Home » current events, science

In a Thing So Small

By (September 1, 2009) 11 Comments

signaturecellSignature in the Cell

Stephen Meyer
HarperOne, 2009

“Inquiry into final causes is sterile,” Francis Bacon wrote, “and, like a virgin consecrated to God, produces nothing.” And yet mankind continues to make such inquiries, either out of insatiable scientific curiosity or in the belief that, in ways perhaps inhospitable to expression, virgins consecrated to God do, in fact, produce something fruitful.

Certainly in our own day such inquiries are made with apostolic fervor, both by those who adhere to science and by those who follow faith – and by that segment of every population, quieter than the first two and by far more numerous, who believe it’s possible to live in both mindsets simultaneously. These are the great and rancorous ‘God Debates’ of our beleaguered modern moment, with battle-ready contestants on both sides, writers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Behe, and Kenneth Miller squaring off on TV screen and town hall stage to wrestle with eschatological questions as old as Abraham. The fool sayeth in his heart ‘there is no God’ – the wise man, apparently, sayeth it on Larry King Live.

Into this supercharged atmosphere Cambridge-educated chemist and scientific historian Stephen Meyer puts forth his own case in his new book Signature in the Cell. In its calmly-reasoned 400 pages (with an extra 100 tightly-packed endnotes), Meyer constructs the strongest argument yet made for the theory of Intelligent Design, and he does it without once advocating any living God.

He’s trained in some very abstruse and technical matters (despite his best efforts – and this is a very readable book – there are portions of Signature in the Cell that will only really be clear to other scientists), but he consistently makes his points and analogies as simple as those Charles Darwin used 150 years ago in The Origin of Species. And of course the closer analogy is to Meyer’s fellow Cambridge-alum William Paley (1743-1805), whose Natural Theology gave us the celebrated illustration of a man crossing a heath who finds a watch and considers it no strain on his common sense to imagine from that watch a watchmaker. Meyer has in some ways updated Paley for the 21st century, writing, “a computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer or programmer.”

But Meyer is not simply Paley gone techno – he’s not calling mankind the pinnacle of creation (as Bertrand Russell tartly observed, that would hardly be a pinnacle to brag about), and he’s not calling anybody to Sunday services. He keeps his case well clear of church, synagogue, or mosque and centers it in the laboratory where it belongs.

It’s a struggle just to get there, as he acknowledges two-thirds of the way through his mild-mannered bombshell of a book. In a classic example of turnabout being fair play, he takes the 4,000-year primacy of faith-based ontology and casts it as the persecuted underdog, and it’s hard not to nod in sympathy. When scientists encounter something like the famous Rosetta Stone, they automatically infer a cadre of scribes doing the intricate trilingual carving. When paleontologists uncover caches of chipped flints at dig sites, they automatically assume they’re looking at the handiwork of early hominid hunters. When NASA trains its massive SETI antennae toward the heavens, they presuppose that “any specified information imbedded in electromagnetic signals coming from space would indicate and intelligent source.” Meyer’s point here is one of congruence: in all cases (concerning both the known – archeological items we have to hand – and the unknown – as yet unreceived signals from another world), intelligence and intent can be known from its handiworks. And yet, when it comes to the question of life itself, even expressing a similar thought about an intelligent purpose is enough to get you mocked, sidelined, or fired. If you’re really unlucky, it might get you a visit from Christopher Hitchens.

Information is the key to all of these cases, and it’s central to Meyer’s contentions about Intelligent Design, a concept he defines as “the deliberate choice of a conscious, intelligent agent or person to affect a particular outcome, end, or objective.” Years ago, Richard Dawkins characterized our increasing knowledge of DNA as “the final, killing blow to the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material,” but Meyer tackles this and other cautions head-on (his serial dismantling of Dawkins throughout the book is conducted with a very satisfyingly mandarin delicacy). Unlike many other proponents of Intelligent Design, Meyer isn’t afraid of the newly-revealed intricacies of DNA: he welcomes them.

His key assertion is both mathematical and intuitive – namely, that information and uncertainty are inversely related:

By equating information with the reduction of uncertainty, [U.S. mathematician Claude] Shannon’s theory implied a mathematical relationship between information and probability. Specifically, it showed that the amount of information conveyed by an event is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.

