirror image for which there is no plausible way to get it that way abiotically. Then Sutherland ran these reactions as any organic chemist would, with pure materials under carefully controlled conditions. In general, he purified the desired products after each step, and adjusted the conditions (pH, temperature, etc.) to maximum advantage along the way. Not at all what one would expect from a lagoon of organic soup. He recognized that making of a lot of biologically problematic side products was inevitable, but found that UV light applied at the right time and for the right duration could destroy much (?) of the junk without too much damage to the desired material. Meaning, of course, that without great care little of the desired chemistry would plausibly occur. But it is more than enough for true believers in OOL to rejoice over, and, predictably, to way overstate in the press.

IOW the only way those conditions are "possible" is if a chemist is there making it so.

Comment by ID guy — December 30, 2009 @ 9:05 am

chunkdz Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
ID Guy? Did you read what I linked to?

Yes.

IOW the only way those conditions are "possible" is if a chemist is there making it so.

What part of the scenario is "impossible"?

It is not "impossible" that a mouse could be caught with Milton Bradley's Mousetrap. It would, however, be incredibly dumb to buy Milton Bradley's Mousetrap to control an infestation in your home. I think that's the message of the article in a nutshell.

Comment by chunkdz — December 30, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

Bilbo Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hi ID Guy,

I thought I posted here, thanking you for that great link to the Discovery Institute's response to Sutherland's work. Must not have gone through. I posted it at Biologos, also.

Comment by Bilbo — December 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Falk clarifies his remarks, tells everyone to calm down, and reiterates the idea over and over that Meyer says Origin of Life science is at a dead end.

http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-cell-a-letter-to-our-readers/

Those who have read the book, do you agree that Meyer has declared OOL science to be "bankrupt" or "at a dead end"?

Comment by chunkdz — December 30, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

Bradford Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
chunkdz: Those who have read the book, do you agree that Meyer has declared OOL science to be "bankrupt" or "at a dead end"?

I have not yet finished the book but have gotten far enough to say that Meyer believes DNA properties indicate positive evidence for ID and that he does not think undirected natural forces will ever lead to generation of a cell. Yet I have not read that he believes OOL research should not take place. He is taking a reasoned approach by saying in effect "don't tell me what you believe, show me convincing data instead."

Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

Lutepisc Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Those who have read the book, do you agree that Meyer has declared OOL science to be "bankrupt" or "at a dead end"?

Good point, chunkdz. I noticed this, too, in Falk's review and in the subsequent comments.

I recall Meyer saying that an intelligent cause was an "inference to the best explanation" for the source of the information in DNA. He proposed this as a provisional explanation, to be rejected if something more persuasive could be established.

I haven't finished reading Signature, and I can't recall where I heard him say that. But I, too, thought it was a mischaracterization to say that Meyer thinks we should "call a halt" to OOL investigations. Instead, I thought he was proposing that ID is the explanation to defeat because of its superior explanatory power at the moment.

Comment by Lutepisc — December 30, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Here are a few quotes from Falk.

He has reached the conclusion that the sciences of biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics have come to a dead end…

Meyer declares that RNA could not arise without the input of a mind…

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.

Dr. Meyer says with near certainty that the science has now reached a dead end and since there is nothing else left, he says, the only other possibility is that there is a mind behind the code of life.

Dr. Meyer makes a simple proposition. Is he right or is he wrong? It is my opinion that he has been so engagingly clear, everyone with a four year degree in biology should be able to see that there is no dead end.

Does anybody have the quote that Falk is referring to? Falk repeatedly refers to this proposition of Meyer's, but he hasn't yet quoted Meyer.

Comment by chunkdz — December 30, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

ID guy Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
chunkdz:
What part of the scenario is "impossible"?

Nothing in the scenario is "impossible" if a skilled chemist is there guiding everything.

However:

One of the starting materials is a single mirror image for which there is no plausible way to get it that way abiotically.

Seems to be a kink in the chain.

Purifying the chemicals, adjusting the UV at the correct times- neither of those seems plausible without agency involvement.

As for the board game Mouse Trap actually trapping a mouse- impossible.

The trap just isn't heavy enough to keep the mouse there. The trap can be easily chewed through to allow the mouse to escape.

Perhaps it could trap a baby mouse just out of the womb, but that would be about it.

Comment by ID guy — December 31, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

ID guy Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
chunkdz:
Those who have read the book, do you agree that Meyer has declared OOL science to be "bankrupt" or "at a dead end"?

I would think that like Behe he would want the research to continue as that is the only way to refute the claim of a non-telic OoL.

IOW the more we know, via research, the more the design inference is confirmed.

But I have not finished the book either.

Comment by ID guy — December 31, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

Bradford Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
chunkdz: Does anybody have the quote that Falk is referring to? Falk repeatedly refers to this proposition of Meyer's, but he hasn't yet quoted Meyer.

