It is a bit of a struggle, wading through one straw man argument after another. About 280 pages, and he's beginning to mention design.

In response to some of the comments here, and also because of the paucity of work from Meyer in the peer reviewed journals, I am presently reading 'Signature in the Cell'. A review will appear in this blog in due course. I am presently about a third of the way through the text. It is the Kindle version, and I'm not very impressed by how Harper have set this thing up. No hyperlinks to the notes and the Bibliography is incomplete (nothing from A through to Dembski).

Are those quotations representative of Craig's argumentation? Does he really rely on bullshittery of that type?

Apologies, the comment system seems a bit random in where it places comments.

Jacob, do you somehow believe that the entire international biological/biomedical research community (involving individuals of many faiths and of none) are collectively deluding themselves into accepting the reality of the evolutionary explanations of the diversity of life?

The evidence of around a million publications annually is consistent with if not directly addressing evolutionary theory.

If you don't have a background in biology or a related science, do you have a chance in comprehending this evidence? The evidence is there. Really.

Interestingly, I went to a research seminar in which (as far as I recall) the lab had added an additional codon, and engineered a tRNA to match, which enabled the incorporation of an unnatural amino acid within a living system. It's not straightforward. http://tinyurl.com/c4zm7uj

I suppose that if one proved the existence of a supernatural entity, it would cease being supernatural :-)

One of the things about science is that questions always remain. It's one of the things that makes it attractive. But just because the scientific approach hasn't (yet) figured out how life did begin (insofar as I actually can) doesn't mean that it can't or that we should give up and fall into the arms of a designer.

I can understand the difficulties in understanding the origins of life. But, really, there is a HUGE mount of evidence for evolution as the explanation for life's diversity. To take as an example, one can (by comparing DNA sequences - and therefore protein sequences - of different extant taxa) infer phylogenetic relationships between sequences. We can see homology in protein sequence and function, by a number of experimental approaches.

I don't know anything about you or your education in biology (this is not meant as an insult), so I don't really know where to go here other than observing that there IS a heck of a lot of data that underpins evolutionary biology as a discipline. This is why researcher almost universally accept evolution as the explanation of life's diversity.

I have no interest in discrediting Meyer. I merely think his argument from incredulity does not hold water. The central issue here is that Meyer believes that the genetic system is so unlikely (on the basis of mangled information theory) that a magic being must have directed it. Meyer's argument really is no advance over Paley's watchmaker.

In contrast, I say we don't yet have a clear picture of the origins of life (and may never have), but that many investigators are seeking to clarify the chemical processes. I know which approach is more logical: the 'let's try and find out' approach over the 'let's give up and praise the designer' approach of Meyer.

Incidentally, from your reading of Signature in the Cell, would you say Meyer believes the genetic system we ended up with is the only possible genetic mechanism that might have arisen?

At no point in my blog have I addressed the content of Meyer's book - remember I haven't read it. I prefer to engage with the published literature, where science is discussed and issues resolved by professional scientists with the relevant expertise. There is precious little peer-reviewed literature on intelligent design.

No. If Meyer mangles information theory to make a point about the origin of life, then his inference becomes rather flaky. In common with many ID creationists, this is an attempt to look authoritative. Unfortunately Meyer tries to operate outside his area expertise.

Upright BiPed - goodbye.

I'm afraid I am too busy to spend too much time over at the ridiculous uncommon descent blog. I have read much of the correspondence regarding Larry Moran's views on 'junk DNA', and I have to say my views are pretty much aligned with his.

To what level have you studied biology, and in which of the biological sciences?