Every heavily-loaded, efficiently-coded system of information we know of was intentionally made, not generated by random chance and accrued mutation. All information top-heavy systems have authors, designers. Their handiwork is separated from the rest of the natural world by the simple asymptote of their own complexity, and none more so than DNA:

In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerases, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-binding proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins.

(When Meyer talked with a software engineer at the Institute where he works, the engineer commented on the things he’d observed while trying to create a program that simulates cell organization and growth:

It’s like we are looking at 8.0 or 9.0 versions of design strategies that we have just begun to implement. When I see how the cell processes information, it gives me the eerie feeling that someone else figured this out before we got here.)

Meyer never names that someone else – he’s concerned only with getting the possibility re-admitted to the room it once owned. Signature in the Cell pushes forward no theistic agenda; it merely, boldly, convincingly makes the case that among the many competing theories explaining the rise of life from lifelessness, explaining the mind-boggling complexity of life and the DNA that makes it possible, Intelligent Design is not only a legitimate possibility but – and here Meyers’ book will raise ire – the most likely possibility, from the standpoint both of science and common experience where, as Meyer puts it, “intelligent agents produce, generate, and transmit information all the time.” He elaborates:

Experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source – from a mind or a personal agent. Since intelligence is the only known source of specified information (at least starting from a nonbiological source), the presence of specified information-rich sequences in even the simplest living systems points definitely to the past existence and activity of a designing intelligence.

The information at the heart of this contention is the densely-coded structure of DNA, a sequence so incredibly packed with data that the sequence for even the simple housefly, if written out in its entirety, would fill a shelf of very thick volumes. This staggering amount of information is stored, stacked, organized, and efficiently reproduced by DNA in ways that resemble no other naturally-occurring phenomenon in the world. The question of how such an information-dense system could develop is central to Signature in the Cell, and the question arises no matter the level of biological complexity at which it’s raised:

The simplest extant cell, Mycoplasma gentialium – a tiny bacterium that inhabits the human urinary tract – requires “only” 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions and 562,000 bases of DNA (just under 1,200 base pairs per gene) to assemble those proteins. In minimal-complexity experiments scientists attempt to locate unnecessary genes or proteins in such simple life-forms. Scientists use various experimental techniques to “knock out” certain genes and then examine the effect on the bacterial cell to see if it can survive without the protein products of the disabled genes. Based on minimal-complexity experiments, some scientists speculate (but have not demonstrated) that a simple one-celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes.

Meyer examines various computer programs designed to simulate evolutionary development from the oft-referenced “primordial soup” of billions of years ago – from which all Earth’s life-processes at some point began. Researchers attempting to simulate the development of those life-processes must always pre-load their programs with some ultimate cause to get the ball rolling (science fiction fans will recall that in the Star Trek universe, Captain Picard himself is that cause)(like most things Star Trek, it’s a long story), and all Meyer wants is for this pre-loading to be taken into consideration when evaluating the simulations themselves:

… not only do evolutionary algorithms fail to simulate how undirected mutation and selection produce the information necessary for first life; they actually simulate the opposite. Indeed, computer simulations of the origin of biological information expose limitations in the causal powers of natural selection and mutation that correspond precisely to powers that intelligent agents are known – uniquely – to possess. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – foresight and creativity – are attributes of consciousness and rationality, of purposive intelligence.

The scenario these simulations attempt to create will be vaguely familiar to anyone who’s ever taken a life sciences course. The assumption – based on chemical traces and isotopes in the Earth’s surface-strata – is that the planet millions of years ago held pockets of this “primordial soup” consisting of various amino acids and other protein building-blocks of cellular life, and that some random factor – repeated static discharge from the lightning-storms that then as now bombarded the surface of the globe, for instance – began the whole process of cellular division and replication, began the unique interlocking chains of activity we know as life. The problem with these simulations, as we’ve noted, is something Meyer would like addressed: they don’t work. Or rather, they do work, but the results they get don’t sit up and say “Sir, I exist”:

They have invariably produced nonbiological substances in addition to biological building blocks such as amino acids. Without intelligent intervention, these other substances will react readily with biologically relevant building blocks to form biologically irrelevant compounds – chemically insoluble sludge.

