Signature in the Cell DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Stephen C Meyer FOR ELAINE, ONCE AND FUTURE COMPANION Contents Prologue Chapter DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design Chapter The Evolution of a Mystery and Why It Matters Chapter The Double Helix Chapter Signature in the Cell Chapter The Molecular Labyrinth Chapter The Origin of Science and the Possibility of Design Chapter Of Clues to Causes Chapter Chance Elimination and Pattern Recognition Chapter Ends and Odds Chapter 10 Beyond the Reach of Chance Chapter 11 Self-Organization and Biochemical Predestination Chapter 12 Thinking Outside the Bonds Chapter 13 Chance and Necessity, or the Cat in the Hat Comes Back Chapter 14 The RNA World Chapter 15 The Best Explanation Chapter 16 Another Road to Rome Chapter 17 But Does It Explain? Chapter 18 But Is It Science? Chapter 19 Sauce for the Goose Chapter 20 Why It Matters Epilogue: A Living Science Appendix A: Some Predictions of Intelligent Design Appendix B: Multiverse Cosmology and the Origin of Life Notes Bibliography Searchable Terms Acknowledgments About the Author Praise Credits Copyright About the Publisher Prologue “Dad, that’s you!” my fourteen-year-old son exclaimed as he looked at the newspaper while we stood waiting to check out at the tiny general store His shock at seeing my face in the front section of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, when he just went to look for baseball scores, was no doubt compounded by his awareness of our location.1 The general store on Shaw Island, one of the most remote in the San Juan chain north of Puget Sound, was the only commercial establishment on the island This irony was not lost on my wife, whose raised eyebrow said it all “I thought we were coming here to get away from all of this.” We were But then how was I to know that the local Seattle paper would rerun the previous day’s front-page story from the New York Times about the program of scientists I directed and the controversy surrounding our work?2 The controversy about the origin of life and whether it arose from an undirected material process or from some kind of designing intelligence is not new It goes back in Western civilization at least as far as the ancient Greeks, who produced philosophers representing both schools of thought But the controversy over the contemporary theory of intelligent design (ID) and its implied challenge to orthodox evolutionary theory became big news beginning in 2004 and 2005 And, for better or worse, I found myself right in the middle of it Three events sparked intense media interest in the subject First, in August 2004, a technical journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific periodical After the publication of the article, the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History erupted in internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor—an evolutionary biologist with two earned Ph.D.’s—questioned his editorial judgment and demanded his censure Soon the controversy spilled over into the scientific press as news stories about the article and editor’s decision appeared in Science, Nature, The Scientist, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.3 The media exposure fueled further embarrassment at the Smithsonian, resulting in a second wave of recriminations The editor, Richard Sternberg, lost his office and his access to scientific samples and was later transferred to a hostile supervisor After Sternberg’s case was investigated by the U.S Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog organization, and by the U.S House Committee on Government Reform, a congressional committee, other questionable actions came to light.4 Both investigations found that senior administrators at the museum had interrogated Sternberg’s colleagues about Sternberg’s religious and political beliefs and fomented a misinformation campaign designed to damage his scientific reputation and encourage his resignation.5 Sternberg did not resign his research appointment, but he was eventually demoted As word of his mistreatment spread, the popular press began to run stories about his case Ordinarily, my reaction to such reports might have been to shake my head in dismay and move on to the next story in the news cycle But in this case, I couldn’t As it happened, I was the author of the offending article And some of the reporters interested in Sternberg’s mistreatment were coming to me with questions They wanted to know more about the theory of intelligent design and why it had provoked such alarm among establishment scientists Then in December 2004, two other events generated worldwide interest in the theory of intelligent design