Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com Signature in the Cell makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books

[buffalo]

Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com

                                                                                *[**Signature in the Cell **](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks.html)makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books

…*
“Here we are, celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, a book mistakenly assumed to have killed the design argument in science,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which is the intelligent design research program directed by Dr. Meyer. “Did Darwin refute the design argument? No. And here’s a book about the science of intelligent design that shows how the design argument is being revived with powerful new arguments relevant to our culture.”
In Signature in the Cell Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? He weaves together a journey of discovery with an argument for intelligent design and explains how intelligent design can be formulated as a rigorous scientific argument using the very same method of reasoning that Darwin used.*http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks.html

*

 

[ricmat]

Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com

                                                                                *[**Signature in the Cell **](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks.html)*makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books

…
“Here we are, celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, a book mistakenly assumed to have killed the design argument in science,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which is the intelligent design research program directed by Dr. Meyer. “Did Darwin refute the design argument? No. And here’s a book about the science of intelligent design that shows how the design argument is being revived with powerful new arguments relevant to our culture.”
In Signature in the Cell Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code imbedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? He weaves together a journey of discovery with an argument for intelligent design and explains how intelligent design can be formulated as a rigorous scientific argument using the very same method of reasoning that Darwin used.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks.html

Well, I bought it and read it. Science books usually don’t sell in high volume. Perhaps my purchase pushed it all the way up from 329,487th.

 

[wanstronian]

Well if it’s at No. 10 in the Best Seller list, ID must be true!

Oh, wait a moment - what’s at No. 2…?
amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=br_lf_m_1000446551_grlink_2?ie=UTF8&plgroup=2&docId=1000446551

And look - what was no. 1 of 2008?
amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_7803252_17?ie=UTF8&plgroup=1&docId=1000298701&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=1SERGEY552MDBDZYAPYG&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=457473601&pf_rd_i=1239030011

 

[Detales]

Yes, I agree with Wanstronian’s law. The great misfortune is that it doesn’t only apply to matters of religious faith, but to the function of faith itself, as we humans are in love with living our stories rather than fact, regardless. The problem isn’t so much with what we believe, but the we are so ignorant of and indifferent to that we believe.* We are perfectly willing to sacrifice up the immensity of possible experience in order to defend the emotional addictions of the first serving of parochial nonsense we got from our parents, God bless them, school, and advertising both of media and peers.

In this country, which I can speak of, living here, we live by our stories. We live by the “faith of our Fathers,” the party of our region, the ignorance of our social class, the astonishing hype fed to us and our children on and through media about the economy, and even about the state of the world resources and climate.**

It is said that money is the root of all evil. In fact it is belief. It is the belief that we are separate from God, and the the world’s priest castes. religious, scientific, and political, have to tell us what to believe. Those who exercise critical thinking are rarer than hens teeth, and very unpopular. Why? because they require us to think, understand, and change. That last is one of the most horrifying possibilities in our lives, usually only precipitated by natural disaster, accident, or unavoidable circumstance. Rarely is change the voluntary activity it ought to be from the beginning to the end of our flicker of a life span on this planet.

As well as having doubts about the lines fed us by religious institutions, an activity we are in urgent need of well intentioned though they might in some cases be, it would also be wise, I think, to look as well on the best 10 list at the book outlining the sale of doubt by corporations, and its companion books on fallacious beliefs promoted by commercial interests.

*How many make a sincere and thorough effort to understand the roots of their religious faith? I don't mean by this the interior machinations of their birth religion from its self verifying propensity, but *how we come to believe anything at all*. What are the mechanics of adopting our beliefs? Few care and fewer have a clue.

**Do you realize that during a large part of the GW Bush administration, one man, a former Exxon executive, was in charge of approving and changing language in scientific reports that synopsized statistics of world conditions for Congress to use in making decisions? Do you understand what the consequences of his greatly softening urgent language in those reports might be having on us and our children?

 

[buffalo]

Well if it’s at No. 10 in the Best Seller list, ID must be true!