In order to produce the kind of chain-reaction that’s worth studying, the scientist who run these simulations must load in safeguards against the tendency of primordial soup to stay soup, and yet they – and the Cambridge-liberal crowd who know only their talking points – become instantly aggressive if someone like Meyer comes along and suggests that if these intelligent agents feel compelled to take deliberate steps to ensure that life-processes get a better-than-even chance to thrive, perhaps other intelligent agents did the same thing three billion years ago. If the amino acids and ammonia traces in those simulations were studied by an alien race, that race would inevitably conclude – correctly – that the material had been intelligently tampered with. It’s unlikely they’d be called frothing religious fanatics for doing so, but you never know – perhaps there’s an Internet on their world too.

At least one evolutionist realized full well the enormous unlikelihood that random chance could create and sustain that first jump to life. In a 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin wrote:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present … but if (and Oh! What a big if!) we could conceive, in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

A big if indeed, and one that will divide Meyer’s readers like the Red Sea under the staff of Moses. On the one side will be the faithful, who have been dreaming of a book like this one their whole lives, whose dreams have become tortured yearnings in recent years as great braying jackasses travel the lecture circuit calling all religious faith stupid, retrograde medievalism and challenging devoted ministers to atomize their deepest spiritual beliefs in eight-minute intervals under stage lights. In this regard Meyer is certainly the answer to a prayer (or perhaps some less volatile metaphor): he’s better-informed than these opponents, beyond the reach of their boozy jabs and feints, and almost disconcertingly on-focus. In wedding doxology to toxicology, he has devised the perfect metaphysical grammar for our time.

On the other side will be the deriders, the angry crowd of people who take a loud, territorial pride in their own lack of personal religious faith. These people detest the merest touch of anything smacking of organized religion (except its mindless urge to proselytize – they incorporate that aspect very early on and love it dearly). They like such mentions to occur only on Sundays, in church, among the believers, but nowhere else (sadly, it must be admitted that they have this in common with many of the so-called faithful today) – and certainly not in discussions of scientific fact.

It’s important to point out to such potential critics of his book that Meyer scrupulously adheres to this division in his book, which contains not one stray molecule of spiritualism. The author is concerned only with scientific fact – and the limits of some of those facts. His book is full of interviews with biochemists of all religious backgrounds and the lack of religious backgrounds, and they often confess to Meyer that they – we – can’t really be sure how life began on Earth, or how the process of natural selection described by Darwin and generations of evolutionists since could have resulted in what we know DNA is and what we know it does. He interviews others who admit the same thing but contest that regardless, when those origin-questions are finally answered, they’ll have nothing to do with anything being intelligently designed by anybody.

Maybe so, but in the meantime all Meyer is asking in this solidly stunning book is that we consider one additional possibility, the one that appears to be staring us in the face every time we look in a microscope: that the basic processes of life were designed, not stumbled into. The public funds NASA’s ongoing listening for signals of intelligence elsewhere in the universe – signatures coming to us buried in electromagnetic signals. Meyer wants us to look for such signatures not in our stars but in ourselves, and Signature in the Cell is his own data top-heavy impassioned call to do so. That call is scrupulously scientific in its courses, so Meyer might well disapprove, but I myself am no scientist and feel compelled to point out that the poets are all squarely on his side, including Frost:

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall? –
If design govern in a thing so small.

Ignazio de Vega is a native of Trujillo, Peru, and a seminary student in Lima. He is a regular contributor to Open Letters Monthly.


  • Hrafn says:


    1) Meyer is NOT a “Cambridge-educated chemist and scientific historian”. Meyer has an undergraduate qualification (from Whitworth College, NOT Cambridge) in physics and earth sciences (NOT chemistry). His PhD from Cambridge was in Philosophy of Science. After a short stint teaching philosophy at a couple of Christian colleges, he became a full-time ID advocate.

