Product Description

As progress in science continues to reveal unimagined complexities, three scientists revisit the difficult and compelling question of the origin of our universe. As mathematician, biochemist, and philosopher of science, they explore the possibility of developing a reliable method for detecting an intelligent cause and evidence for design at the origin of life. In the process, they present a strong case for opening and pursuing a fruitful exchange between science and theology.

Mathematician William Dembski, author of The Design Inference, first argues that new developments in the information sciences make intelligent design objectively and scientifically detectable—he identifies the signs of design. Next, philosopher of science, Stephen Meyer, and biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, argue that these signs are now clearly evident in both the architecture of the universe and the features of living systems. Other essays by the authors defend the scientific status of the theory of intelligent design and show how that theory supports traditional religious belief without necessarily "proving" the existence of God. In a concluding essay, Michael Behe responds to critics of his best selling book, Darwin's Black Box, thus bringing readers up-to-date on the status of the contemporary design argument in biology.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #92339 in Books
• Published on: 2000-12-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 180 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780898708097
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Customer Reviews

A Primer on Intelligent Design
This book is a compliation of three essays (first 113 pages) which study the possibility of intelligent design from a physics, mathematical and philosophical aspect. The remainder of the book (approximately an additional 80 pages) make up the appendix which supplies three additional essays which speak about Intelligent Design and seek to address specific criticisms against this theory. The first appendix, entitled Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design, is written by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is possibly the best chapter of the entire book. For a primer on what "intelligent design" is considered to be by its proponents, this book would suffice. I would highly recommend this book to those who are interested in this subject.

The universal as witness; evidence and the universal probabilities
For those who are philosophically opposed to the notion that the universe may have been designed, the root of objection is not based on scientific evidence. It has become a mantra, a dogma, an article of faith to declare loudly that "evolution is a proven fact", but the statement needs to demonstrate that it asserts something true. If evolution is a proven fact, the scientific community that believes in evolution does not need to be shy. The evidence doesn't need to be hidden. Bring it out; let all seekers after truth and reality observe it. I may say that I have not come across any such evidence, and my fields are biochemistry and physics with a strong interest in mathematics. It's certainly possible there is information I haven't examined. I would love to know about it... but so far, evidence itself does not support a universe in which life came about by chance, necessity or a combination thereof.

This book explicates the problems that the Theory of Evolution has in its broadest sense as well as in a more explicit mechanistic sense. The articles comprising it are for the most part extremely well written. I should mention that the second article, the first of those written by Stephen Meyer, I found a little tedious but only because the author used therein a style that I consider rather heavy, repeating one concept and restating it in different words without adding anything in the restatement. I felt that the article could have been condensed by at least half without losing any sense. Yet WHAT Stephen Meyer was saying was interesting... and the second article written by him in the book had no such internal repetition and was highly readable. I have had to conclude that Stephen Meyer has experienced readers or audience who have failed to follow his philosophy-of-science and implications-of-probability-bounds arguments before... and he's taking no chances (pun intended) of the meaning of his writing being misunderstood. That he is a highly intelligent man with a great deal to impart on the very meaning of science and the implications of data is undeniable.

On the basis of his second article, I will be happy to read further writings of his.

Michael Behe is always a pleasure to read. His writing is clear, and his examples are apt. His article will be familiar in most aspects to readers of his ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box", but the follow-up article, in which he responds to criticisms of the examples and arguments used in that book, is interesting and unambiguous. What comes through clearly is that criticisms were either a) science-based or b) philosophy-based. The science-based criticisms are remarkable for their failure to challenge the biochemical irreducible complexity argument and to find real examples that contradict the evidence presented by Behe. In fact, every example presented with the intent to break down Behe's argument and specific examples not only fails to do so, but inadvertently supplies evidence that SUPPORTS Behe's argument. To go into detail here would be inappropriate and far too lengthy - but Behe's rebuttal is on the basis of biochemical evidence. Let those reading this review be challenged to read the book themselves and judge on the basis of what Michael Behe has written - not opinion, not selective examples, but real and soundly scientific examination of evidence. You need not purchase the book if you're opposed to its concepts - but why not borrow it from your local library? If you are not a biochemist, have next to you while you read it a biological science or biochemistry textbook. Make sure it's an advanced level textbook so that the incredible and complex reality of the systems Behe is discussing can be checked by you in terms of the details. Better still, those who are not biochemists might find enormous pleasure in studying this field just as laymen - the complexity of life is a rewarding and fascinating study, particularly (for me) on the chemical level where complexity is unmistakable.

