Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

[Will]

Firstly, Signature in the Cell is not "stealth theology". His personal path to understanding the origin of life is separate from his Xtian beliefs. He may like many (but not all) IDers conclude that a single God is the best solution for the intelligence & design found in nature. Secondly, the book is not about evolution, but only focuses on the origin of the first cellular life on this planet. It is simple laziness, busyness, bigotry or prejudice that so many bright folk will not even consider the many problems with the standard model of cellular origins.

mudra - the Je Rinpoche remarks were part of some comments or maybe a summary of the Guhyasamaja Tantra. I will try to find it - think Wayman translated it, many years ago.

[Malcolm]

but also intrigued by your interpretation of Je Tsongkhapa stating that humans are just devolved gods. Is there a citation, and in what context?

This is not Tsongkhapa's idea. It is sourced from the Pali Canon, in the Digha Nikāya.

[Malcolm]

Firstly, Signature in the Cell is not "stealth theology".

Yes, it is:

“Those who believe in a transcendent God may, therefore, find support for their belief from the biological evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design”

-- Signature in the Cell

[Will]

but also intrigued by your interpretation of Je Tsongkhapa stating that humans are just devolved gods. Is there a citation, and in what context?

This is not Tsongkhapa's idea. It is sourced from the Pali Canon, in the Digha Nikāya.

Then that would be the Agganna Sutta.

[Will]

Firstly, Signature in the Cell is not "stealth theology".

Yes, it is:

“Those who believe in a transcendent God may, therefore, find support for their belief from the biological evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design”

-- Signature in the Cell

There is nothing hidden or stealthy about this quotation; nor is it "theology". Your unwarrented assumption led by your prejudice against theism makes you think that the main purpose of the book is to ruin the splendid, "objective" science of origins this day. That assumption & prejudice will not die until you read the book. I find the book to be fair-minded. How does the saying go, "one man's view informed by knowledge is worth ten thousand ignorant opinions."

I am not a theist and never will be, nor do I see the flaws in cellular origins' theory that Meyer points out, as vitiated by his religion. It saddens me to see a well-studied Buddhist like you be so closed-minded. How many times have you seen important ideas of the Dharma rejected, without thought, because they were repulsive to modernity and worst of all, came from the Buddhist religion.

[Paul]

Firstly, Signature in the Cell is not "stealth theology".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Malcolm]

Your unwarrented assumption led by your prejudice against theism makes you think that the main purpose of the book is to ruin the splendid, "objective" science of origins this day.

I don't assume Meyers is out to ruin science.

He wrote the book, clearly to reconcile cellular evolution with theism.

And that, from a Buddhist point of view, is unacceptable. Karma and evolution get along just fine, however.

N

[Will]

"Namdrol: He wrote the book, clearly to reconcile cellular evolution with theism.

Dr Tommyrot has opened my eyes. Neither Meyers, not Dawkins, not Namdrol really exist. I have never seen any of them. As the brilliant insight of "infinite regress" makes clear, thanks to Dr Tommyrot (and the phantom Namdrol) - who designed Namrol's designer? & who designed that designer? etcetera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MroKs9EQC6g

[gnegirl]

"Namdrol: He wrote the book, clearly to reconcile cellular evolution with theism.

Dr Tommyrot has opened my eyes. Neither Meyers, not Dawkins, not Namdrol really exist. I have never seen any of them. As the brilliant insight of "infinite regress" makes clear, thanks to Dr Tommyrot (and the phantom Namdrol) - who designed Namrol's designer? & who designed that designer? etcetera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MroKs9EQC6g

Oh come on, everyone knows this one,

its Turtles All the Way Down!!

[Will]

For those whose prejudice against ID prevents them from reading Meyer's entire book, I would suggest studying only chapters 15-20 + the Epilogue and the notes. That is about 150 pages.

These chapters are more general in content and easier than the difficult science chapters preceding.

[Malcolm]

For those whose prejudice against ID prevents them from reading Meyer's entire book, I would suggest studying only chapters 15-20 + the Epilogue and the notes. That is about 150 pages.