First, a renowned British philosopher, Antony Flew, announced that he had repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism, citing, among other factors, evidence of intelligent design in the DNA molecule Flew noted in his announcement that his views about the origin of life bore a striking resemblance to those of “American design theorists.” Again, intelligent design was in the news But what was it? This time I found myself on the BBC debating a prominent evolutionary biologist about the theory Later in the month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced a suit against a school board in the western Pennsylvania town of Dover The school board had just announced its intention to let high school students learn about the theory of intelligent design To this, it proposed to inform students about the existence of a book in the school library—one that made the case for intelligent design in opposition to the standard evolutionary theories presented in the existing biology textbooks When the ACLU announced its own intentions to sue, the national media descended upon the town en masse The press corps covering the story no doubt already knew about the 1925 Scopes “monkey trial” from the fictionalized Spencer Tracy movie Inherit the Wind, if from no other source In Dover they sensed they had the makings of a sequel During 2005, all the major American network and cable news programs ran segments about the theory of intelligent design, the Dover controversy, or both Stories not only appeared in major U.S newspapers, but in papers around the world, from the Times of London, Sekai Nippo (Tokyo), the Times of India, and Der Spiegel to the Jerusalem Post Then in August 2005, just as an end to the media buzz seemed near, a number of political and religious leaders—including figures as diverse as the Dalai Lama, President George W Bush, and the pope—made public statements supportive of either intelligent design or allowing students to learn about the controversy surrounding it When Time magazine followed suit with a cover story about the controversy, our phones started ringing all over again As summer was drawing to an end, my wife and I decided it was time for our family to get away after friends offered us the use of their island cabin But in the two-week period corresponding to our vacation, the New York Times ran its two front-page stories about our program at the Discovery Institute, the Washington Post broke a story about the latest developments in the Sternberg case, and the New York Times editorial page offered criticism of Sternberg in its main staff-written editorial.7 After Sternberg decided to appear on The O’Reilly Factor to tell his side of the story, we knew it was time to head back to Seattle.8 My temporary notoriety provided something my colleagues and I sorely needed—a platform for correcting much of the misinformation circulating about the theory of intelligent design Many news articles and reports confused intelligent design with biblical creationism and its literal reading of the book of Genesis Other articles echoed the talking points of our critics and portrayed our work as either “giving up on science” or a sneaky attempt to circumvent the legal prohibitions against teaching creationism in the public schools that the Supreme Court had enacted in 1987 Yet I knew that the modern theory of intelligent design was not developed as a legal strategy, still less as one to abet creationism Instead, it was first considered in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists—Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen—as a possible explanation for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.9 As I explained repeatedly to reporters and cable-news hosts, the theory of intelligent design is not based on a religious text or document, even if it does have implications that support theistic belief (a point to which I will return in Chapter 20) Instead, intelligent design is an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution Indeed, the theory of intelligent design challenges a specific tenet of contemporary evolutionary theory According to modern neo-Darwinists such as Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, living systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” But, to Dawkins and other contemporary Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory, because wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations can produce the intricate design–like structures in living systems In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without being guided or directed in any way In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause—that is, by the conscious choice