Book Review: Signature in the Cell (1 of 2)
Signature in the Cell
We can be sure that Jesus is real and the Bible is true because God has left his fingerprints across the cosmos, his signature in our DNA, and his indelible mark on history. These objective markers match well with the God of the Bible and Jesus and not well with atheism, agnosticism, deism, or other religions.
______________________________Signature in the Cell Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer (New York: Harper Collins, 2009, 613 pages)
______________________________ However, Intelligent Design is not really science, according to some sources. It is a “pseudoscience,” a pejorative term for deceptive use of scientific-sounding language. Intelligent Design is, according to its critics, unwarranted, explains nothing, and argues from ignorance. These assertions against including Intelligent Design in the classroom no doubt are familiar to the reader. Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer argues both that Intelligent Design (ID) is as scientific as Darwin’s theory of evolution and further that it answers known issues that scientific theories limited by naturalistic philosophy do not convincingly address.
I feel rather triumphant having finished reading Meyer’s book for two reasons. First, the basic text, excluding notes and appendices, is an intimidating 400 pages long. Second, I have a hard time keeping biological systems in mind. I’ve had the disquieting experience of reading and “understanding” treatises on biological systems and then, a mere 45 minutes later, being unable to explain them in my own words or even to remember the relevant terms and vocabulary. By contrast, with ample and vivid analogies and illustrations, Meyer made clear to me some of these difficult systems in ways that were accessible and memorable. Further, the entire narrative reads less like a dry, objective discourse and more like a personal intellectual quest. With a good deal of humility, the author traces his own investigation into the nature of information and scientific inquiry, the origin of life, and finally the intelligent design theory.
By reading this book, I understood for the first time something about DNA, RNA, proteins, and information theory. I now have, thanks to Meyer, a better understanding of experimental and historical science. And I have a deeper appreciation for Intelligent Design as a scientific movement.
DNA, RNA, proteins
I particularly was happy to develop a rudimentary understanding of the roles of DNA, RNA, and proteins in the production of living tissue. In my admittedly over-simplified perception, DNA is like the blueprint, RNA the construction crew, and protein the building under construction. Further, the proteins are like smart buildings that both operate efficiently and can maintain and monitor themselves. All three (DNA, RNA, and proteins) contain information. Discovering the origin of this information is the quest of the book. The search for the origin of life, the author believes, is the search for the origin of the information in the cell.
Information theory
I also was pleased to learn something about a subject that has mystified me: when a scientist speaks of “information,” just what is meant? I learned from Meyer (who followed Dembski’s insights) that the information in DNA is both complex and specified. Some information, I learned, is not complex if it is compressible. For example, I could write down:
ABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
This is, technically, information, although it is not complex, because it is compressible. It can be compressed into the formula “ABC X 20,”or “write ABC 20 times.” The information in DNA is complex because it is not compressible or redundant. DNA information also is specified; that is, it has a function or purpose. For example, I could write:
qwekasficxkaerskbhibemel;ldjgnmwemf;vb,h;nl,wmnwkzqqsticx,.s,dnkg
This, too, is information. Further, it is non-compressible or redundant information. However, it is not specified in that it has no function comparable to:
Time and tide wait for no man.
This final example is both complex and specified. Its function is to communicate something. As expected, these definitions and perceptions of information have their detractors, which Meyer acknowledges and attempts to answer. Still, whatever quibbling one might indulge about the definitions, the information in DNA is far more complex than a layman like me expected.
Further, DNA does not have a mere physical kind of specificity. That is, its shape does not directly necessitate certain shapes of RNA and proteins. On the contrary, DNA is best understood as a kind of code that needs to be interpreted and implemented by the RNA crew. Meyer uses the analogy of the ASCII code of combinations of 0s and 1s that must be interpreted by computer software to yield the alphabetic and numeric representations we know and love in our word processors.
Integrated complexity
The mind-boggling density of the system of which DNA, RNA, and the proteins are a part demonstrates “integrated complexity,” according to Meyer. On page 132, Meyer presents a figure representing the “functional integration of the prokaryotic information-processing system.” Of the seven components shown, three at the top of the chart were Glycolysis (10 proteins), ATP, and Translation (106 proteins). Even these three components were impressively integrated and interdependent: Translation cannot function without ATP, Glycolysis cannot function without Translation and ATP; and ATP cannot function without Glycolysis. In fact, Translation cannot even function without its own products. The entire system of seven components was impressively interdependent and integrated.
Chicken or egg paradox
The figure exemplifies a chicken-or-egg paradox that repeatedly surfaces in Meyer’s recounting of origin-of-life research. Another example is the DNA-RNA paradox: which came first? Or did proteins come first? The systems as we now know are dizzyingly integrated, so the problem of which came first seems almost intractable. At the same time, the prospect of all three, or their simpler prototypes (if they exist), springing into existence simultaneously through undirected forces is improbable in the extreme.
Experimental and historical science
A particularly fascinating paradigm Meyer examines is the difference between experimental science (which is conducted in the laboratory under controlled conditions and is repeatable) and historical science (which is intended to answer questions like “what happened to the dinosaurs?”). Chemistry and physics are examples of experimental sciences; and geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology are examples of historical science, the science of past causes. Historical science employs abductive reasoning, that is, inference to the best explanation. The method employs creating competing hypotheses and then testing the “explanatory power” of each. Meyer expends several pages describing what “best” means in the context of historical science’s inference to the best explanation.
Once the historical scientist decides on a best explanation or hypothesis, he or she can make predictions, just as an experimental scientist makes predictions. However, the predictions in historical science tend to be about future discoveries. Future evidence might confirm or weaken the hypothesis. Thus, historical science is “falsifiable,” an important characteristic of scientific knowledge.
The second half of this review is schedule to appear next week.