Oh, wait a moment - what’s at No. 2…?
amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=br_lf_m_1000446551_grlink_2?ie=UTF8&plgroup=2&docId=1000446551

And look - what was no. 1 of 2008?
amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_7803252_17?ie=UTF8&plgroup=1&docId=1000298701&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=1SERGEY552MDBDZYAPYG&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=457473601&pf_rd_i=1239030011

Hmm! The original post said nothing about it being true or not. But thanks for the thumbs up anyway.

 

[ricmat]

Well if it’s at No. 10 in the Best Seller list, ID must be true!

No, but reading it would help you determine if it is true or not.

Have you read it?

 

[kamalayka9]

In this country, which I can speak of, living here, we live by our stories. We live by the “faith of our Fathers,” the party of our region, the ignorance of our social class, the astonishing hype fed to us and our children on and through media about the economy, and even about the state of the world resources and climate.**

SO you think you have everybody figured out? I suppose that *your *complicated though, right?
I guess you think that everyone around you is an ignorant character in society and that you’re the cat’s pajamas?

*How many make a sincere and thorough effort to understand the roots of their religious faith? I don’t mean by this the interior machinations of their birth religion from its self verifying propensity, but how we come to believe anything at all. What are the mechanics of adopting our beliefs? Few care and fewer have a clue.

I already have made “a sincere and thorough effort to understand the roots of my religious faith.” I challenged my atheism, and now I am a Christian.
I am not a Christian because I was “raised to be one.” I was raised in an almost secular environment.

I think the biggest mistake most atheists make is ignorance. They see Christianity as being “one of many.” They think of it as being no different than any other belief.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, I agree with Wanstronian’s law. The great misfortune is that it doesn’t only apply to matters of religious faith, but to the function of faith itself, as we humans are in love with living our stories rather than fact, regardless. The problem isn’t so much with what we believe, but the we are so ignorant of and indifferent to that we believe.* We are perfectly willing to sacrifice up the immensity of possible experience in order to defend the emotional addictions of the first serving of parochial nonsense we got from our parents, God bless them, school, and advertising both of media and peers.

In this country, which I can speak of, living here, we live by our stories. We live by the “faith of our Fathers,” the party of our region, the ignorance of our social class, the astonishing hype fed to us and our children on and through media about the economy, and even about the state of the world resources and climate.**

It is said that money is the root of all evil. In fact it is belief. It is the belief that we are separate from God, and the the world’s priest castes. religious, scientific, and political, have to tell us what to believe. Those who exercise critical thinking are rarer than hens teeth, and very unpopular. Why? because they require us to think, understand, and change. That last is one of the most horrifying possibilities in our lives, usually only precipitated by natural disaster, accident, or unavoidable circumstance. Rarely is change the voluntary activity it ought to be from the beginning to the end of our flicker of a life span on this planet.

As well as having doubts about the lines fed us by religious institutions, an activity we are in urgent need of well intentioned though they might in some cases be, it would also be wise, I think, to look as well on the best 10 list at the book outlining the sale of doubt by corporations, and its companion books on fallacious beliefs promoted by commercial interests.

*How many make a sincere and thorough effort to understand the roots of their religious faith? I don't mean by this the interior machinations of their birth religion from its self verifying propensity, but *how we come to believe anything at all*. What are the mechanics of adopting our beliefs? Few care and fewer have a clue.

**Do you realize that during a large part of the GW Bush administration, one man, a former Exxon executive, was in charge of approving and changing language in scientific reports that synopsized statistics of world conditions for Congress to use in making decisions? Do you understand what the consequences of his greatly softening urgent language in those reports might be having on us and our children?

Think. Where will get our information to insure that it is accurate and not manipulated in some way? It takes a while to digest the information if it can be trusted.

Understand. This means an understanding that is grounded in foundational concepts designed to arrive at the right conclusion.

Change. Change is not always good. Sometimes change is made simply out of a desire for novelty or malicious reasons.

Without absolute standards for truth and honesty, information can and will be manipulated for the gain of an individual or group.

Belief. This involves trust, and for the Christian, a relationship with the Living God. A real person who has overcome the world and is perfect.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

No, but reading it would help you determine if it is true or not.

