Excerpt:
In [a] new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne), my colleague Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, reminds us of the failure of every avenue by which science has tried to explain the origin of the genetic information required for the first life. Explanations depending on unguided material processes alone usually founder on a chicken-or-the-egg paradox: notably, that "specified information in DNA codes for proteins, but specific proteins are necessary to transcribe and translate the information on the DNA molecule."
DNA acts like a computer code, or like a language consisting of letters and words, arranged in specific sequences to accomplish a specific task or convey a specific meaning. As Dr. Meyer observes, the only kind of source we know of that can produce a "functionally integrated information-processing system" like that in the cell is an intelligent source.
As a Jew, I find it intriguing, at the very least, that Jewish tradition anticipated precisely the kind of evidence that Meyer deals with in his book. DNA refers to the letters of a genetic "alphabet" that in the correct combinations encode the diversity of all life forms. Kabbala too speaks of such an alphabet, comprised of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, with which God continually speaks the world into existence.
Different combinations of letters produce different creatures. A century and a half before Watson and Crick, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi sought to make Kabbala accessible to ordinary readers. In the Tanya (1796), he writes of how "the creatures are divided into categories [both] general and particular by changes in the combinations, substitutions and transpositions [of the letters]."
Read the rest at the JPost.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mystic design -
The discussion has even moved onto an evaluation about which mystic numerology is correct. Of course we could try to expand it to give some pointers to the Discovery Institute on how best to misrepresent this numerology as science.
See, it's numbery.
So it must be science.
And really, is Kaballah any worse than Dembski's empiricism-free mathematical nonsense?
But you know, it's the bad science in evolution (which David doesn't actually comprehend) about which David is concerned. Why can't we just do science with Kaballah?
Madonna's a scientist, you know.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Gen Davidson on intelligent design: "See, it's numbery."
I think you meant "mummery."
One of the most refreshing aspects of the Intelligent Design revolution is that it so openly addresses the origin of life. On the other hand, Darwin cultists avoid any origin of life discussion like the plague. I find that very telling.
For the record, I give Dr. Meyer’s new book 5 out of 5 stars. It’s a breathtaking piece of literature which delivers more science in its first chapter than what can be found in the entire contents of the pseudoscientist P.Z. Myers’ blog. Dr. Meyer has taken biology out of the darkness and into the light by linking it to modern information science. On the other hand, we have Darwinists trying to keep science in the Victorian era of the mid-19th century, a time when biologist’s ignorance made Darwin’s now-absurd ideas seem somewhat plausible.
Now that I’ve given it further thought, I take back my original rating of 5 stars. For helping save science from the deceptive and dangerous hands of anti-science Darwinists, I shall reward Meyer with an extra star. Signature in the Cell is now rated 6 stars out of 5. What a masterpiece!
"reminds us of the failure of every avenue by which science has tried to explain the origin of the genetic information required for the first life"
so far. Research continues. Meyer claims that such research will always fail. Forever. We don't know yet and we never will know. After all, "chance" could never build a protein of length 150. Or else "chance" would have to build something simpler and then build on that. But that possibility is not discussed.
There is no argument against "evolution" here. The entire argument is that an "intelligent cause" created the first life about 3 billion years ago (since "chance" is ruled out). This is unrelated to any religion. But it's still not science. It's just hand-waving.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.