Examining "Signature in the Cell"

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

In fairness, whether it’s justified or not, supporting ID is an unforgivable offense in biology. That’s why they come from outside the field most often. Those within biology have to be much more chaste.

@vjtorley

It’s been years now but what I remember of Signature in the Cell was just another lame “It’s too complex to have happened naturally so it must have been an intelligent designer”.

By the way, a friend of mine is a leading comparative anatomist (known for her research and textbook on vertebrate anatomy) and she multiplied my examples of basic science errors in Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt book a hundred-fold.

Go easy on Stephen Meyer, OK? First, as you yourself point out, he’s a philosopher. Second, if you’ve read his Signature in the Cell , then you’ll realize that he makes a serious effort to cover all bases in developing his argument that life couldn’t have evolved without intelligent guidance. He looks at all of the naturalistic hypotheses in the literature, and takes great pains to rebut them. Third, if he makes scientific mistakes in his book, they’re not his fault: they’re the fault of the scientists who reviewed his book before it was published. As he writes on page 613:

I agree that @AllenWitmerMiller was too dismissive.

Just a question @vjtorley, at what point does he need to bear responsibility for ignoring scientific corrections from scientists outside his circle?

@vjtorley

Several of these people are bona fide scientists, including biologists. Some of them have had articles published in scientific journals. It is they, and not Meyer, who should be held responsible for any scientific errors in Meyer’s book.

Does Meyer bear any responsibility for not engaging fair minded scientists like myself?

I would strongly contrast his work from, for example, yours @vjtorley. You are engage people who disagree with you all the time, and are open to hearing what science shows us from points of view different than yours. That is part of why you and I got a long so well, even when you were solidly in ID. If you, as a philosopher, can do that, why can’t Meyer?

@vjtorley

If a scientist of the stature of Dr. Richard Smalley could be convinced that Intelligent Design was scientifically viable, then why are you castigating Meyer for propagating the same view?

Let me pull in a key point about this from another thread, keeping in mind my high respect for Smalley as a chemist, and that he is a chemist, not a biologist:

@swamidass

Scientific thinking is exasperatingly domain-specific. Even Nobel Prize winners can fall prey to pseudoscience in fields outside their area of expertise.

We do not need to conclude that ID is pseudoscience to take ahold of this fact. Smalley was a phenomenal chemist, but that does not transfer over to biology, evolution, and population genetics.

Speaking as an interdisciplinary scientist that has made received contributions in several fields, those that successfully cross boundaries:

1. Maintain very high respect for the expertise of those in other domains, and never claim out field of training trumps the field we are trying to influence.
2. Are very cautious about picking fights, and only choose battles where we can solidly win.
3. Work very hard to find ally’s in the field, who can advocate “from within” for a paradigm shifting idea.
4. Are very very quick to admit mistakes and retract, because as an outsider we are working from a deficit, and trust is the most important commodity in regard to influence.

Let me point out that I am not a population geneticist. I am often introduced as one (over my protest), but I am not. I am a mere computational biologist. Yet my largest contributions, right now, to the theology-science conversation are in population genetics. That is only possible because I’m intently fixating on rules like these. Such an approach is difficult, and requires a great deal of humility, but can also dramatically improve our understanding of science.

If we play by the rules, there are major advances to be made. Science does make errors, but those errors are correctable if we play by the rules, and do the hard work to make our case, and are willing to recognize when we are in error, not science.

These are also the rules that Meyer’s flouts, as do most ID advocates. It is not surprising that they have far more enemies than friends.