Stephen C. Meyer cracks Science Best Seller List on Amazon
In a “shocking” turn of events, Discovery Institute fellow Stephen C. Meyer’s recent book, Signature in the Cell, has broken through to the Best Seller List in Science on Amazon.com, according to Uncommon Descent.
What does this tell us? Well, for one, Amazon has a very broad definition of what constitutes a “Science” book – I haven’t read the book, but from what I’ve heard, yes, it is pro-intelligent design just a little bit; two, lots of people are buying Signature, which tells us nothing of its scientific accuracy; and three, Clive Hayden, Uncommon Descent writer, loves his Caps Lock.
I mean, with a title like “INTELLIGENT DESIGN BOOK DELIVERS BLOW TO DARWIN; CRACKS AMAZON.COM BEST SELLER LIST IN SCIENCE”, how could I think otherwise?
Well, you haven’t read it, so how do you know it is “shocking” that it is selling well? Perhaps it is well-written, well-argued, and well-documented. This, in fact, is true. Take it from someone who has read all 508 pages, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and who deems it the best philosophy of science book he has ever read.
I put “shocking” in quotes because I don’t think it’s shocking that it selling well – the Discovery Institute and the rest of the mainstream intelligent design movement has been hyping this book for the last six months. It’s no wonder people are buying it.
Since the subject of the book ties into the interests of a large book-buying constituency (the highly religious in the US) it’s no surprise it’s being bought faster off the shelves than other books in the “Science” category that would not attract their interests – a book on evolution, for example.
If they were suddenly interested in “The Greatest Show on Earth”, I could guarantee you that that book would stay at No. 1 for months.
I’m glad you Signature. I plan on reading it someday, but since I have better things to do at this present time, like learn a university genetics textbook before my first year of uni (something that will be more useful than reading Signature, I promise) it can wait.
Well take it from someone who has read the book (unfortunately).
Shorter Signature in the Cell:
I can’t possibly believe this all happened by chance, ergo Goddiddit.
And BTW, Fortune cookies have more philosophy in them.
“I haven’t read it, but I know what it says; it’s certainly not scientific.”
Sounds rather like a fundamentalist conservative refusing to read any pro-gay marriage literature to me.
Chase Nelson:
Oh, I plan to eventually read it, I just haven’t yet. However, as it is a book that restates everything the ID movement has been saying for the past four years, albeit supposedly brilliantly, according to the ID sites I read (Evo News & Views, Uncommon Descent etc.), I feel pretty safe saying that it doesn’t have many groundbreaking ideas in it that I’ve never seen before.
I could be proven wrong of course, once I read the book, but that’s a while away.
I did actually ask for a free copy of the book from the “author and friends” (http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=721), but they didn’t respond for some reason. Their loss, if the book is as great as everyone is saying it is.
And I never said those words that you quoted. Perhaps you could make it clear that you were paraphrasing? Cheers.
While I have to agree – a position of critique should not be reached before examining the contents of the object of critique, much has been written, discussed, argued and spread around about the contents, that I doubt there would be any surprises within the unopened covers.
I don’t have to see Ben Stein’s “Expelled” to know it’s gonna be a biased load of tripe – the preview, the reviews, and the criticisms have already done the work for me in various ways. They’ve done the legwork, and I’ve been able to make up my own mind as to whether or not I want to subject myself to the contents within the movie. (Answer: I have better things to do with two hours. Like perform a bowel movement)
There comes a point where there is sufficient supporting evidence for the contents of a book or film to be known without reading it. Myers position is no secret, and he pimps his position all over the web, writes articles, speaks at conferences, etc. It’s a pretty good assumption that the book is just a rehash of these arguments.
Similarly, if you’re not into Dawkins, you’d pretty much be able to know the contents of his latest book through the comments, reviews, and publicity surrounding the book. However, having read “Greatest Show on Earth”, I can tell you that his stance (which is publicly known) is supported by a huge amount of evidence in the book – Dawkins has publicly announced that this would be inside the book. He cites several experiments which were set up to “prove” evolution occurs. The now famous E-Coli experiment not only proved that characteristics of an organism can be adapted to external pressures, it also collected an unbroken chain of “transitional fossils” frozen at every generation so that the branching chain of the new citric-acid-eating species could be located down the family tree. This was an experiment run over 21 years, began with a hypothesis, went through a procedure, and could be falsified. Data was collected from which conclusions could be reached, and if possible, they can be repeated at any step of the process.
One might say I’m biased towards the pro-evolution side, but honestly, if there was one shred of evidence that Myers could present, or has presented in his book, he would have done the same. Cite one – just ONE – experiment which is set up to show design. It’s so easy: Hypothesis: DNA was designed. Come up with a procedure to test this, falsify it, and produce conclusive evidence. Is such an experiment was laid out in detail in Myers’ book – that would sell it for me. That kind of statement is nowhere to be found, forcing me to conclude it would be filled with the usual “Evolution does not account for the complexity of life, therefore, it had to be designed by something more complex, but which I could never begin to explain”. This suspicion is confirmed by Geoff above, who has read it, and now I really, truly don’t have to. Thanks, Geoff!