    2) ID’s inflated and unsubstantiated information claims (based upon a fatally informal and unworkable definition of ‘information’), which Meyer regurgitates, have already been demolished by Information Theorists, so repeating these discredited claims adds nothing to his argument.

    3) “‘Signature in the Cell’ pushes forward…” a near-naked ‘God of the Gaps’ argument, making the claim of “no theistic agenda” laughable.

    4) “Researchers attempting to simulate the development of those life-processes must always pre-load their programs with some ultimate cause to get the ball rolling” Thank you for credulously repeating a well-worn (and well-refuted) ID creationist canard.

    5) “Intelligent Design is not only a legitimate possibility but – and here Meyers’ book will raise ire – the most likely possibility, from the standpoint both of science and common experience where, as Meyer puts it, “intelligent agents produce, generate, and transmit information all the time.”” As Meyer presents NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that “intelligent agents” existed at the time that DNA came into existence, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that even if they did exist, that they had the requisite technology, and NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER of how it supposedly happened, this is NOT “a legitimate possibility” and is COMPLETELY IMPLAUSIBLE (lacking a prior commitment to ‘Goddidit’, in which case it becomes trivial: ‘I know God did it, so that God did it is plausible). Yes, such blatant dishonesty ‘raises ire’, as does the full range of Creationist dishonesty (quote mining of evolutionary biologists from Darwin to Gould, cherry-picking and distorting scientific results, perjury in Kitzmiller v Dover, etc, etc). The real question (raised poignantly by Lauri Lebo in ‘The Devil in Dover’) is why Christians aren’t angered by this continual bearing of false witness, this ‘lying for Jesus’?

    It is painfully obvious from this review that de Vega desperately wants to believe Meyer’s thesis, and will entertain no facts, and no legitimate expert opinion (as opposed to the oft misqualified and fringe opinions Meyer cherry-picks from) to the contrary. Such contrary facts and opinion is voluminous — and much of it in fact predates this book, which for the most part simply reworks unsubstantiated and discredited ID claims without acknowledging or addressing the criticism of them.

  • Derek says:

    Hrafn: Well said.

    I have major concern about, not so much the content of this article, but its tone. It is obvious that De Vega is on the side of the creationists, and as such sets up the argument as one of belief versus disbelief. Indeed, he refers to those who regard Darwinian evolution as the best explanation for the existence of life as, “the deriders, the angry crowd of people who take a loud, territorial pride in their own lack of personal religious faith.” This is a fatuous statement. The argument has nothing to do with personal faith or a lack thereof. This has to do with whether ID can stand up to the peer review process (witness the Sternberg debacle), make predictions, provide evidence for its claims, and for the gathering of that evidence to be repeated successfully, ideally by others. This is about science.

    It should also be noted that once a book like Stephen’s gets into the public arena, that is in effect the start of the peer review process, as is the case for any other purportedly scientific article(s) or publication(s). If ID were to be taken seriously within scientific circles, the quality and quantity of evidence needed would have to be of gargantuan proportions in order to be perceived as a legitimate explanatory alternative to evolution. That is simply not the case, and the opinions of one cannot constitute a valid and supported theory to usurp that currently espoused by biologists, who over the last 150 years have perpetually and incrementally added to the increasingly powerful explanatory capabilities of Darwin’s great idea.

  • swiftch says:

    Thank you, Ignazio, for your thorough work. It encuraged me much to get started!

    To Hrafn and Derek’s comments:
    I was looking for a BOOK REVIEW on this page. Helps actually much if the people contributing here have also read the book and write about it. And not about the review of someone else.
    Also, I do not need your personal opinion about ID on this site, especially not, if you are participating in the bashing of something, that you obviously not have fully understood yet. If I was looking for an opinion about ID, I would have googled that instead.

    Still, I would like to ask you a few questions:
    1. Did you read the book at all? (As I understood – Ignazio de Vega did. And he did follow the arguments of the author very closely and has commented them in a way (I have just started with the book) that I feel eager, whether I will be able to agree with him or not. I will see.
    2. If you have read the book – Please specify – with which procedure or discussed model in the book do you not agree with, and why?
    3. And if you dare to discuss Meyer’s qualifications, I assume that you, too, have at least earned a Ph D of Stanford or Cambridge? That would perfectly qualify you to discuss the above book and its carefully researched review.