Have you read it?

Nope. I have neither the time nor the money to read every book that is published regarding ID, creation, evolution etc.

I’m sure that if I read it, it would show conclusively that ID is true. Just as if I read the No.2 book of 2008 it would show conclusively that it is false.

I was just having a little fun-poke.

(incidentally, I intended to point to the No. 2 book of 2008 in my post, not the No.1:blush

 

[wanstronian]

Think. Where will get our information to insure that it is accurate and not manipulated in some way? It takes a while to digest the information if it can be trusted.

Understand. This means an understanding that is grounded in foundational concepts designed to arrive at the right conclusion.

Change. Change is not always good. Sometimes change is made simply out of a desire for novelty or malicious reasons.

Without absolute standards for truth and honesty, information can and will be manipulated for the gain of an individual or group.

Belief. This involves trust, and for the Christian, a relationship with the Living God. A real person who has overcome the world and is perfect.

Peace,
Ed

… eh?

 

[Abu]

Looking at what we think we know to be true, Fr Thomas Dubay has it right:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’ (Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84).

If we do not search and learn what the facts are we are left with prejudices. We won’t know what the facts are, and reasoned conclusions, without that time and effort. It’s so easy to accept what may be thrown out from a book, TV, or internet or a forum without real examination.

In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is now running a series extolling Darwinian evolutionism – readers can imagine the frightful rubbish spewed out and lapped up by so many who know no better because of the process Fr Dubay has identified so well, and because they did not take the time and effort to get to know truth and facts.

 

[wanstronian]

Looking at what we think we know to be true, Fr Thomas Dubay has it right:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’ (Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84).

Partly true. Certainly when we are children we learn to accept without question what our parents teach us. This can be explained as an evolved genetic trait which helps keep us safe. Most of us grow out of this blind acceptance and learn to think and discover for ourselves.

If we do not search and learn what the facts are we are left with prejudices. We won’t know what the facts are, and reasoned conclusions, without that time and effort. It’s so easy to accept what may be thrown out from a book, TV, or internet or a forum without real examination.

In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is now running a series extolling Darwinian evolutionism – readers can imagine the frightful rubbish spewed out and lapped up by so many who know no better because of the process Fr Dubay has identified so well, and because they did not take the time and effort to get to know truth and facts.

It’s interesting that you refer to evolution - which is backed up by literally tons of evidence - as ‘frightful rubbish’, whereas presumably as a Catholic you believe in a God for which **no **evidence exists. I think this shows perfectly the difference between those of us who learn to think for ourselves, and theists.

 

[Abu]

For a faithful Catholic aware of the design and order in the world, the charge of “no evidence” for God is laughable. The proofs for the existence of God and the refutation of Kant’s objections are available for all to see.
**
What are the strikes against the historical assumptions of evolutionism?**

Not one fact has been shown to support the evolutionist chimera.

The evolutionary asumption that life arose from a primordial chemical soup is totally without foundation in modern biology and biochemistry.

The gradual development of all living things including man (from apes) by blind chance and natural selection over billions of years is totally without foundation – the time is conclusively short by very many times the 4.5 billion years assumed as the age of the earth. (Drs Wiker and Hahn). Further, chance is the absence of all law, and the assumption is inconsistent with the observed fact of a non-random bias toward deletion of DNA. Additionally, absolutely no fossils have been found ever, of the predicted intermediate types – on Darwin’s own admission the mechanism has failed.

Polygenism is totally false.

A philosopher of science, Karl Popper, had to admit that evolutionism is philosophy not science: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” (Unended Quest, Fontana, 1975).

The common evolutionist idea that Genesis 1-11 is myth has come back to haunt them.
The common presence of polonium haloes in granite rocks is a serious challenge to the billions of years assumed as the age of the earth.

Additionally, the experiments conducted in sedimentology by geologist Guy Berthault effectively demolish the assumed geological time-scale and wreak havoc with the fossil record previously assumed, debunking the assumption of millions of years for the deposition of several rock strata containing fossilized trees running through all of them.