William Dembski's writing concerning specified complexity is highly informative, and I was drawn to his style of writing, which is clear and has a nice quality that combines information with accessibility. This was the first piece of writing I'd read by Dembski, and it led me to read with great pleasure his other books - books which impress by the scope and detail that he includes. Do not mistake - readers may disagree with William Dembski's viewpoint, but if they are intellectually honest, they have no business stating that his writing is scientifically flawed, intellectually incapable, or riddled with unproven assumptions. Au contraire. His work, on the basis of his published writings, is honest and demonstrative of a high degree of original and intelligent thought with a strong commitment to the evidence.

I should mention several things that might worry potential readers: all three writers are convinced by the raw data of the universe that the universe exhibits unmistakable evidence of design. Intelligent Design is a theory that states design can be detected, not by waving around a Bible, but by the evidence of the universe - the universal bound, probability theory, biochemistry, biology, these are the fields which yield information on this. Intelligent Design makes no claim about who this designer might be, what the purpose of this designer might be, etc. Critics of Intelligent Design who believe they are inflicting a killing blow by saying, "But there's no redundant pathway for this or that, so how intelligent is that?" are, I'm afraid, revealing that they have not read this book. Intelligent Design is so clearly delineated that a reader could scarcely miss it without wilfully deciding to close their eyes - and if a reader still remains confused, he is referred to Dembski's "The Design Revolution" where questions and answers are presented with the purpose of enlightening those who have become confused because they've assumed a meaning for Intelligent Design that comes from their own opinion or what has been said OF the Intelligent Design theory.

Secondly, I note that some reviewers have explicitly rejected Intelligent Design because they say it has philosophical or religious implications. That's irrelevant in assessing a theory and evidence, though. Neo-Darwinism has philosophical or religious implications, and that doesn't affect whether or not it is TRUE. The EVIDENCE ALONE ought to be that which is examined, and explicitly Darwinism has redefined the meaning of science since the propagation of the theory, upon the assumption that common descent is a fact. I contend that it's not up to scientists to redefine words - it's up to those who are experts in semantics. And particularly it is highly suspect to redefine a word so as to exclude competing theories a priori from examination of evidence. To force a particular filter for examination of data, and to force fields of research, based upon a faulty definition of science (by assuming natural mechanics are sufficient to describe the origin of life and those systems in nature exhibiting specified complexity) is a logical error of such magnitude that it creates a blinding supernova of unthinking assumption, and is already creating frustration and dead ends in scientific research.

To make it clear: whether a scientist believes in God or not is irrelevant to an examination of data. Examination of data is the first responsibility of that type of science which seeks to establish observable laws and phenomena, because without data confirming predictions, the various fields of science become nothing more than an enjoyable free-wheeling exercise in imagination. Theories are NECESSARY, though, in order to create predictions (often based on conditional arguments arising from a particular theory) which can then be tested. Historical science is, however, a different kettle of fossil fish. It is non-verifiable in the sense that the past cannot be recreated. But studies of origins are either equally unfalsifiable or equally falsifiable.

It is almost ludicrous that this book has garnered so many reviewers, in the sense that many excellent titles on Amazon have not even a tenth of the number of reviews. Are so many people reading this book? Having read through the reviews here, I cannot conclude that. At least half of the reviews are scathingly attacking the idea, not the book. I venture to say that the majority of the reviewers who have given low ratings for this book have done so without reading it. Perhaps some have read reviews of it. Perhaps some have read a carefully chosen extract from it on a website, together with anti-extract rhetoric designed to show the many "errors" the book has. But to have actually read the book would reveal a common dishonesty with out-of-context quotations when quoted by someone whose philosophical stance is diametrically opposed to that espoused by his opponent.

That is why I say simply... read the book. Judge its scientific credibility on the basis of what it says, not on the basis of what someone says it says. Do not be like those who read books such as "How to Learn Kafka In Ten Minutes" or "Easy Plato For Busy People" or "Einstein Made Simple!" or "Feynman for Dummies". If you want to know what Plato wrote, you read Plato, not someone's hashed-up interpretation of his writing. If you want to understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, read his published papers - they're not out of print, and the man was a genius. If you want to read about the oft-quoted (tediously over-quoted) idea that the world believed in a flat earth at certain points in history and in certain cultures, it might just be a good idea for you to read the published primary sources rather than quote a frankly ludicrous modern retelling of history. You are guaranteed to be astonished by the cartographic and underlying geographical knowledge and assumptions of the ancient world, and the astonishing misinformation disseminated by people who have taken on board as fact modern myths that have no supporting data.