    To Derek’s missing EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER: The point of ID is that – where ID can be proposed, there WILL REMAIN questions, that – at least today – cannot be answered by modern science. Also, a specification about the HOW and WHY must be denied, since it could not be proven in a way to satisfy scientific standards.
    Please understand that in traditional science (with peer reviews and publications) the accepted methods and criterias are strictly limited. ID suggests an extension of the considered methods – just for the case when a traditional scientific model or view cannot be hardened with satisfying data or evidence. ID cannot be proven within this setting.
    BUT – and that is the point – for certain observations in nature ID CANNOT BE scientifically EXCLUDED, neither.
    Science today only considers models or theories that can be scientifically proven – or qualifies an evidence as not yet understood. And with this threats it as nonexistent.
    Though, some facts or theories might never been proven. And yet they exist.

    My comment on the book will follow as soon as I am done with it.

    Sincerely yours
    Hermann, MD agric. science, ETH Zurich

  • Derek says:

    Hi swiftch. Just for the record, I have a PhD in cell biology from a reputable university and I have been following Stephen Meyer’s work for a while now. Your closing remarks includes the statement that “Science today only considers models or theories that can be scientifically proven”. I sincerely hope this is a typo. Contrary to what you have posted, science deals solely with what can be scientifically disproven.

  • Bogz says:

    What irritates me are people who seem to be so emotionally against ID that they cannot even see any legitimate arguments that ID proponents are making. Cmon people, do you really think that people with double PhDs from significant universities don’t have anything of value to say about issues of utmost importance, issues that they have deeply studied? Let’s be fair here. Let’s not allow politics and ideology to blind us to legitimate scientific discussions.

    The evidence for some Intelligence in the universe seem to be increasing both from the macro world (cosmology) and the micro world (biology). Even Einstein himself was forced by his own theories to conclude that the universe itself was a MIND! He did not want to go the way of classic theism so he came up with this idea that the universe itself is this nonpersonal but rational MIND (an oxymoron to me). TOday the escape of choice is the multiverse which does not have a scrap of empirical evidence! This theory was created simply to dodge the most obvious implication of the available evidence–the GOd hypothesis.

    In biology and studies in abiogenesis the evidence seems to be mounting that Darwinian “dumb luck” (Berlinski’s) cannot explain the massive information contained in the micro world.

    But reductive materialists will have none of this! These people seem to me THEOPHOBIC, even if Meyer and others argue from a scientific case these people go motive-mongering and accuse Meyer as this closet creationist who really just wants to cram down God in the throats of everyone. With this kind of attitude there will be no sane discussion.

    The reviewer of Meyer’s book pointed out specific arguments, if you disagree with the reviewer fine but please give counter arguments to the specific points and not unload all this ad hominem and straw man attacks. It doesn’t help your case at all. In fact, you simply turn off honest seekers who would like to listen fairly to both sides of the debate. You may “win” already convinced materialists with your wrongheaded rants, but not me. You have to do better.

  • Derek says:

    Bogz: I am not emotionally against ID and I am not a theophobic. I just think that the explanations for the beginning of the universe, and the evolution of life within it, when provided by the ID/creationist proponents are rubbish. It is simply unfalsifiable conjecture. Not only is there no evidence to support ID/creationist theories, religious zealotry decrees by fiat a god-centered hypothesis that simply cannot be tested.

    Your quote: “The evidence for some Intelligence in the universe seem to be increasing…”

    Are you sure? From what discipline(s)? It is certainly not provided by Stephen Meyer. His book is basically an overly long and overly complicated homage to Paley’s original exposition about finding a watch; looks designed, ergo there is a designer.

    The other thing that consistently baffles me is that if Stephen Meyer’s claims could in any way be substantiated, he would with this book have single-handedly overturned our view of the biological world and how it works. 150 years of scholarship and study would be usurped by this new and radical idea, he would win countless awards for providing us with a greater approximation of the truth than previously allowed by Darwinism and he would become a house-hold name and probable multi-millionaire overnight. None of that has happened. Now ask yourself why not?

