Examining "Signature in the Cell"

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@vjtorley

In any case, you misconstrue the argument of Signature in the Cell . The basic argument was simple enough for anyone to understand:

(1) All living things rely on a genetic code: a set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins.

(2) Neither law-governed processes, nor stochastic processes, nor any combination of the two, have ever been shown to be capable of producing a code of any sort. (What’s more, there are solid mathematical grounds for believing that there would not be enough time in the long history of the cosmos for chance to come up with a code.)

(3) Intelligence, on the other hand, is known to be capable of producing codes: we do it all the time, using our human intelligence.

(4) Therefore intelligent design should be regarded as the default explanation for the origin of living things - at least, until some other explanation, which has been demonstrated to be viable, is forthcoming.

@vjtorley, if that was all his argument was, no one would have a problem with it, and it would not require so many pages. The irony is that the basic premise of Signature in the Cell is correct: we just do not know how the first cell arose. It takes special talent to take such a concise and self-evident fact and turn it into a controversial book.

The problem with Signature in the Cell is all the argumentation placed alongside this fact. In particular, the effort to insist that this was real “SCIENCE” not just science-engaged philosophy. That cross the line: The Rules of the Game, and especially in the wake of the Dover Trial and the Kansas Board is hard not to read as an unwise overreach.