Product Description
One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin revolutionized biology, but did he refute intelligent design (ID)? In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer argues that he did not. Much confusion surrounds the theory of intelligent design. Frequently misrepresented by the media, politicians, and local school boards, intelligent design can be defended on purely scientific grounds in accordance with the same rigorous methods that apply to every proposed origin-of-life theory. Signature in the Cell is the first book to make a comprehensive case for intelligent design based upon DNA. Meyer embarks on an odyssey of discovery as he investigates current evolutionary theories and the evidence that ultimately led him to affirm intelligent design. Clearly defining what ID is and is not, Meyer shows that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or "giving up on science," but instead upon our growing scientific knowledge of the information stored in the cell. A leading proponent of intelligent design in the scientific community, Meyer presents a compelling case that will generate heated debate, command attention, and find new adherents from leading scientists around the world.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.5 based on 86 reviews)

Oh please.... by rockville_reader

1 Stars
November 20, 2009
These reviews illustrate a cardinal rule of using Amazon's reviews: check out the reviewers to determine if they have a bias. In this case, you will find that most of these five-star reviewers make it their business to give five stars to intelligent design screeds. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also tend to be climate-change deniers as well as evolution deniers. But one thing they are not is adherents of the scientific method. I regret that I cannot give this book minus stars -- for disinformation.

Searching For The Truth by Bill (Kingwood, Texas United States)

5 Stars
November 18, 2009
"Signature in the Cell" is a very powerful book written by Dr. Stephen Meyer. He searches for truth. His basic goal is to walk the high road and simply review the origin of life mystery using the science of biology with assistance from probability mathematics. His book also reviews the history of Darwin's work addressing natural selection, along with gene mutation unknown by Darwin before his death (Neo-Darwinism). Neo-Darwinism is now considered as fact by a number of scientists/academians and has now been extrapolated by some to explain the understanding of how life originated and evolved into all species, including the human species with an immaterial intellect. Darwinian theory for a number of biologists explains all biological life through an evolved, undirected process via. space, time, and chance. Meyer notes at the beginning of the book how natural selection starts after cell replication, but points out it doesn't provide an explanation for solving the origin of life mystery. Meyer identifies this mystery at the beginning. He notes that "evolutionary theory could not explain the origin of the first life because it could not explain the origin of the genetic information in DNA". As a result, he weaves through how the DNA works in building proteins, the information stored (specified information) in the DNA, the history of design, and clues to causes. Then, he eliminates chance as an answer for determining the origin of genetic information in the DNA to build a minimal cell, as well as elimination of self-organization and RNA world hypotheses for solving the origin of life mystery. Then, Meyer explains that the informational arrangement of bases in the DNA is a language to construct proteins and is best explained by intelligence, not chance, self organization or RNA hypotheses. He compares the intelligence theory with other origin of life theories. As a result of this comparsion, he argues that the intelligence theory provides "inference to the best explanation" (IBE) above all other origin of life theories. This is how Darwin argued for the superiority of his theory of natural selection over other theories. The IBE for intelligence is powerful, as it shows that only immaterial intelligence can properly arrange the genetic information to construct the proteins for developing the first cell. It will be interesting to see if anyone can develop a better IBE. I believe Meyer has put together an IBE for the origin of life that threatens the foundations of biological science as we know it today. Meyer then discusses the definition of science and how it is made into a moving target to satisfy the Darwinian establishment in court and academian settings for eliminating other theories such as intelligence. Actually it is amusing to see how this works. To think the Dover trial was settled by using the term "methodological naturalism" to place a science definitional barrier between immaterial information and materialism. How convenient, yet amusing. Darwinist are simply playing games and not searching for truth, which for me as an engineer is puzzling. Meyer completes his book by showing the explanatory power that the theory of intelligent design exposes. For example, he explains that junk DNA is not really junk. He states: "The discovery in recent years that nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions has confirmed this prediction." The intelligent design theory opens up a completely new area of research not provided by Darwinists. In summary, the "Signature of the Cell" and the information it provides, calls for biologists to explore a new scientific area, rather than just the "old" Darwin area, which explains little or truly nothing about the mystery of life. I placed a written note on the last page of the book that reads: "It seems after reading this book that Intelligent Design theory looks much more sophisticated and complex than Darwin's. In fact Darwinism looks antique and behind the times." Meyer has written a book that is ground breaking and will be around for some time to come as foundational. Those interested in the Darwinism vs. Intelligence debate should definitely read this book; and if they do not believe immaterial Intelligence can be used in science, refute the IBE provided by Meyer. I really doubt if anyone can, because I believe it is "Truth".