These chapters are more general in content and easier than the difficult science chapters preceding.

"Although other flaws are less serious in and of
themselves, they are still indicative of the level of
argumentation in the book, as well as of the quality
of its peer review. For example, it was in chapter
three that I first arrived at what I now call a “Behe
moment” when reading antievolutionary literature.
In Michael Behe’s book Edge of Evolution, he makes
a few obvious “rookie errors” when discussing how
probabilities work in population genetics.34 This,
for me, was the clear signal that the book was written
by an amateur in the field and not adequately peer
reviewed. In Signature, this moment arrived when
Meyer calls Pnemonococci a bacterium and a virus
in the same paragraph.35 This impression was confirmed
anew when Meyer describes, over the course
of several pages, his epiphany that DNA bases do
not have bonds between them and thus cannot selforganize
into specified sequences. This “epiphany”
is something that biology majors learn (or at least,
should learn) in their introductory courses. This
theme continued apace in the figure describing translation.
36 Signature shows tRNAs aligning to the
mRNA in a 5' to 5' orientation, tRNAs with codon
instead of anticodon sequences, and several inappropriate
nucleotide pairings: all very basic mistakes.
In short, Signature clearly was not written or peer
reviewed by individuals with a working knowledge
of molecular biology.
Now, these issues in and of themselves would not
be a serious problem for Signature, if not for the fact
that the strength of Meyer’s argument rests entirely
on his assertion that he has made a thorough search
through all proposed mechanisms for generating
biological information through natural means and
found them lacking. Meyer is asking his audience to
trust him that his analysis is thorough and sound.
However, that Meyer’s understanding of molecular
biology appears to be at or below a first-year college
level should give even the most pro-ID reader pause
here. It means that Meyer, well intentioned though
he may be, is simply not equipped to grapple with
these issues beyond an introductory textbook level.
Nor has Meyer sought the advice of those who are
able to do so. And as we have seen, Meyer has made
neither a thorough search for the origin of biological
information by natural mechanisms, nor a fair
assessment of current origin-of-life research.
...

While popular-level books written by nonspecialists
can be very helpful to a lay audience if they are
carefully reviewed by experts and adhere to consensus
science, Signature is not such a book. Like Edge of
Evolution before it, Signature in the Cell represents
a layman’s attempt to overturn an entire field of
research based on a surface-level understanding (and,
at times, significant misunderstanding or ignorance)
of the relevant science, published in a form that by-
passes review by qualified peers, and that is mar-
keted directly to a nonspecialist audience. This is
not good science, nor science in any meaningful
sense. If ID is going to advance as an intellectual
framework, it simply must do better. I, for one,
would be fascinated by a scientifically plausible
design argument. It would demonstrate that some-
thing is fundamentally wrong with the interpreta-
tion of very wide swaths of data across numerous
disciplines. That would not be a scientific problem,
but rather a monumental scientific opportunity that
would reshape research for decades to come. Such
times are the occasions of scientific legend—careers
to be made, Nobel prizes to be won. Alas, Signature is
not that argument. I do recommend it for those who
follow the ID literature, for it represents the current
state-of- the-art in ID thought for an important area
of biology. However, for those of us waiting for the
science behind ID, it looks as if the wait goes on.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF12-10Venema.pdf

In other words, Will, this book is like all the other ID writing out there i.e. unscientific.

N

[Enochian]

For those whose prejudice against ID.....

Judge Jones:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... t#Decision

[Enochian]

Award winnning PBS documentary on Intelligent Design:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2613200911

[Will]

In other words, Namdrol, this book is like all the other ID writing out there; unread by you because of unwarrented assumptions & prejudice.

As for the Judge's & PBS rulings - that is no more definitive against Meyers version of ID, than Pope Whatever's bull against Galileo.

Is there no one here with the gonads (thus including ladies) to read the frigging book or at least those final chapters I suggested? If not, chalk up another victory for modern Victorianism or laziness or PC or moral cowardice or Buddha knows what....

[Malcolm]

In other words, Namdrol, this book is like all the other ID writing out there; unread by you because of unwarrented assumptions & prejudice.