 

[edwest2]

Partly true. Certainly when we are children we learn to accept without question what our parents teach us. This can be explained as an evolved genetic trait which helps keep us safe. Most of us grow out of this blind acceptance and learn to think and discover for ourselves.It’s interesting that you refer to evolution - which is backed up by literally tons of evidence - as ‘frightful rubbish’, whereas presumably as a Catholic you believe in a God for which **no **evidence exists. I think this shows perfectly the difference between those of us who learn to think for ourselves, and theists.

I appreciate your honesty, but it is not logical to affirm they (theists) are all like that. We can and do think for ourselves.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

I’m sure that if I read it, it would show conclusively that ID is true. Just as if I read the No.2 book of 2008 it would show conclusively that it is false.

But ID is not out to prove that the whole of evolution is wrong. ID basically accepts micro-evolution. ID is trying to show that it is much more probable that design is responsible for complex life than random mutations are. And even then, no one can say for certain that random evolution is not responsible, or that it is certain that design was responsible. It’s all just a matter of determining what is more probable.

I wonder how it can be proven that design was not involved in complex life? Do you really think that book 2 shows that?

 

[Detales]

Kamalayka9, thanks for your observations.~SO you think you have everybody figured out? I suppose that your (sic) complicated though, right? I guess you think that everyone around you is an ignorant character in society and that you’re the cat’s pajamas?
No, I don’t have everyone figured out, And I don’t feel that’s my job. But it is pretty clear, if you look around, that there are trends and dynamics in society, some of which I have named. They are not original in the naming with me, but thanks for the credit. I read newspapers, magazines, books, and watch and listen to the media. I thought you might do the same and gave you credit for it. Like you, I am surrounded by a full range of the human offering. I am not writing from off planet. As I said, I live here. And though I do regard my body as a space suit on loan for my Earth experience, about the last thing I would think of it as, given my activities, is pajamas

K-9~ I already have made “a sincere and thorough effort to understand the roots of my religious faith.” I challenged my atheism, and now I am a Christian. I am not a Christian because I was “raised to be one.” I was raised in an almost secular environment. We are all, these days, raised in a “secular environment” as most of society seems to be that, but I am sure you meant your family. I am happy to hear that you are one of the few who made a choice, even if it might have on the off chance been reactionary. I don’t know what you looked at and through what lens when you made that decision, as there is much in the christianist view that is more than highly dubious in presentation and in backing. But for someone to do what you did, to make a choice and change their life through their own effort, is very laudable. Good for you.

K-9~ *I think the biggest mistake most atheists make is ignorance. They see Christianity as being “one of many.” They think of it as being no different than any other belief. * In that you yourself categorize it as a belief, it is categorically not different. My contention was, if you read what I posted, with belief itself as a fundamental, though necessary, flaw, that needs the attention of self-awareness to overcome.

 

[Detales]

Hi EdWest,

~Think. Where will (we) get our information to insure that it is accurate and not manipulated in some way? It takes a while to digest the information if it can be trusted. All information is manipulated in some way. It is to some degree or kind inaccurate as well. The only Real reference we have is Principle. It is why we have an Ideal we name God and falsely personify, and why we use the rod of Right Identification to determine if what passes before us as thought is acceptable or not in the light of God.

~Understand. This means an understanding that is grounded in foundational concepts designed to arrive at the right conclusion. Yes the word “foundational” is useful here. That is why when we reason about our life and our Soul, we start at the immutable Premise I AM. We reason out from the Star, not up to it, assembling such belief systems on he way as man is wont to parochially do, as seems to be necessary by immediate local conditions and the imperative of survival.

~Change. Change is not always good. Sometimes change is made simply out of a desire for novelty or malicious reasons. Yes, of course you are right. That is why, in the context we are speaking in, we invoke the Highest. As Woody Allen said in Manhattan, “I chose God as an Ideal; why not go with the Best?”

~Without absolute standards for truth and honesty, information can and will be manipulated for the gain of an individual or group. Very correct, EdWest. This is why we choose the Way of the Absolute, or the Path of Discrimination, or the Perennial Philosophy, as has been the recommendation of the wise from the beginning of Man. This is why it has always been urged, as on the Greek temple, “Gnothi Seauton.” Know ThySelf. This is yet the Path hidden in the Abrahamic religions, even within Catholicism. We have to wonder what happened to the injunction to make the crooked staight?