Misleading, false by Annika C. Olsson (Sunnyvale, CA)

1 Stars
November 17, 2009
As I had read the many positive reviews, I purchased the book out of curiosity. However, although entertaining at times, it is does not contain any proofs, controversy, nor science. I don't argue against these types of books, but don't call them scientific as they would not pass the basic of scientific testing, nor peer reviews. US is the developed country in the world that has the most citizens not beleiving in evolution, so I can see that there is a market for these kind of snake oil books. But this is about beliefs, not facts. Don't call it anything else.

DNA is not (just) a chemical by John P. Rickert

4 Stars
November 07, 2009
The key message of this book, I think, can be put in the following way. Meyer does not put it this way himself, and if you disagree with me, you might not disagree with him. The message is: DNA is not a chemical, and therefore not just a chemical. DNA is composed of chemicals, certainly: A, C, T, G, and the rest, which do have well-defined chemical structures. For example, think of water, H2 O: two hydrogen atoms, one oxygen, and a very definite arrangement of them. But DNA is not a chemical in this sense, even though it is composed of chemicals. There is no "chemical formula" for DNA, and that is a reason why DNA has a flexibility to carry information far greater than the invariable structure of a water molecule. When we look at the information content in a DNA molecule, we can first conclude that the information is not there as if by necessity. For example, the chemical structure of salt naturally makes it capable of forming crystals. The crystalline structure of salt is a direct consequence of the structure of salt. But the informational content of DNA and RNA is not like this, because the actual arrangement of the components is variable. Again, DNA is not a chemical the way water is a chemical; it doesn't have a fixed formula, and information is conveyed in what is variable. To borrow Meyer's example: the letters of the alphabet have fixed forms, but the spelling of words is not a necessary consequence of the properties of the letters. The same holds for A, C, T, G in regard to DNA. Further, we can see that the informational content of DNA is so high that, relative to comparable molecules, i.e., ones of similar length and constituent building blocks, DNA is an extremely remote outlier. So remote that, using standard statistical methods and tests, we can conclude that DNA is not part of the population of molecules that would arise simply by chance. The best explanation for this information, Meyer argues, is intelligence. Intelligence -is- capable of organizing and producing information, so at least it should make the lineup for consideration as an explanation; Meyer proceeds to examine and screen out the other possible explanations. By thus screening out, intelligence remains the only real possibility, or at least, the best, to explain the information seen in DNA, RNA, and proteins. One could also add a highly pertinent observation from Etienne Gilson: Even if design is not accepted -as- an explanation, it is nevertheless a -fact- that needs explanation. (Cf. "From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.") A few comments on particular chapters: In ch. 11-14, Meyer discusses alternative theories to Intelligent Design. He relates how difficult it has been to come up with a self-replicating molecule. This is only part of the problem, and a fairly minor one at that, as far as the theory of evolution is concerned: If evolution were true, we would need not only a molecule that can self-replicate but also one that can undergo mutations and still self-replicate in mutated form. (And be capable of still further mutations itself.). This is a much greater problem than asking for self-replication alone. In ch. 14, Meyer discusses "the RNA world" approach, and his criticisms of this approach all seem sound. I do think, however, that he should have put in a word or two about retroviruses. I don't think his arguments falter on account of this, but it would be good to discuss them for the sake of completeness. In ch. 16, Meyer discusses his argument relative to Dembski's Explanatory Filter. I do not think this helps his argument: Anyone who accepts Dembski's Filter accepts the concept of intelligent design along with it. I would be hard pressed to imagine anyone saying, "Well, now that you put it that way, Dr. Meyer, I have to agree with you" due to appealing to Dembski's approach. On the good side, Meyer shows that his basic argument, an argument to best explanation, is compatible with Dembski's approach, and not dependent on it. In this chapter, Meyer also makes a number of good, strong points to address the issue of "junk DNA," which is sometimes put forward as an argument against Intelligent Design. Yet, I think he could also make a more direct response: even if "junk DNA" really were junk and nothing more, this would not explain why the DNA of known usefulness has the high degree of structure and information that it has. If someone were walking in a city and saw a pile of rubble, the remains of a demolished skyscraper, he could say, "What a pile of junk," but this would do nothing to explain the skyscrapers standing around it. If I see an elaborate, baroque painting surrounded by a wall that is so plain it seems to need no explanation, even so, I still need an explanation for the painting. Why 4 stars instead of 5? Three reasons: 1. I found the book too long-winded. Some things could be said in a shorter, more incisive way. Most readers will probably need a lot of perseverence to make it all the way through the book, and I hope that they do not flag in their reading before they get the whole outline of the argument. 2. Although his argument does not rely on Dembski's Filter, I come away with considerable uncertainty as to whether Meyer regards Dembski's filter as a test or as a criterion. I am inclined, with some reservations, to allow Dembski as a test, but certainly not as a criterion: there are manifestly things that are designed that do not exhibit "specified complexity" in the sense of the Filter. 3. In the early chapters, Meyer seems to be a little too concerned with his own place in the development of this approach. One could simply note that many very prominent theories that are now accepted met with considerable resistance at first and leave it at that. I am not saying that Meyer lacks modesty in his comments, even in those pertaining to himself, but instead that some of what he worries about in the initial chapters is not worth worrying about at all. A real scientist, or anyone really seeking the truth, should not worry about his reputation. Trying to find the truth, and live up to it, gives us more than enough to fill our attention.

