More about Stephen Meyer’s lecture on Intelligent Design

[BPSDB]Rather late, this is my comment on the lecture given in Shrewsbury (Darwin’s birthplace) in late February 2009 by Dr Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute. This was billed as reviewing “Darwin’s life and theories from a new perspective – an assessment of the evidence for design which has emerged through the advances in science since publication of his On the Origin of Species in 1859” . It was also advertised as Dr Meyer’s first public lecture on the theme of his new book, “Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design”.

The book has not yet been published, so I can’t yet compare it with the lecture. However, it did seem to me that there was very little in the lecture that was actually new – I have been following the debate between biologists and ID proponents for some years now. It wasn’t possible for me to take notes fast enough to give a point-by-point analysis of the lecture.

The lecture was divided into two halves, with a short break of five minutes. The crucial argument was presented early in the second part. I’d almost call it a “climax”, because Dr Meyer is a showman: he knows how to ramp up the excitement and carry the audience with him. Of course, in this case the audience was largely sympathetic to his aim and uncritical towards his arguments.

There was, in reality, very little mention of evolution in the lecture – mostly quotations from Darwin and other scientists – although the whole thing was carried off so that I suspect that most in the audience really believed that they were witnessing a powerful critique of evolution.

The lecture began with a few comments about Darwin and evolution, there was some talk about “chemical evolution” and the work of Oparin and Miller, and then much of the first part was given over to explaining the basics – what seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable explanations of the shapes of DNA and proteins, and how the functions of proteins depend on their shapes. Then he went on to more contentious matters, including the ID proponents’ favoured idea of “specified complexity”.

The climax came after the break. Dr Meyer took the audience through the calculation of the probability of a protein (of 150 amino acids) assembling itself from its units – vanishingly small, of course. I could feel the excitement of the audience close to me as he approached the result and there was laughter as he calculated the final result. They must have felt that Dr Meyer had delivered the coup de grace to evolution by natural selection.

This was really the core of the lecture. The rest consisted largely of unsupported assertions of ID dogma, for example, that undirected natural processes do not produce large amounts of “specified complexity”, that creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity, that the functional integration of proteins, DNA and ATP is evidence for design, and that ID has been justified by predicting that so-called ‘junk DNA’ would be found to be functional (I’m not a biologist, but my understanding is that some noncoding DNA is known to have important functions, but that there is good evidence that much DNA has no function).

The lecture depended largely on what might be compared with a David Copperfield illusion: Dr Meyer did not demonstrate what the audience were no doubt expected to think he had demonstrated, and the whole effect depended on the audience seeing what it wanted to see and not questioning what they believed they had seen and heard.

The calculation of the improbability of a protein is irrelevant, because it entirely omits the very process that ID-ists claim to question – evolution by natural selection. The evolutionary process is what made it possible to observe the proteins we see today carrying out the functions that they do. No evolutionary biologist imagines that any functional protein somehow had to be assembled all at once out of its individual amino acids. Proteins evolved in organisms, through relatively small changes in the genetic material (changes that accorded with the laws of chemistry and physics), and were selected for or against by the environments prevailing at the time. No step required any probability that was unreasonably small in the available time frame.

What’s more, to look at the protein and its function the way Dr Meyer did is to get the whole thing backwards. The protein and its function were not “specified” first and the evolutionary process tailored to creating it. Both the protein and its function are as they are because they are the outcome of a whole series of changes that were possible at each step. They may not be the best possible way to carrry out the function, but they exist both because they are the result of a series of physically and chemically possible changes and they enable the organism to function in its current environment – specifically, to reproduce successfully. In many cases, it is now possible to trace the steps by which the current system and its function came about – see, for example, the debate between biologists and ID-ists over the biochemistry of blood clotting.


8 thoughts on “More about Stephen Meyer’s lecture on Intelligent Design

  1. Life is hard to be explained. But , we can understand that all kind of forms of life have some kind of adjustment to the universe principles. But this evolution is essentially an adaptation to something that exists first…for example, the development of eyes are according to the physicals rules of light, always following all the rules pre existing. Mitochondrial function , for example, uses all “basics concepts” of physicals laws of liberating and capitation of energy….nothing is created new…all biological systems are functioning according physicals rules and evolution also according all rules…
    So, thinking in this way, we can ask , what kind of adaptation is the development of sense? If every adaptation of any change of the biological body is an adaptation to laws pre existents , and nothing is created (as we know) from nothing, where comes from the sensation of the biological creatures? May be the answer be that not only physicals pre laws exists, may be exists sense pre laws that exists before the existence of biological beings, because if there is not, something is wrong with the evolution theory.

  2. the procces of evolution began with life. with the first living cell. thats why evolution is something you see in living organisms only. so selection and every other aspect of evolution is tied with the first living cell.

    Now another thing i would like to say in general is that even someone could actually prove wrong the theory of evolution, the alternative explanation “God did it” isnt proven at all. you dont prove somehing by proving something else wrong.

    • The existence of evolution as a process depends on the fact that life originated, true. That doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution (the explanation of how it happens) depends on how life originated. They are separate theories. Just as you don’t need to know how you developed in order to understand how your heart works, and you don’t need to know how a car is made in order to understand how it works.

      But the way life is now must depend in some ways on the nature of the first cells to survive and replicate successfully, for example, the universal nature of the genetic code.

      Your second point I agree with entirely.

  3. Pingback: “Deep Waters Trust” out of its depth « An Evening Person’s Blog

  4. Pingback: Creationists crashing the Darwin party « Welsh Marches Humanist Group

  5. Pingback: Creationists crashing the Darwin Festival « Shropshire Humanist Group – News and Articles

  6. Jeffry: For current thought and available evidence on the origins or early development of cells and proteins, you’ll need to ask an expert, which I am not. If you ask in a blog such as those of Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers or The Panda’s Thumb, you’ll almost certainly be pointed in the right direction.

    I was just commenting on the argument of Dr Meyer, who did not address your point.

    One thing, though, and that is not to fall into the trap of thinking that either cells (as we know them today, or something like them) or proteins (the ones we now today, or something like them) must have evolved before the other.

  7. “The calculation of the improbability of a protein is irrelevant, because it entirely omits the very process that ID-ists claim to question – evolution by natural selection. The evolutionary process is what made it possible to observe the proteins we see today carrying out the functions that they do.”

    How could selection have happened before the production of a living cell to evolve proteins in the first place?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s