This fall Meyer came out with a full account of what science has learned in recent decades: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009) shows that the cell is incredibly complex and the code that directs its functions wonderfully designed. His argument undercuts macroevolution, the theory that one kind of animal over time evolves into a very different kind. Meyer thus garners media scorn for raining on this year's huge celebration of the birth of Charles Darwin 200 years ago and the publication of On the Origin of Species 150 years ago.

Meyer says, "You ask how someone gets the moxie to take something like this on. Part of the answer is that I didn't know any better when I was young. I was just so seized with this idea and these questions: 'Was it possible to develop a scientific case? Were we looking at evidence that could revive and resuscitate the classical argument from design, which had been understood from the time of Hume and certainly the time of Darwin to be defunct?' If that was the case, that's a major scientific revolution."
Courage becomes a determinant once we count the cost and see that it's great. Meyer's first inkling came when "talking about my ideas to people at Cambridge High Table settings, and getting that sudden social pall." But the cost was and is more than conversational ease: San Francisco State University in 1992 expelled a professor, Dean Kenyon, who espoused ID, and other job losses have come since. Meyer and other ID proponents saw "that this would be very controversial. One of the things that emboldened all of us who were in the early days of this movement was meeting each other. In 1993 we had a little private conference [with] 10 or 12 very sharp, mostly younger scientists going through top-of-the-world programs in their respective fields who were all skeptical. I think the congealing of this group gave everyone the sense that this was going to be an exciting adventure: Let's rumble."

Many who enter the courage stage at first think that the war in which they find themselves will end in a few years. There comes a time in many lives, though, when a hard realization sinks in: It will not be over in my lifetime. That's when some give in while others proceed to the perseverance stage. That's where Meyer is: Signature in the Cell ends with a long list of testable predictions concerning the direction of science over the next several decades. Meyer predicts that further study will reveal the importance of "junk DNA" and the reasons for what seem to be "poorly designed" structures: They will reveal either a hidden functional logic or evidence of decay from originally good designs.

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Pro-Darwin consensus doesn't rule out intelligent design
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Stephen Meyer says there are scientific reasons to doubt consensus about Darwin's theory

Meyer: Fossil record challenges idea that organisms evolved from a single ancestor

Meyer: There is compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design

While we officially celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, celebrations of Darwin's legacy have actually been building in intensity for several years. Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly, he is a cultural icon.
Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature.
And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree "the development of life was guided by intelligent design." Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.
We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate. But does it ever happen that a seemingly broad consensus of scientific expertise turns out to be wrong, generated by an ideologically motivated stampeding of opinion?
Read the rest here.

In the middle ages, Moses Maimonides debated heavily with Islamic philosophers over the Aristotlean interpretation of the universe. By looking at the stars and seeing their irregular pattern in the heavens, he concluded that only design could have generated the star arrangements he observed (1). In the process he ruled out necessity and the Epicurean ideology of chance. Centuries later Isaac Newton similarly opted for design as the best explanation for the origins of our solar system. Writing in his General Scholium for example Newton left us with no doubt over where his focus lay:

“This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being” (2).

I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.

The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

The Tavis Smiley Show
Windows Media
Audio MP3

Dr. Meyer explains intelligent design to host Tavis Smiley and discusses how evolution should be taught in schools.

Debate With Peter Ward on The Dori Monson Show (KIRO)
Audio MP3

Dr. Meyer lays out the case for intelligent design in this 50-minute debate with University of Washington professor Peter Ward.

Debate With Peter Ward at Talk of the Times (TVW)
TVW

The rematch, a debate with Meyer and Ward addressing each other’s arguments for intelligent design and evolution (or not, respectively). Reporters and columnists especially should listen to this, as a real debate by scientists on the science of Darwinian evolution is almost as rare as life in the universe.

Debate With Michael Ruse on Ben Wattenberg’s Think Tank (PBS)
Think Tank Part 1
Think Tank Part 2

Ben Wattenberg moderates this matchup with Darwinist Michael Ruse, who was also featured in the movie Expelled. This debate gets into the philosophical implications of design and Darwinism and the distinctions between the scientific evidence and the implications for both theories.