of a rational agent—rather than by an undirected process Either life arose as the result of purely undirected processes, or a guiding intelligence played a role Advocates of intelligent design argue for the latter option based on evidence from the natural world The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time or even common ancestry, but it does dispute the Darwinian idea that the cause of all biological change is wholly blind and undirected Even so, the theory is not based on biblical doctrine Intelligent design is an inference from scientific evidence, not a deduction from religious authority Despite the opportunity I had been given in the media to clarify our position, my experiences left me with a sense of unfinished business By 2005, I had devoted nearly twenty years of my life to developing a case for intelligent design based upon the discovery of the information-bearing properties—the digital code—stored in the DNA molecule I had written a series of scientific and philosophical articles developing this idea,10 but these articles were neither particularly accessible nor gathered into one volume Now I repeatedly found myself in the position of having to defend an argument in sound bites that my audience did not know well enough to evaluate How could they? Perhaps the central argument for intelligent design, the one that first induced me to consider the hypothesis, had not been explained adequately to a general, scientifically literate audience Of course, by 2005 many excellent books and articles—including several important peerreviewed books—had already been published on different aspects of the theory of intelligent design In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe made a detailed case for intelligent design based upon the discovery of nanotechnology in cells—such as the now famous bacterial flagellar motor with its thirty-part rotary engine Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box sold over a quarter of a million copies and almost single-handedly put the idea of intelligent design on the cultural and scientific map In 1998, William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher with two Ph.D.’s (including one from the University of Chicago), followed suit by publishing a groundbreaking work on methods of design detection Dembski’s work, The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press, established a scientific method for distinguishing the effects of intelligence from the effects of undirected natural processes His work established rigorous indicators of intelligent design, but did not make any specific argument for intelligent design based on the presence of these indicators in living organisms These were seminal works, but I had become convinced of intelligent design by another route Over the years, I began to develop a related, but largely independent, case for intelligent design Unfortunately I had a penchant for writing long, dense essays in obscure journals and anthologies Even my article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington attracted more attention because of the controversy at the Smithsonian than because of controversy over the argument itself, though there had been more than a bit of that in some scientific circles.11 In any case, when the national media came calling, I simply could not get them to report why I thought DNA pointed to intelligent design Reporters refused to cover the argument in their articles or backgrounders; debate partners scrupulously avoided responding to it, but instead continued to recite their talking points about the dangers of “intelligent design creationism.” Even the judge in the Dover case decided the scientific validity of intelligent design without considering the DNA evidence Though I wasn’t too keen on having federal judges decide the merit of any scientific argument, let alone one that I favored, the Dover trial and its associated media coverage made me aware that I needed to make my argument in a more prominent way Many evolutionary biologists had acknowledged that they could not explain the origin of the first life Leading theories failed in large measure because they could not explain where the mysterious information present in the cell came from So it seemed there were no good counterarguments to the case I wanted to make Yet various avoidance strategies continued to work because the argument did not have sufficient public prominence to force a response Too few people in the public, the scientific community, and the media even knew about it And yet it provided—arguably—one of the most important and fundamental reasons for considering intelligent design None of this was actually too surprising Since World War