I have read most of the neo-Darwin literature - much of it was required reading. During my university studies, my questions and requests for data were shunted aside as irrelevant, and I was expected to "believe" in neo-Darwinism as an article of faith, on pains of being considered unscientific if I did not. I still preferred to make up my own mind on the basis of evidence... and to this day, I have the same approach. It is important to read Dawkins, Gould, etc., plus the published literature and published experiments in the journals - or at least, I found it important, because I wished to see (and continue to wish to see) what real evidence such an important theory has. I liked Dawkins' clear style, but his lack of substance and substitution of assumption for fact often frustrated me. Gould's ideas were always interesting, even though I felt they belonged more in science fiction than hard science. I would be fascinated and surprised to learn that those who believe tooth-and-nail in the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth have actually read all the books on the subject of Intelligent Design which they certainly imply they have. Why? Because Intelligent Design makes sense ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, and ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. This book, to be specific, has certain arguments and a clear, unambiguous presentation of why neo-Darwinism, relying on naturalistic mechanisms of chance and necessity, actually does not provide a plausible explanation for the evidence. I would be bemused and pleased were my review to be instrumental in convincing anyone who thinks they know about Intelligent Design but haven't actually investigated it other than as a theory to shoot down by reading counter-arguments against it... to actually... read this book. I would that all human beings would think clearly and examine information without allowing bias to prevent an honest assessment. That's my hope. Honest assessment. Not brainwashing, not fine but empty rhetoric. Just honest assessment. By ALL MEANS read the counter-arguments. But don't do that without reading the arguments countered first... and not out of context. Read the book, then criticise. That's fair. If readers end up disagreeing, at least they would then do so on the basis of awareness and knowledge of what they criticise.

To the three authors of this book: thank you. Ultimately I enjoyed your writing, and I have found my interest in probability theory rekindled. I will continue to enjoy researching the complex systems in biological organisms, and I will always look for the universe to provide evidence, not my own wishes.

To sum up: it's no crime to have a philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief amounting to certainty. But that philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief MUST NOT filter out theories arising from the evidence. In other words, an intelligent appraisal of data should not include straitjacketing the data. One can PREFER a particular interpretation. One can BELIEVE in a particular interpretation. One can allow other factors (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc.) to impact upon one's belief of which interpretation or theory is correct. But that's got nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with real assessment of raw data. True science is not about commitment to a particular belief. It is about the great search for what is, because what is leaves unmistakable signs in the very complexity that specifies it - this we know without doubt. The human race did not know that a hundred years ago, before the strides in knowledge that encompass biochemistry and physics. A genuine search for truth in the universe's physical nature ought to be bounded by NO presuppositions. If the universe arose by chance, it won't be "proved" by disqualifying any other theory before the evidence is examined. If the universe arose by design, it won't be "proved" by assuming it is so. Assumption is a hindrance to honest assessment of the physical data - and a scientist ought not to put his assumptions in place BEFORE his assessment of data.

Let the evidence itself speak for itself.

Forget the critics
I have to give this book 5 stars to counter-balance the two reviews that slam this book. It is obvious that neither reviewer has read this book, in part or in total.

Intelligent Design is not creation science. It accepts evolution (i.e., common descent), gradual change over time, and natural selection as a fine-tuning mechanicism of life. It merely suggests that the formation of life is guided by intelligence - the exact question of how that intelligence performed its work, or who that intelligence is, is left open. (It could be anything from aliens to Zeus.)

Intelligent Design has caused Darwinian Fundamentalists to react with alarm because Darwinism is the central facet of their world view. Their objections are more philosophical than scientific (I've yet to read ONE negative review of an ID book that contains any science whatsoever). Darwinists have been the Grand Inquisitors of academia and are crushing real science. While Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, and other fields are literally taking quantum leaps into the future, evolutionary Biology has barely advanced past the early 1900s thanks to the the Fundamentalists' insistence that all evidence be construed, however obliquely, to support the notion that natural selection and random mutation can account for all life on earth.

Read about ID and make up your mind. Don't listen to Fundamentalists like Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins who are long on rhetoric and short on science.