Hey calm down, it's just a book

Geez, you throw these guys an olive branch -- I'll even read Robert Wright, but why don't you read Steve Meyer? -- and they have all sorts of excuses.

AnAtheist.Net attempts to extent the bizarre argument that if scientists present their theoretical proposal in a long book that seeks to reach a broader readership, we ought not read it. Does publishing a book mean that an argument is false, or not likely to be true? Gimme a break.

In addition, AAN, just so you know, the arguments in this book have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Darwin on Trial and anti-evolutionism. Meyer does not take issue with change through time or the common descent of organisms.He simply focuses on one issue: whether non-directed processes are adequate to explain the origin of the biological information in DNA.

Sorceror says the book is not reviewed well by people that Sorceror considers trustworthy. Well it is reviewed by people I consider trustworthy. Here is a review by Thomas Nagel, one of the most eminent philosophers in the world today (and an atheist).He chose Meyer's Signature in the Cell as one of his two choices for 'books of the year' in the Times Literary Supplement:

"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."

Sorceror then snips: "If I get it, it will very definitely be used." Er, okay. You know if you're gonna be so grumpy about it you don't have to buy the book at all. There's this neat place called the "library" that lends books to people. It's really neat. They also stock Beverley Clearly and E.B. White if that's more your speed.

Person goes ballistic and says of Meyer: "His idiotic anti-science pro-magic book is highly regarded by who? Certainly not any real scientists."

(Note to Person: be sure to wipe your chin as you type. Drool on your keyboard can really mess up your computer.) 

Wow, what irrational antagonism! What are individuals like 'Person' so afraid of? Is it true that no scientists find merit in the argument? The only thing that statement can boast is a most eminent claim on being falsifiable. Here is one of the many reviews of the books from a scientist.

"In this engaging narrative, Meyer demonstrates what I as a chemist have long suspected: undirected chemical processes cannot produce the exquisite complexity of the living cell. Meyer also shows something else: there is compelling positive evidence for intelligent design in the digital code stored in the cell's DNA. A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science."

- Dr. Philip S. Skell, National Academy of Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, emeritus

So after the dust has settled, I hope the open-minded among you will go out and read Meyer's book. And remember, if you don't want to give Meyer any royalties, there is the library.