II, scientists have stressed the importance of publishing their work in specialized peer-reviewed journals, but throughout the history of science “paradigm-shifting” ideas and theories have typically been presented in books, including many that we might now call “trade press” (rather than academic) books There are a couple of reasons for this First, books allow scientists to make sustained and comprehensive arguments for synthetic new ideas As the Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera has shown, scientists often argue about competing interpretations of the evidence.12 Although this is sometimes done successfully in short articles—as Einstein did in making his case for special and general relativity and Watson and Crick did in their nine-hundred-word article proposing a double helix structure for DNA—books have often been the go-to genre for presenting and evaluating new arguments for synthetic interpretations of a relevant body of evidence Perhaps, the best-known example of this form of scientific discourse was provided by Charles Darwin himself, who famously described his work in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Section as “one long argument.”13 There, Darwin proposed a comprehensive interpretation of many diverse lines of evidence He also argued for the superior explanatory power of his theory and its two key propositions: (1) the creative power of natural selection and, (2) the descent of all life from a common ancestor As part of his case, he also argued against the explanatory adequacy of rival interpretations of the evidence and refuted arguments for them Other scientists such as Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Lyell as well as a host of lesser figures have used books to advance scientific arguments in favor of novel and comprehensive interpretations of the scientific evidence in their disciplines There are other reasons that books are used to advance paradigm-shifting ideas New scientific theories often synthesize a broad range of evidence from many related disciplines or subdisciplines of science As such, they are often inherently interdisciplinary in scope On the Origin of Species incorporated data from several disciplines, including embryology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and biogeography Modern scientific journals, typically focused as they are on topics within pangenesis theory, 60 Pasteur, Louis, 39 past reconstruction: causal existence criterion for, 166–68; criteria for determining cause, 159, 163– 66; IBE (inference to the best explanation) approach to, 155–59, 343–44; retrospective causal analysis, 168–69; schematic of logical problem of retrodiction, 162fig; scientific testing of, 169–70 Pattee, Howard, 274 pattern recognition: CAD-CAM technology and, 120–21, 369; chance hypothesis in context of, 189– 91, 199–200; ex post facto, 188–89; independently experienced, 356–63; probability resources and, 189–93, 215, 219, 294; “string of improbable events” and, 269 See also functionally significant patterns Pauling, Linus, 58, 71 Pauling, Peter, 72 Pax–6 gene, 471 Peirce, Charles Sanders, 153, 154, 156, 325 Pennock, Robert, 286, 290, 396, 403, 426–30, 442, 447 Penn State University, 464 Pera, Marcello, Perutz, Max, 58, 70, 95 Pflüger, Eduard, 47 phenotypic plasticity, 478 plagiarism scenario, 186–87 Plato, 11, 36, 186 Pneumococci bacteria, 66–67 Polanyi, Michael, 237–38, 239–41, 249–50, 251 polynucleotides, 277–78 polypeptides: Darwinian optimization principle and nonfunctional, 282; Kauffman’s model on, 263– 64; Oparin’s revised theory explanation on, 273–74 Popper, Sir Karl, 134 prebiotic atmosphere, 224–26 prebiotic natural selection, 272–77 prebiotic simulation experiments, 334–35 predestination theory, 230 predictions: demarcation problem and making, 430–31; intelligent design, testability and, 430–31; scientific method and, 401; testing historical scientific theory and, 405 “prevision,” 450–51 Prigogine, Ilya, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 267, 268 Principia (Newton), 139, 146, 147, 456 The Principles of Geology (Lyell), 151–52, 160 probabilistic resources, 191–93, 215–19, 294 probability See chance/probability Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (journal), 1, 5, 412 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 210 “progressively eliminating hypotheses,” 325–26 prokaryotic cells: DNA of, 97; DNA replication in, 131–32; new research on, 477 proscriptive generalizations, 379–81 protein molecules: critical functions performed by, 92; DNA coding “expressed function” represented in, 203; Gamow’s direct template model and, 114fig–15; improbability and producing genes and, 201–3, 210–13; research on centrality to life