  • Bogz says:

    “religious zealotry decrees by fiat a god-centered hypothesis that simply cannot be tested.”

    Hmmm, can you please do a little research on Einstein’s struggle with the “God hypothesis” that was the direct implication of his own scientific deductions from the observable evidence? Or let me just refer you to a brief summary of the story in Hugh Ross’ book The Creator and the Cosmos, ch. 6 “Einstein’s Challenge” (Ross is an astronomer). Do i hear a bigoted reaction (Yikes, creationist idiot! Rubbish material!)? C’mon dude, you’re a man of science right? Dig into it first before you pontificate on its ‘rubbisheness’. (See also Vincent Cronin’s fascinating book – The View from the Planet, ch. 15 in particular, “Chance or Design”)

    Tim Folger, in the Discover web magazine, summarized the implications of the empirical evidence,”Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.”

    So there you have it–the evidence points to an Intelligent Creator! But if you happen to dislike a Creator, you can always have the multiverse (which doesn’t have any REAL evidence!) So don’t you say to me “Are you sure? From what discipline(s)?” THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR THOSE INTELECTUALLY HONEST ENOUGH TO LOOK FAIRLY AT THE FACTS.

    “rubbish”? Please don’t just repeat truly rubbish and very unscientific cavalier dismisal type of arguments from the infamous “new atheists”. Look at the evidence provided and follow it. I challenge you to not simply be a “company boy” of the new atheists or establishment science. The reviewer of Meyer’s book pointed out specific points, counter them if you must. Waving a magic wand (“all rubish”) will just not do friend. You’ve got to be a little more substantial than that.

    “The other thing that consistently baffles me is that if Stephen Meyer’s claims could in any way be substantiated…”

    Dude, have you ever heard of bigotry, prejudice, dogmatism??? You think this only happens in religious circles? History has many examples (in diverse fields) of human hubris resisting paradigm shifts in thinking and doing not because they were truly impartial and honest to goodness people of integrity but because as humans they commit errors of judgments. Don’t speak too soon Derek, history is still moving. Your rants against ID and creationists or those who believe in classic theism may prove to be the premature jabberings of zealots of a particular kind.

    Cronnin (p308) wrote these words more than 20 years ago, “I mention these matters because it is interesting to find that the life sciences may soon, like cosmology, return to some notion of design.” His words proved prophetic. Nothwithstanding the rants of the new atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et al), the concepts irreducible complexity and specified complexity or simply a directing intelligence (as against Darwinian DUMB LUCK) in the micro world are here to stay. Reductionism must be challeged!

  • Bogz says:

    Correction, “Cronnin (p308) wrote these words more than 30years ago”

  • Truth-Seeker says:


    You said, “science deals solely with what can be scientifically disproven.” Later you talked about ID as proposing an “unfalsifiable conjecture.” These statements suggests to me that you accept Karl Popper’s thesis that a necessary condition of a statement being scientific is that it be falsifiable. My impression, however, is that this is a philosophical statement that’s highly controversial among philosophers of science. Consider, for example, that some thinkers believe that fundamental physical laws (such as those describing gravity or the strong nuclear force) hold as a matter of necessity. If they are correct, then no true statement about those laws holding would be scientific (since they wouldn’t be falsifiable). But surely, these statements would still be scientific even if they happen to be necessarily true. Also, there are deep questions about how to define “falsifiable.” If it’s defined broadly enough so that Darwinian evolution counts as science, then it seems that hypotheses in forensics, archaeology, SETI, and other fields that investigate causal activity of intelligent agents, would count as science, too.

    So, I’m not sure what your support is for thinking that “science deals solely with what can be scientifically disproven.” From what I know, that seems to be false.

  • perplexed says:

    Taken to the limit, the conclusion that complex systems (typified by their information content) can only be created by a designer, must surely lead to the conclusion that the designer, itself complex and information laden, must have been designed as well. And so on. In other words, who designed the designer?

  • aj baaqail says:

    perplexed said ‘who designed the designer’. could you answer my question please!

    ‘what was the starting point from where the evolution begin’?

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.