A reference book for intelligent design by J. Friel (Furlong, PA USA)

5 Stars
November 04, 2009
In making his case for intelligent design, Dr. Meyer separates ID from the various arguments that try to confound it with creationism, and evolutionism, while not denying the theory of evolution and its processes. I am not an expert in biochemistry, but my knowledge of molecular biology was greatly increased after reading several of the chapters in this book. If you already know molecular biology, you can just skip them. The author goes to great length, literally, to derive ID theory and establish it as a better explanation for the origin of genetic information than competing theories. He also refutes many arguments that are commonly offered against it. This should be a reference book for the theory of intelligent design.

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

	Darwin's Dilemma Starring: Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe Directed By: Lad Allen
	Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity by Dr Donald E. Johnson (Author) The author once believed anyone not accepting the “proven” evolutionary scenario that was ingrained during his science education was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat earth. With continued scientific investigation, paying closer attention to actual data (rather than speculative conclusions), he began to doubt the natural explanations that had been so ingrained in a number of key areas including the origin and fine-tuning of mass and energy, the origin of life with its...
	The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World by William Dembski (Author) Theodicy attempts to resolve how a good God and evil world can coexist. The neo-atheist view in this debate has dominated recent bestseller lists through books like The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), God Is Not Great (Christopher Hitchens), and The End of Faith (Samuel Harris). And their popularity illuminates a changing mental environment wherein people are asking harder questions about divine goodness. Surprisingly, these books please intelligent design champion William Dembski, because...
	The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin by Benjamin Wiker (Author) In "The Darwin Myth", author Benjamin Wiker offers a critical analysis of Darwin's theories as well as the social, scientific, and religious implications of his work, leading us to the inevitable truth about Darwin's powerful - yet ultimately poisonous - legacy. Scientists often challenge conventional wisdom and spark debates that last for generations. But no scientist has fuelled more debate than Charles Darwin. To some he is the revolutionary 'father' of evolution. To others he is the...
	Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design by Bradley Monton (Author) The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though Monton is an atheist, he is of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. The goal of this book is to try to get people to take intelligent design seriously. Monton maintains that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public...