of, 93–100; Snap-Lock Beads analogy of amino-acid sequencing and, 99–100; specificity of arrangement in, 98–99; specificity of sequence in, 99–100; specificity in shape of, 96–97; studying changes in DNA sequences on, 102; three-dimensional structure of myoglobin, 95fig; X-rays used to examine, 93–94 “proteinoids,” 234 protein synthesis: CAD-CAM technology to depict, 120–21; Expelled: (film) animation of, 120; research of process of, 119–20; transcription stage of, 122–27, 134; translation stage of, 127–31, 134; as two-stage process of information transfer, 122 See also gene expression system protoplasmic theory of life, 44–45, 47 Provine, William, 445 Ptolemy, 143 purines, 80, 81fig Purvis, W H., 446 pyrimidines, 80, 81fig Quastler, Henry, 277–79, 313, 376 Quinn, Philip, 432 reasoning: abductive, 153–54, 409; case for ID exemplifies historical scientific, 408–10; IBE (inference to the best explanation), 155–59, 343–44; inductive, 153; Judeo-Christian beliefs influence on, 143–44; “progressively eliminating hypotheses” approach to, 325–26; of specified information of intelligent design, 341–44 Reconstructing the Past (Sober), 161 reductionism-vitalism debate: applied to DNA, 240–46; description of, 237–40 rejection region, 181fig–82 religion: creationism and, 417; disputing intelligent design as, 441–42; examining ID theistic implications and, 443–44; ID and meaningful “search for,” 450–51; intelligent design and implications related to, 444–46; intelligent design as science masquerading as, 396–402, 439–48; motivations related to science and, 447–48 See also God; Judeo-Christian beliefs retroduction problem schematic, 162fig retrospective causal analysis, 161, 168–69 Revolutionary War letter scenario, 463, 466 De Revolutionibus orbium coelestrium (Copernicus), 139 ribose, 302–3 ribose sugar structure, 64fig ribosomes: comparing ribozyme functions to, 309; lack of DNA in, 119; peptide-bond formation within, 304 ribozymes: comparing functions of enzymes to, 310–12; comparing ribosome functions to, 309; RNA translation and role of, 302–3, 304, 309 See also enzymes ribozymes engineering: causal adequacy of ID demonstrated by, 338–40; procedures on RNA polymerases, 318–19 RNA catalysts See ribozymes RNA polymerases: holoenzyme of, 124–25fig; Mycoplasma, 122; ribozyme-engineering procedures and, 318–19, 338–40; sequence of, 22–23; transcription activities reflected in structure of, 123fig–24; transcription process and, 122–27 RNA (ribonucleic acid): chance hypothesis applied to DNA and, 195–96; chemical structure and constituents of, 301fig; hypercycle system of enzymes and, 279–81; improbability of producing genes and proteins by chance and, 201–3; minimal requirements for templatedirected self-replication, 317fig; new genomics study of, 459–60; self-replication possibilities corresponding to bases of, 315; specified biological information contained in, 197–200; spliceosomes and editosomes of, 462; structural formulas of each chemical parts of, 65fig; transfer RNAs (tRNAs), 103, 128–29fig, 130, 246–48, 305 See also mRNA (messenger RNA) RNA Tie Club, 115 RNA-world hypothesis: “chicken and egg” dilemma answered by, 134, 344–45; description of the, 295, 298–300; problems related to the, 301fig–21; research on the, 296–98; seven steps of, 299fig RNA-world hypothesis problems: RNA building block are hard to synthesize/easy to destroy, 301fig–4; ribozymes are poor substitutes for proteins, 304; RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible, 305–12; RNA-world doesn’t explain the origin of genetic information, 312–17fig; ribozyme engineering does not simulate undirected chemical evolution, 318–21 Rockefeller Institute, 66 Rose, George, 94–95 Rosetta Stone, 344, 351 roulette playing scenario See Slick’s roulette playing scenario Royal Tyrrell Museum (Canada), 151 Ruse, Michael, 20–21, 416–17fig, 419, 420, 421, 433 Russell, Bertrand, 450 salt crystal structure, 94fig Santa Fe Institute, 260 Sauer, Robert, 208, 209, 211 Schleiden, Matthias, 60 Schneider, Thomas, 283, 284, 286 Schrödinger, Erwin, 387 Schwann, Theodor, 60 science: abductive reasoning in, 153–54, 409; affirming the consequent fallacy in, 153; conservation of energy, 41; demarcation problem of, 400–401, 419, 430–31; designing mind affirmed in early, 139–47; diversity of relevant resources used in, 138; early definition of information in, 16; first law of thermodynamics of, 41; historical, 150, 168–69, 402; intelligent design as “living,” 455–56; intelligent design as religion masquerading as, 396–402, 438–48; negative or proscriptive generalizations in, 379–81; rational foundation of, 142–47 See also biological science; experimental evidence Science (journal), 2, 237 Scientific American (journal), 88 scientific methods: demarcation problem and, 400–401; ID advocates use of established, 403–4; of multiple competing hypotheses, 327–28, 409; variety of, 401–2 scientific revolution (1300–1700), 37 scientific theories: big-bang theory, 24, 157–58, 165–66, 444; cell theory, 61; chemical evolutionary, 46–57; different approaches for testing, 401–2; enzymatic theory, 47; examining ID in light of criteria for, 421–31; information theory, 87–92, 105–10, 250–51, 370–71; methodological naturalism, 436–37; neo-Darwinian theory, 204–13, 403, 445; pangenesis, 60; predestination theory, 230; protoplasmic, 44–45, 47; Ruse on criteria for, 416; scientific vs unscientific, 435; spontaneous generation, 39; steady-state, 165–66; testability of, 425–31; theistic implications of, 443–44; two-step chemical process, 46–47 See also biological science; chance hypothesis; evolutionary theory; intelligent design (ID) theory; natural selection; self-organization theories The Scientist (journal), Scopes “monkey trial” (1925), 3, 397 Scott, Eugenie, 146–47, 423, 426, 439, 448 Scriven, Michael, 161, 166, 168 Seattle Post-Intelligencer (newspaper), Sekai Nippo (Tokyo newspaper), Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium systems (Prigogine and Nicolis), 254 self-organization theories: applied to DNA, 240–46; description of, 230; “displacement problem” of, 267–70; doubts about the, 234–37; external forces and, 254–55; failure to explain DNA sequencing, 246–49; Kauffman’s model of, 260–67; Kenyon’s repudiation of, 397–98; limits of algorithm to produce biological information, 258–59; ordered patterns and, 255– 57 See also biochemical predestination; “the DNA enigma”; scientific theories sequence hypothesis: confirmed through gene expression, 104–5; description of, 12; DNA sequential arrangement verifying, 109, 365–67; specificity and, 100–105 SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence), 344, 383, 395, 436 Shakespeare, William, 453 Shannon, Claude, 87fig–88, 90–92, 370 See also information theory Shapiro, James, 21 Shapiro, Robert, 264, 280, 302, 303, 316 Shaw, Gordon, 225 Shermer, Michael, 406, 448 Shultze, Max, 45 Simpson, George Gaylord, 445 SINEs (Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements), 468 Skoog, Gerald, 442 Slick’s roulette playing scenario: chance application to, 175–76, 255–56; chance elimination illustrated by, 180, 182–83; improbability paradox illustrated by, 184–85; independently experienced patterns in, 357–58; probabilistic resources applied to, 218–19 small probability specifications, 370–71 Smith, John Maynard, 280 Smithsonian Institution, Snap-Lock Beads analogy, 99–100 Sober, Elliott, 161–63 Southern Methodist University, 24 specificity complexity: phenomenon of heredity described as, 387–88; protein arrangement, 98–99; protein shape, 96–97; sequence hypothesis and, 12, 100–105, 109, 365–67; sequence of protein, 99–100 specified information: combination lock demonstration of, 349–50, 352–53; sequences of DNA, RNA, and amino acids as biological, 197–200; examples of, 106, 107fig; intelligent design as only known cause of, 341–44 Der Spiegel (German newspaper), spliceosomes, 462 spontaneous generation idea, 39 Stalnaker, Robert, 250 steady-state theory, 165–66 Stein, Ben, 120 Steinman, Gary, 230, 233–34 Sternberg, Richard, 2, “string of improbable events,” 269 student plagiarism scenario, 186–87 Summer for the Gods (Larson), 397 supernatural being, 428–29 Sutton, Walter, 62 Tacoma Narrows bridge, 175 Tatum, Edward, 101, 459 teleological thinking, 21–22 testability See intelligent design testability tetranucleotide hypothesis, 65–66, 68 Thaxton, Charles: analysis of argument used by, 169–70; on argument for intelligent design, 4, 30, 31, 34, 148, 150, 151, 325; on Kenyon’s doubts about self-organization, 237; The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Bradley, Olsen, and, 26, 29; photograph of, 27fig theistic worldview, 37 Theoretical Physics Institute (Copenhagen), 114 theory of intelligent design See intelligent design (ID) theory Time (magazine), 3, 57 Times (India newspaper), Times (London newspaper), Timiriazev, Kliment Arkadievich, 48, 49 Tommyrot, Dr Terry (YouTube mock interview), 391 Tracy, Spencer, transcription: initiation phase of, 126fig; process of, 122–27, 134 translation: “chicken and egg” dilemma of, 134, 344–45; implausibility of RNA-based, 305–12; main molecular components of, 307fig; process of, 127–31 tRNAs (transfer RNAs), 103, 128–29fig, 130, 246–48, 305 two-step chemical process theory, 46–47 uniquely plausible cause, 161 University of Cambridge, 25, 30 Urey, Harold, 54, 56 USA Today (newspaper), 411 U.S Commission on Civil Rights, 146 U.S House Committee on Government