Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com

Evolution News & Views ^ | November 16, 2009 | Robert Crowther

[GodGunsGuts]

Signature in the Cell makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books

Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category. According to Amazon.com, books on its 2009 list of best sellers are “[r]anked according to customer orders through October. Only books published for the first time in 2009 are eligible.” The book's publisher, HarperOne, reports that the book is entering its fifth printing in as many months, and continues to sell strongly both online and in stores.

“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.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

Tell me, if after calling Dr. Meyer’s an “idiot” it turns out that you are COMPLETELY WRONG, and Dr. Meyer’s is 100% CORRECT, wouldn’t that mean that you are the one who fits your characterization of Dr. Meyer?

[celmak]

The universe is analog ... all organic and inorganic matter is analog ... All living mattter is analog ... All DNA is analog ..

Ever hear of Digital Tape?

[Hegewisch Dupa]

or Planck’s constant

[windcliff]

ping

[editor-surveyor]

Bump!

[OldNavyVet]

“Ever hear of Digital Tape? “

Ever heard of an analog to digital converter being used to store analog music on something?

Guess what they called that something.

[editor-surveyor]

How does it feel to be a nose picking liar?

What is it about the truth that makes you pick your nose and post your snot here?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

Still waiting for your reply. Would it be fair to say that it is you who are deserving of your characterization of Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???

[Wacka]

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.

[Wacka]

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.

[onedoug]

Not currently in the Library. I think I heard the author though a few weeks ago on Prager or Medved. Very interesting.

Thanks.

Ready for that U-2 ride?

[YHAOS]

Beep!

[OldNavyVet]

Please a look at post 7.

It supports my contention that Meyer is an idiot.

Feel better?

[windcliff]

Ready for that U-2 ride?

What’s that? Driving with a cat in the car?

[GodGunsGuts]

We will get to #7 in a moment. In the meantime, please answer the question. You called Dr. Meyer an "idiot" for supposedly being in error about DNA being digital. If it turns that you are completely wrong (and Dr. Meyer is 100% correct), wouldn't it be more appropriate to call you the idiot?

[tpanther]

Exactly. Liberals continue to elicit peer review arguments as if they offer some kind of remote validity.

I’ve asked the liberals on FR if a peer review of an article were done without the name attached to the work, how is it the “peers” would know if the scientist was creationist or evolutionist?

crickets.

[tpanther]

Huh?

Why is it liberals continue to demand all these rules be met that they don’t intend to keep themselves?

Peer review...then “measurable, replicable”, etc. but when it’s pointed out no other theory like multiverse theory or string theory be required to meet these standards, we see endless excuse-making and hand waving and back-peddaling.

And now we see demands for...

“empirically verified” and “metrics” ???

Where are the...ummmm “empirically verified metrics” for life oozing out of muck all by itself? Let alone all life supposedly coming from this single-celled first organism into all the complex life-forms we know today.

[jimt]

And now we see demands for...

“empirically verified” and “metrics” ???

GGG made that claim in an earlier post. See his phrasing.

[tacticalogic]

No one demanded it. It was freely submitted that the evidence exists. I simply asked what the metrics were.

Do you think you can simply make up claims that you have empirically verified evidence for things that there are no empirical metrics to even measure by and nobody should be able to question it?

[jimt]

The words were ...whereas ID is the only known empirically verified source...

That's where it came from.