Signature in the Cell

I attended a lecture in which Dr Stephen Meyer talked about his recent book, "Signature in the Cell - DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".   He is an excellent speaker - not only was he able to get his point across clearly, he was also interesting, funny, and witty; which particularly came out during the Facing the Tough Questions section of the event.

By using Inference to the Best Explanation or Multiple Competing Hypotheses methodologies of scientific reasoning, Dr Meyer was able to show that Intelligence was the best selection for the cause of the information in DNA and solution to the "DNA Enigma".   And, the "DNA Enigma" (i.e. where digital code comes from) is closely associated with the mystery of the origin of life.

Using methodologies to infer Intelligent Design (ID) that even Darwin himself used, shows that ID falls into the realm of science; for typically, the demarcation between science and philosophy is determined by the methodology. And today, we see that ID is becoming accepted more in the scientific community, and can gain momentum through continued testable cases resulting in matches with reality.  

In contrast, Naturalism is being disproved with new technologies.   Darwin was not able to explain the origin of the first life, at the root of his biological evolution tree of life; and the later theories from chemical evolution no longer withstand what we now know about the complexities of the cell.  The chemical evolution theories that the cell could be randomly formed from a few chemical reactions can no longer hold true, for we are now able to see that the cell is not just a simple homogeneous globule of plasma.  The complex structures of DNA in the protein molecule and the functions of the amino acids defy the probability that such complexity could happen by chance within the time that the universe has been in existence, which is the combinatorial problem.  Even with the pre-biotic natural selection hypotheses, there are problems, mainly with the fact that natural selection requires reproduction, which is predicated upon DNA; and self-organization scenarios have the problem that the information in the DNA is not determined by the chemical bonding, but appears to come from an outside intelligent source.

Many of the opponents of ID are confusing the EVIDENCE for ID with the IMPLICATIONS of ID.   Also, the argument for ID is not from "ignorance", in that we are not saying the ID is the solution simply because we elimate all others   ( NP =/=> E; ID ==> E; therefore ID; the second step is the one missed by those who say ID is an argument from ignorance).  And, ID also does not say that ALL complexity is explained by ID; but that for those which have CSI  (complex specified information) like protein molecules, ID is the best explanation.