Reform, U.S Office of Special Counsel, Van de Sande, Bret, 217 vera causa (actual cause), 160, 171 Victoria Harbor (Canada), 353 Virchow, Rudolf, 42 Wald, George, 195 Wall Street Journal (newspaper), 398 Washington Post (newspaper), Watson, James: DNA molecule discovered by, 6, 11, 12, 15, 58–59, 60, 70–84; early life and career of, 69–70; early partnership between Crick and, 70; equating complex sequences with information, 387; “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids:” by Crick and, 82; photographs of, 13fig, 83fig; two helix DNA model developed by Crick and, 76–84, 139, 145, 427; Wilkin’s recount of working with, 136–38 Weaver, Warren, 90 Weisbuch, Gerard, 267 Weismann, August, 47 Weisskopf, Victor, 204 “Whether ID Is Science” (Jones), 397 Whewell, William, 151 Whitehead, Alfred North, 142, 143 who designed the designer? objection, 388–94 Wigner, Eugene, 141, 276 Wilkins, Maurice, 58, 69, 70, 136–37 Williams, George, 15, 17 Wistar Institute symposium (1966), 204–13 Woese, Carl, 296 Wöhler, Friedrich, 33–34, 36, 40, 50 Wolfe, Stephen, 123 Wolf, Yuri, 306 Wolpert, David, 291 worldview (Weltanschuung): idealism, 37; material reality, 36–37; matter-first vs mind-first, 37– 38; naturalism or materialism, 37, 41–42; theism, 37 Yockey, Hubert, 17, 110, 255, 257, 368–69 Yucatan Peninsula impact crater, 158 Zamecnik, Paul, 119 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my editor, Roger Freet, at HarperOne for his expert guidance and patience and for permitting this manuscript to bear a big burden of proof I’d also like to acknowledge the Harper production staff, particularly Lisa Zuniga and Ann Moru, for their professionalism and exquisite attention to detail I would also like to thank my agent, Giles Anderson, for believing in this project and for connecting me to the good people at Harper This book was extensively reviewed for scientific and technical accuracy For their work reviewing chapters I’d like to acknowledge: Doug Axe, Bruce Gordon, Anne Gauger, William Dembski, Tony Mega, Dean Kenyon, Robert Marks, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, and Alistair Noble I’d also like to acknowledge Jonathan Witt and David Klinghoffer for their coaching, editing, and help in framing the narrative structure of the book, and Bruce Chapman and Logan Gage for their careful editing of late chapter drafts Thanks to John West for his willingness to assume additional burdens of management and for creating space for me to write, and to Janet Oberembt for her invaluable assistance in proofreading, entering sources, and managing chapter drafts, the bibliography, and the overall flow of communication I’d also like express my gratitude to Joseph Condeelis for his inspired animation work I’d like to express my deep gratitude to my parents, Chuck and Pat Meyer, for their encouragement and support of my scientific education and philosophical interests from my earliest years And finally, I’d like to thank Elaine—who has held so much together during the last two years— for her courage as well as her love, and for partnership in this adventure from the beginning About the Author DR STEPHEN C MEYER received his Ph.D from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peerreviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley show on PBS He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media Visit www.AuthorTracker.com for exclusive information on your favorite HarperCollins author Advance Praise for Signature in the Cell: “Meyer demolishes the materialist superstition at the core of evolutionary biology by exposing its Achilles’ heel: its utter blindness to the origins of information With the recognition that cells function as fast as supercomputers and as fruitfully as so many factories, the case for a mindless cosmos collapses His refutation of Richard Dawkins will have all the dogs barking and the angels singing.” —George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty and Telecosm “A ‘must read’ for all serious students of the origin-of-life debate Not only is it a comprehensive defense of the theory of intelligent design, it is a lucid and rigorous exposition of the various dimensions of the scientific method Students of chemistry and biology at all levels—high school, undergraduate, or postgraduate—will find much to challenge their thinking in this book.” —Alastair Noble, Ph.D., chemistry, former BBC education officer and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland “The origin of life remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern science Looking beyond the biochemistry of the problem and focusing instead on the origin and information content of the ‘code of life,’ Meyer has written an