Debate with Michael Shermer on Faith Under Fire
Dr. Stephen Meyer on Faith Under Fire

Dr. Meyer addresses Michael Shermer’s objections to intelligent design, including “Who designed the designer?” Also features their discussion on the existence of design in nature.

The Michael Medved Show
Audio MP3

Dr. Meyer discusses the information revolution and the challenge it presents for Darwinism with Michael Medved, expounding the argument for intelligent design from information.

The Jan Mickelson Show
Audio MP3

Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins anticipated the title of Dr. Meyer’s new book, as Meyer discusses with host Jan Mickelson.

Stephen Meyer and Signature in the Cell on CBN News
watch video here

Video of CNS interview with Dr. Meyer about Signature in the Cell
watch video here

The Science of Intelligent Design
Watermark conference, April 2009

The Science of Intelligent Design

Dr. Meyer explains how the positive case for intelligent design is based on scientific reasoning.

DNA Enigma: Where Did the Information Come From?
Watermark conference, April 2009

DNA Enigma: Where Did The Information Come From?

Dr. Meyer explains the importance of the mystery of where the information in DNA came from.

DNA Enigma: Where Did the Information Come From?
Watermark conference, April 2009

How Dr. Meyer Became Interested in the DNA Enigma

Dr. Meyer shares the story of how he became involved in the argument for design in the origin of life.

Levei um susto ao ser informado que Thomas Nagel, filósofo respeitado e influente, tenha escolhido o livro criacionista Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design, de Stephen C. Meyer, como um dos melhores livros do ano. O livro é repleto de especulação religiosa contrária ao evolucionismo e (como acontece com os outros livros desse gênero) sequer é mencionado na literatura científica relevante.

Fui procurar mais informações e descobri que Nagel tem defendido recentemente ("Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy & Public Affairs 2008) que o criacionismo não é pseudociência, mas má ciência. E como toda má ciência ainda é um tipo de ciência, argumenta Nagel, as decisões jurídicas de proibir o ensino do criacionismo são incorretas. Eu discordo deste argumento. Como qualquer pessoa que se deu ao trabalho de discutir calmamente com um criacionista sabe, as hipóteses criacionistas são imunes ao processo normal de justificação crítica e argumentada e, portanto, não podem ser consideradas como ciência.

O argumento de Nagel a favor do ensino do criacionismo não me convenceu e sua a escolha do livro criacionista me deixou surpreso. Mas o que me deixou ainda mais surpreso foi a reação fanática de alguns ateus, como Brian Leiter, frente a escolha de Nagel. A reação extremada de Leiter e outros é uma clara tentativa de silenciar Thomas Nagel, o que é inaceitável. Nagel tem o direito de defender o que bem entender, incluindo o criacionismo, por mais infundado que este seja.

Fiquei com a impressão de que Leiter é daqueles ateus militantes que assumem o evolucionismo como uma espécie de hino de guerra aos religiosos, pressupondo erradamente, como os próprios criacionistas, que o evolucionismo e o ateísmo são indissociáveis. A defesa fanática do ensino do criacionismo é uma opção tão prejudicial quanto a defesa fanática do evolucionismo. E ambas contribuem para uma vulgarização extremada do debate público entre criacionistas e evolucionistas, impossibilitando qualquer discussão que não seja pura propaganda ideológica.

http://blog.criticanarede.com/2010/03/o-direito-de-defender-o-criacionismo.html

Ateu defende ensino criacionista e livro de Meyer

O proeminente ateu Thomas Nagel, filósofo respeitado e influente, laureado com o prêmio Schock na categoria Filosofia e Lógica, escolheu Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design, de Stephen C. Meyer, como um dos melhores livros de 2009. De quebra, ele ainda defendeu recentemente ("Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy & Public Affairs 2008) que o criacionismo não é pseudociência, é um tipo de ciência e não deve ser proibido. Pra variar, a reação dos ateus militantes foi de puro fanatismo. Foi o caso de Brian Leiter e sua clara tentativa de silenciar Nagel.

(Colaboração: Ronaldo Ewerton)

Nota: Ainda não entendi o que as editoras brasileiras estão esperando para traduzir e publicar o livro de Meyer. Parece que deram as mãos ao ateísmo militante de Richard Dawkins et al, pois é só ele escrever algo novo que já sai por aqui.[MB]