Skip to comments.Books of the Year 2009 (Times Literary Supplement Selects Intelligent Design Book as one of them)
Posted on 12/11/2009 8:52:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Signature in the Cell Named One of Top Books of the Year by Times Literary Supplement
Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is being named one of the top books of 2009 in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement (TLS) annual "Books of the Year" issue.
The selection was made by prominent philosopher (and noted atheist) Thomas Nagel at New York University. The books issue is not online yet, but the TLS website has posted a preview of Nagel's endorsement of the book.
Below is Nagel's reason for selecting the book :
Stephen C. Meyers Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
I have the book !
Today, World Magazine came in the mail.
Stephen Meyers on the Cover !
I see a huge difference between what the Times Literary Supplement is doing and what you’re trying to imply by showing Hitler’s Picture.
Firstly, let us not conflate THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT and TIME Magazine. These are TWO DIFFERENT MAGAZINES.
Secondly, There is a HUGE difference between being selected BOOK OF THE YEAR BY THE TLS ( especially when the REASONS provided are detailed ) and being selected MAN OF THE YEAR by TIME.
Notice how the Times Literary Supplement DESCRIBES Meyer’s book :
“Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.”
That sounds like a complement to me. In other words, his book was selected BECAUSE of the care in which it was researched and presented.
TIME MAGAZINE on the other hand tells us how a MAN OF THE YEAR is selected. HE OR SHE IS SOMEONE WHO : “for better or for WORSE, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
TIME, I believe selected Hitler ( or the Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 70’s ) as people who FOR WORSE, has influenced the events of the year.
Let’s NOT try to IMPLY that the Times is calling Stephen Meyer’s book one of the worse ( as in Hitler’s selection ) because the explanation they provided on why it was selected does not tell us that at all.
I do have a problem with a philosopher, regardless of notoriety, providing critique on a field outside of his expertise. He may be perfectly capable of commenting on the skill with which an argument is made, but nothing on the basis for the argument.
I would also point out another author so honored as a TLS Book of the Year recipient - Barack Obama.
That you personally have a problem with it says little about the validity of the arguments presented in that book.
Hence pointing out Hitler as man of the year is tangential to the issue at hand.
What we would like to know is exactly what is wrong with the BOOK ITSELF. *THAT* is where the focus should be on.
Is that kind of like the "climate consensus"? LOL.