As for the Judge's & PBS rulings - that is no more definitive against Meyers version of ID, than Pope Whatever's bull against Galileo.

Is there no one here with the gonads (thus including ladies) to read the frigging book or at least those final chapters I suggested? If not, chalk up another victory for modern Victorianism or laziness or PC or moral cowardice or Buddha knows what....

"Like Edge of Evolution before it, Signature in the Cell represents a layman’s attempt to overturn an entire field of research based on a surface-level understanding (and, at times, significant misunderstanding or ignorance) of the relevant science..."

[Josef]

In other words, Namdrol, this book is like all the other ID writing out there; unread by you because of unwarrented assumptions & prejudice.

As for the Judge's & PBS rulings - that is no more definitive against Meyers version of ID, than Pope Whatever's bull against Galileo.

Is there no one here with the gonads (thus including ladies) to read the frigging book or at least those final chapters I suggested? If not, chalk up another victory for modern Victorianism or laziness or PC or moral cowardice or Buddha knows what....

Why would we read it?
Its a book on ID, this is a Buddhist forum. It makes sense that the Buddhists here wouldn't he interested in an American Christian cloak and dagger attempt to teach their irrational world view on the taxpayers dime. ID is nothing more than an attempt to bypass a fundamental principle of the American political system.
What is confusing is why you care so much about the topic.

[Will]

Nangwa: Why would we read it?
Its a book on ID, this is a Buddhist forum. It makes sense that the Buddhists here wouldn't he interested in an American Christian cloak and dagger attempt to teach their irrational world view on the taxpayers dime. ID is nothing more than an attempt to bypass a fundamental principle of the American political system.
What is confusing is why you care so much about the topic.

Because your assumptions regarding Meyer's book about cloak & dagger etc. are wrong. The practice of buddhadharma removes much of our ignorance, but not all. If we are afraid or so self-satisfied or ??? to question our assumptions, then ignorance will remain, which is not good.

The topic is of interest, but of far more interest and importance is the eagerness (of truth loving Buddhists?!) to foster a witch hunt against an unpopular idea and its proponents.

Hostility based on ignorance is pretty close to the worst sort of karma. Shape up folks - beware of "monsters from the id" (Forbidden Planet flic)

[Josef]

Nangwa: Why would we read it?
Its a book on ID, this is a Buddhist forum. It makes sense that the Buddhists here wouldn't he interested in an American Christian cloak and dagger attempt to teach their irrational world view on the taxpayers dime. ID is nothing more than an attempt to bypass a fundamental principle of the American political system.
What is confusing is why you care so much about the topic.

Because your assumptions regarding Meyer's book about cloak & dagger etc. are wrong. The practice of buddhadharma removes much of our ignorance, but not all. If we are afraid or so self-satisfied or ??? to question our assumptions, then ignorance will remain, which is not good.

The topic is of interest, but of far more interest and importance is the eagerness (of truth loving Buddhists?!) to foster a witch hunt against an unpopular idea and its proponents.

Hostility based on ignorance is pretty close to the worst sort of karma. Shape up folks - beware of "monsters from the id" (Forbidden Planet flic)

I disagree.
ID is "stealth theism", and a tool of political agenda. Nothing more.
Buddhadharma does remove all our ignorance and obscurations.
You're making assumptions about the fears of others.
The topic isn't really very interesting at all.
I don't see any evidence of a "witch hunt".
I don't see any hostility either. Just someone who for some weird reason wants folks on a Buddhist forum to read a book about ID. Which is weird and seems like agenda pushing.
ID is ignorance and wrong view. Wrong view leads to actions that accumulate negative karma. Its also completely tied up in the eight worldly concerns.
You're mixing things up pretty badly in your arguments.

[Will]

Nangwa: wants folks on a Buddhist forum to read a book about ID

To be correct, "wants folks on the Book Review section of a Buddhist forum to read this book about ID, before trashing it"; that is the main thing.

[Malcolm]

The practice of buddhadharma removes much of our ignorance, but not all.

It removes all. Otherwise, there is no point in practicing Buddhadharma.