Falk is superimposing his own requirements for a determination of design on Meyer. In doing so he is imputing a straw man position to Meyer. Namely, you must exhaust all natural possibilities before intelligent input can be a legitimate inference and Meyer tacitly thinks that has been done. But obviously anyone with four years of biology under their belt… yada, yada, yada.

Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
ID Guy: As for the board game Mouse Trap actually trapping a mouse- impossible.

The trap just isn't heavy enough to keep the mouse there. The trap can be easily chewed through to allow the mouse to escape.

Perhaps it could trap a baby mouse just out of the womb, but that would be about it.

I can imagine a scenario with a mouse who suffers from both dwarfism and chronic fatigue syndrome, as well as poor dental health, who just happens to take a nap under the basket when the trap is sprung, and who dies shortly thereafter of a heart attack.

Ta-Da! It's a real mousetrap!

You see, OOL researchers aren't interested in whether their mousetrap is reasonable or not. Even the wildest, craziest, whackiest scenario will get published if it is even within the realm of fantastic plausibility.

I personally don't have a problem with wild whacky scenarios. Given the paucity of evidence I'm willing to entertain quite a bit of imagination.

Comment by chunkdz — December 31, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Bradford: "Too much emphasis is placed on promissory notes…"

It strikes me as ironic that self-appointed-defenders-of-science, like Falk, are never shy or reluctant of using of promissory materialism or naturalism to argue for their cause. But this puts them in a very odd and peculiar position of claiming to know something that is unknown before anyone, including even them, knows it. How is it possible for Falk to have this kind of apriori knowledge? Is he somewhere in his family tree related to Nostradamus?

I would argue that it is Falk’s thinking, rather than Meyer’s, that is more of a danger to the advancement of science. It leads to blind faith and a dogmatic philosophical view of science. However, that is scientism not science.

Karl Popper who coined the term “promissory materialism” advocated a philosophy of science that is objectively critical and skeptical. In my view that is exactly approach that Meyer is taking. That is something that any true defender of science would (and should) welcome with open arms.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 31, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

chunkdz Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
ID Guy: Purifying the chemicals, adjusting the UV at the correct times- neither of those seems plausible without agency involvement.

Not true. A supernova in close proximity would be able to effect an excess of homochiral molecules, and if the pond were covered with water lillies, a steady oscillating wind pattern would act as a UV adjustment as the lillies were blown back and forth over the surface of the pond.

See? Perfectly plausible as these are all well known natural phenomena.

Comment by chunkdz — December 31, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

Jean Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The Biologos site is a crock. I made a comment on their moderation policy since they are allowing John Quack to post ad hominem after ad hominem. But it seems I can't post there anymore.

Comment by Jean — December 31, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

Bradford Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
JAD: It strikes me as ironic that self-appointed-defenders-of-science, like Falk, are never shy or reluctant of using of promissory materialism or naturalism to argue for their cause. But this puts them in a very odd and peculiar position of claiming to know something that is unknown before anyone, including even them, knows it. How is it possible for Falk to have this kind of apriori knowledge? Is he somewhere in his family tree related to Nostradamus?

Thanks for that brilliant, funny (and not boring) analysis JAD.

I would argue that it is Falk’s thinking, rather than Meyer’s, that is more of a danger to the advancement of science. It leads to blind faith and a dogmatic philosophical view of science. However, that is scientism not science.

Exactly. The Falks of the world impose a political correctness on science which makes alternative considerations of mainstream positions verboten even when such positions lack empirical credibility.

Karl Popper who coined the term “promissory materialism” advocated a philosophy of science that is objectively critical and skeptical. In my view that is exactly approach that Meyer is taking. That is something that any true defender of science would (and should) welcome with open arms.

I examined more of Meyer's book last night specifically looking for statements which could be construed by the likes of Falk as anti-science and did not find them. I'm open to listening to any citations of the same by critics.

Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

Bradford Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Jean:

The Biologos site is a crock. I made a comment on their moderation policy since they are allowing John Quack to post ad hominem after ad hominem. But it seems I can't post there anymore.

It's that famed censorship anti-IDists are known for. They eliminate critical opposition. How boring of them.

Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

Mung Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Those who have read the book, do you agree that Meyer has declared OOL science to be "bankrupt" or "at a dead end"?

Nope. But I'm not at the end of the book yet

Comment by Mung — December 31, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Bilbo Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I wasn't able to post there anymore, either. Maybe we're banned. Or maybe they've shut down comments altogether.

Comment by Bilbo — December 31, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

Mung Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
A supernova in close proximity would be able to effect an excess of homochiral molecules…

But a supernova could function as a mousetrap, so that's proof it's not designed.

Comment by Mung — December 31, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

ID guy Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
chunkdz,

Yes unfortunately imagination has replaced evidence in scientific endeavors…

Comment by ID guy — December 31, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

BioLogos Reviews "Signature in the Cell"

30 Responses to “BioLogos Reviews "Signature in the Cell"”

Featured Books