~Belief. This involves trust, and for the Christian, a relationship with the Living God. A real person who has overcome the world and is perfect Again, yes. A Real “person” knows that they are but a mask over the Divine and why they use “personhood” as the fuel of transofrmation. It is also why upon awakening it is common to hear “I have overcome the world,” or “I have not been deceived!” or, just uproarious, gut splitting laughter. But this is so for Christians. Using the criteria above of your own statements, it behooves us to distinguish between the vastly popular–1/3 of the religious world–christianist doctrines of religionists, and the actual teaching of what was attributed to and exemplified as allegory in the Gospels as Jesus. Consider again the actual meaning of His Identity statements. Perhaps there is more to be mined there than meets the i (sic).

 

[wanstronian]

For a faithful Catholic aware of the design and order in the world, the charge of “no evidence” for God is laughable. The proofs for the existence of God and the refutation of Kant’s objections are available for all to see.

Ooh, please share!

**
What are the strikes against the historical assumptions of evolutionism?**

Not one fact has been shown to support the evolutionist chimera.

You mean you are ignorant of the facts. It’s not the same thing at all.

The evolutionary asumption that life arose from a primordial chemical soup is totally without foundation in modern biology and biochemistry.

Untrue.

The gradual development of all living things including man (from apes) by blind chance and natural selection over billions of years is totally without foundation – the time is conclusively short by very many times the 4.5 billion years assumed as the age of the earth. (Drs Wiker and Hahn).

Untrue. Your sources are lying.

Further, chance is the absence of all law, and the assumption is inconsistent with the observed fact of a non-random bias toward deletion of DNA.

It’s not chance, it’s natural selection via random mutation. At least, that’s the prevalent theory of the process. Don’t confuse the fact of evolution with the theory of the process.

Additionally, absolutely no fossils have been found ever, of the predicted intermediate types – on Darwin’s own admission the mechanism has failed.

Oh, that old chestnut again. You’re several years behind the drag curve on this one.

Polygenism is totally false.

Citation?

A philosopher of science, Karl Popper, had to admit that evolutionism is philosophy not science: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” (Unended Quest, Fontana, 1975).

The common evolutionist idea that Genesis 1-11 is myth has come back to haunt them.
The common presence of polonium haloes in granite rocks is a serious challenge to the billions of years assumed as the age of the earth.

Additionally, the experiments conducted in sedimentology by geologist Guy Berthault effectively demolish the assumed geological time-scale and wreak havoc with the fossil record previously assumed, debunking the assumption of millions of years for the deposition of several rock strata containing fossilized trees running through all of them.

Some people are so determined to ignore the evidence that there’s no point even giving it to them. You are one of those people.

 

[Abu]

For those poor souls denying the proofs for God’s existence – they can look up, the Internet. For those merely unaware that the existence and nature of God can be known by pure reason the Internet can suffice (faithful Catholic sites); and I recommend Apologetics And Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Augustine Press 2001, (p 25-61) where they will find also the refutations to the objections raised by Immanuel Kant.

As Philip Trower has written: “After Descartes had philosophically shut men up inside their minds, the English philosopher John Locke redecorated the prison’s interior, the Scott David Hume locked the door and the Prussian Immanuel Kant through away the key.” (The Catholic Church And The Counter-Faith, Family Publications, Oxford, 2006, p 73).

The blindness over the false dogma of evolutionism is related to the reality of William James who noted that many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices. A good place to start getting rid of prejudices is getting to know that God exists from pure reason, apart from knowing the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Until the truth that God’s existence can be known by pure reason sinks in, the evolutionist who denies this is trapped in a fatal prejudice.

 

[Detales]

Yes Abu, with pure reason you have a pure intellectual assertion, and no Knowledge, and that is still faith disguised as accomplishment. Remember, “faith” and “beleif” are adult terms for “let’s pretend.”