Dr. Francisco Ayala now claims to have read the book Signature in the Cell. On the Biologos blog he defends his assertion that “the keystone argument of Signature of the Cell [sic] is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms.”
This is amazing. Everyone knows that this is not the keystone argument of the book. Everyone, that is, who has read it with any degree of comprehension.
I think Stephen Meyer said it best in his response published on the same Biologos blog:
Ayala begins his review by attempting to trivialize the argument of Signature in the Cell. But he does so by misrepresenting its thesis. According to Ayala, “The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell [sic] is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms.” He notes—as I do in the book—that all evolutionary biologists already accept that conclusion. He asks: “Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point?” But, of course, the book does not spend hundreds of pages arguing that point. In fact, it spends only 55 pages out of 613 explaining why origin-of-life researchers have—since the 1960s—almost universally come to reject the chance hypothesis. It does so, not because the central purpose of the book is to refute the chance hypothesis per se, but for several other reasons intrinsic to the actual thesis of the book.
Ayala’s resort to index reference counting is embarrassing. He can claim to have read the book, but then this means that he has terrible reading comprehension skills. The decision by Biologos to publish this is an embarrassment for it and its leadership as well.
My previous comments on his pseudo-review of the book are here.