This Masterpiece is Stephen Meyer's follow up to the acclaimed book 'Signature in the Cell'. Meyer's central thesis is that, due to the indisputably short time frame for the Cambrian explosion (a blink of the eye in the earth's history), only intelligence is capable of producing such innovation. It doesn't appeal to evolutionary stories about how it must've been possible because it happened (the universe doesn't have the probabilistic resources to support such a view - as he shows). He uses a legitimate mode of scientific reasoning used in the historical sciences - reasoning from multiple competing hypothesis - he makes an inference to the best explanation. In our every day experience it is only intelligence that has the ability to produce large scale structural innovation. In fact he shows that it is highly improbable and therefore physically impossible that a random process could've produced what took place in the Cambrian explosion.
Dr Meyer's goal is evidently to ensure that readers can grasp the science and significance of what he is saying. I loved the chapters dealing with the probabilities of random mutation producing macroevolutionary changes, dGRN's and how that highlights the difficulty of macroevolutionary changes occurring, the difference between mere order (in Chemistry & Physics) and specified complexity in Biology and lastly his walking us through how Intelligent Design is easily reconciled as a true Scientific Theory (despite the subjective & unprovable a priori assumption of materialists who would have us believe otherwise).
This book has my highest recommendation! It cuts through all the nonsense materialists want us to uncritically gobble up.
5/5
Additional thoughts (Borrowed Heavily from Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell & The Design Revolution)
Why ID is not an argument from ignorance:
- First, the definition of an argument from ignorance: Arguments from ignorance occur when evidence against a proposition is offered as the sole (and conclusive) grounds for accepting some alternative proposition.
- The (total) inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only PART of the argument for intelligent design.
- We also know from our everyday and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information rich systems: we have POSITIVE and EXPERIENCE-BASED knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to produce new specified information, namely, intelligence.
- Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer - based on our KNOWLEDGE of established cause-and-effect relationships - that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.
- for the preceding reasons, the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an inference to the best explanation based upon our available knowledge.
- It no more constitutes an argument from ignorance than any other well-grounded inference in geology, archaeology, or paleontology—where present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships guides the inferences that scientists make about the causes of events in the past.
To put this into a formal argument (which as formulated - according to how ID is inferred - does not constitute an argument from ignorance):
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell and the explosion of biological innovation present in the Cambrian explosion.
The only reason to reject this inference is due to a philosophical bias that accepts
only materialistic explanations - which is an unprovable world view.
Also, to say ID must provide a mechanism is simply untrue. The innovation that comes from intelligence does not reduce a mechanistic process - because innovation defies a mechanistic explanation by its very nature. Where as Neo-Darwinism proceeds from a mechanistic theory, hence its burden of proof to provide a mechanistic explanation for the Cambrian explosion and the origin of the first life. Which it has proven incapable of providing thus far - there are no detailed, testable models for how known material mechanisms can generate biological complexity - only a variety of wishful speculations.
Issues with the RNA-World Hypothesis:
With regard to the RNA-World hypothesis, here are some real difficulties facing the theory:
- RNA building blocks are hard to synthesise and easy to destroy.
- Ribosomes are a poor substitute for proteins.
- An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible.
- As noted by Les, the RNA-World still doesn't explain the origin of genetic information.
This is just an overview that highlights some of the big issues. This is why the RNA-World is not considered a slam dunk explanation of the origin of life.
Really, the origin of life is just one "Big Bang" infusion of information. There is also the Cambrian explosion and human consciousness which both currently defy plausible explanation.
Random thoughts on Neo-Darwinism:
Well there's really nothing convincing to say about Neo--Darwinism - if it didn't have the emotional implications that it has it surely would've gone to the wayside by now. The emotional element to this theory is why we should use critical thinking skills when analysing it. Sure scientists do little experiments that affirm what we already know the power of evolution to be - quite modest and they write theoretical books of course that postulate various evolutionary scenarios that don't congrue with the data.
Neo-Darwinian reasoning-->
Neo-Darwinian: "[insert either of two contradictory scenarios
/ modest example of evolution / hypothetical extrapolation from modest example of evolution (and use technical yet ambiguous language); here] proves Neo-Darwinian evolution!"
Critic: "No it does not *for such and such an evidential reason*".
**the debate continues in same course for a time**
Neo-Darwinian: *backtracks / takes the contradictory position as default / appeals to hypothetical future discoveries*.
Critic: *calls them out on the additional nonsense*.
Neo-Darwinian:*calls opponent a creationist who doesn't understand science / incorrectly asserts that there's no evidence for ID / mischaracterises ID by using a fallacy of some sort / rants about their own philosophical understanding of what makes something scientific and why they must be wrong (in a metaphysical sense - not in any way that appeals to evidence - of course)*.
Critic: *le sigh*.
Fin.