eminently readable and engaging account of the quest to solve this mystery I recommend this book to laypeople and accomplished professionals alike.” —Edward Peltzer, Ph.D., ocean chemistry, from Scripps Institution of Oceanography “How does an intelligent person become a proponent of intelligent design? Anyone who stereotypes IDers as antiscientific ideologues or fundamentalists should read Dr Meyer’s compelling intellectual memoir.” —Dr Marvin Olasky, provost, The King’s College, New York City, and editor-in-chief, World “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 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, emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University “In Signature in the Cell, Stephen C Meyer gives us a fascinating exploration of the case for intelligent design theory, woven skillfully around a compelling account of Meyer’s own journey Along the way, Meyer effectively dispels the most pernicious caricatures: that intelligent design is simply warmed-over creationism, the province of deluded fools and morons, or a dangerous political conspiracy Whether you believe intelligent design is true or false, Signature in the Cell is a mustread book.” —Dr Scott Turner, professor of environmental and forest biology, State University of New York, and author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice : How Design Emerges from Life Itself “Signature in the Cell is at once a philosophical history of how information has come to be central to cutting-edge research in biology today and one man’s intellectual journey to the conclusion that intelligent design provides the best explanation for that fact In his own modest and accessible way, Meyer has provided no less than a blueprint for twenty-first-century biological science—one that decisively shifts the discipline’s center of gravity from nineteenth-century Darwinian preoccupations with fossils and field studies to the computerized, lab-based molecular genetics that underwrites the increasingly technological turn in the life sciences After this book, readers will wonder whether anything more than sentimentality lies behind the continued association of Darwin’s name with ‘modern biology.’” —Dr Steve Fuller, professor of sociology of science, University of Warwick, and author of Dissent from Descent “The astonishing complexities of DNA have raised questions which the ruling scientific orthodoxy cannot begin to answer As one of the scientists arguing for ‘intelligent design’ as the crucial missing link in our understanding of how life came to be, Steve Meyer guides us lucidly through that labyrinth of questions opened by discoveries in molecular biology on the frontier of scientific knowledge.” —Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph Credits Cover design: www.levanfisherdesign.com Cover photo: Magictorch/Photographer’s Choice RF/Getty Images Illustrations © 2009 Ray Braun Copyright DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Copyright © 2009 by Stephen C Meyer All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books SIGNATURE IN THE CELL: Adobe Digital Edition May 2009 ISBN 978-0-06-189421-3 10 About the Publisher Australia HarperCollins Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd 25 Ryde Road (PO Box 321) Pymble, NSW 2073, Australia http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com.au Canada HarperCollins Publishers Ltd 55 Avenue Road, Suite 2900 Toronto, ON, M5R, 3L2, Canada http://www.harpercollinsebooks.ca New Zealand HarperCollinsPublishers (New Zealand) Limited P.O Box Auckland, New Zealand http://www.harpercollins.co.nz United Kingdom HarperCollins Publishers Ltd 77-85 Fulham Palace Road London, W6 8JB, UK http://www.harpercollinsebooks.co.uk United States HarperCollins Publishers Inc 10 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com Table of Contents Cover Title Page Dedication Contents Prologue 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Epilogue Appendix A Appendix B Notes Bibliography Searchable Terms Acknowledgments About the Author Praise Credits Copyright About the Publisher ... Signature in the Cell DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Stephen C Meyer FOR ELAINE, ONCE AND FUTURE COMPANION Contents Prologue Chapter DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design. .. competing explanations for the origin of biological information Then, in Chapters 15 and 16, I present a positive case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information... to the helical backbone of DNA store the information for building proteins? ?the sophisticated enzymes and machines that service the cells in all living things Though the discovery of the information-bearing