Product Description

Evolutionary science lies at the heart of a modern understanding of the natural world. Darwin’s theory has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and today it not only explains the origin and design of living things, but highlights the importance of a scientific understanding in our culture and in our lives.

Recently the movement known as “Intelligent Design” has attracted the attention of journalists, educators, and legislators. The scientific community is puzzled and saddened by this trend–not only because it distorts modern biology, but also because it diverts people from the truly fascinating ideas emerging from the real science of evolution. Here, join fifteen of our preeminent thinkers whose clear, accessible, and passionate essays reveal the fact and power of Darwin’s theory, and the beauty of the scientific quest to understand our world.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #270068 in Books
• Published on: 2006-05-09
• Released on: 2006-05-09
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780307277220
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Writer and editor Brockman (What We Believe but Cannot Prove), who publishes the online magazine Edge, has assembled sixteen short essays by prominent scientists on current thinking about evolution. A few of the contributors, such as Jerry A. Coyne and Daniel C. Dennett, use close readings of Intelligent Design (ID) advocates' claims to argue that ID is a political or ideological movement without scientific legitimacy. These arguments are concise and persuasive, if sometimes familiar; strong evidence and wide acceptance in the scientific community have made evolution central to biology and related branches. The most fresh and interesting essays essentially ignore ID to explore aspects of evolutionary biology, including paleontologist Tim D. White considering evidence for Homo sapiens' evolution, psychologist Steven Pinker on the compatibility of evolution and ethics, and geologist Scott D. Sampson proposing primary science education that links evolution and ecology. As a whole, this sampler makes a powerful cross-discipline case for teaching evolution as an accepted biological consensus-as opposed to "teaching the debate"-and offers glimpses into how the science behind the theory continues to evolve in a range of fields.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.” –Daniel C. Dennett, Philosopher

“Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity.” –Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist

“An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one.” –Steven Pinker, Psychologist

Not only is ID markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory. –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One might add that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of intelligent design. –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all. —Daniel C. Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist

A denial of evolution–however motivated–is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason to ignorance. —Tim D. White, paleontologist

Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity. —Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

The supernatural explanation fails to explain because it ducks the responsibility to explain itself.—Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

Review
“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.” –Daniel C. Dennett, Philosopher

“Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity.” –Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist

“An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one.” –Steven Pinker, Psychologist

Not only is ID markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory. –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One might add that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of intelligent design. –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all. —Daniel C. Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist

A denial of evolution–however motivated–is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason to ignorance. —Tim D. White, paleontologist

Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity. —Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

The supernatural explanation fails to explain because it ducks the responsibility to explain itself.—Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

Nothing indicates that people who believe that life arose by chance also believe that morality is haphazard. —Scott Atran, anthropologist and psychologist

An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one. —Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist

To state that a given organ is so improbable that it requires design is just ill founded. The argument uses standard probability, which does not apply to the evolution of the biosphere. —Stuart A. Kauffman, theoretical biologist

We don’t have an intelligent designer (ID), we have a bungling consistent evolver (BCE). Or maybe an adaptive changer (AC). In fact, what we have in the most economical interpretation is, of course, evolution. —Lisa Randall, physicist

What counts as a controversy must be delineated with care, as we want students to distinguish between scientific challenges and sociopolitical ones. —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

Incredulity doesn’t count as an alternative position or critique. —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

Rather than removing meaning from life, an evolutionary perspective can and should fill us with a sense of wonder at the rich sequence of natural systems that gave us birth and continues to sustain us. —Scott D. Sampson, paleontologist

Customer Reviews

Interesting essays on a wide variety of topics
IT's 16 short essays by 16 scholars plus the section of Judge Jones' Kitzmiller decision dealing with ID's scientific status cover a wide range of topics and make for interesting reading. Obviously not all topics are equally interesting or equally well written, but most of them were very worthwhile.

Some of the tidbits I particularly liked were:

Jerry Coyne distinguished between a weak and a strong form of ID, showed how ID-proponents flip-flop arbitrarily between them, and explained why neither is competent science.

Leonard Susskind examined possible psychological explanations for why ID-proponents cling so tightly to what is obviously a useless scientific theory and offered a sensible approach to dealing with them. Scott Atran's essay on possible evolutionary explanations for religion and other aspects of psychology and behavior was also interesting.

Daniel Dennett proposed that "design" has two entirely different meanings, i.e., "process" and "purpose" and that it is simply an equivocation (illogically using the same word to mean two different things) for ID-proponents to draw conclusions about design-process simply because they find design-purpose in nature. I think "origin" and "function" would have been much better word-choices, respectively, but Dennett's point is well taken. It is indeed illogical to infer intelligent origin merely from finding that an object has some function in nature.

Dennett also reported an example of Dembski's flagrant dishonesty. The more I study Dembski's work, the more I think he's a sleazy con artist. For example, in one of Dembski's moderated chat rooms, "Uncommon Dissent," he or one of his colleagues made an absolutely ridiculous argument that Dover's liability for attorney fees was the fault of the new, pro-evolution board. When a participant posted a response showing that the initial argument was contrary to well established legal principles and court precedents, the moderator, presumably Dembski himself, simply deleted the post. Like I said, sleazy, especially for someone who is supposed to be promoting the idea of "teaching the controversy." Apparently, Dembski wants only his version of the controversy to be taught.

Nicholas Humphrey wrote an interesting essay on the evolution of consciousness, starting with the opening epigram "In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against my conscious self . . . "

Neil Shubin's chapter on the "great transition" from water to land animals was fascinating, and I liked the point he made at the end, that evolution's predictions can be tested. Although Shubin left it unstated, the contrast with ID in that regard is pretty obvious.

The importance of biogeography (the geographic distribution of species), a major topic about which ID, naturally, is completely silent, was a highlight of Frank Sulloway's essay.

Another fascinating essay was Stephen Pinker's argument that the actual basis for morality and ethics is completely different from what many people think. (Hint: contrary to the cutthroat implications of "survival of the fittest," evolution has no problem explaining the emergence of moral behavior.)

Lee Smolin discussed the anthropic principle and the significance of multiverse theories.

Seth Lloyd's essay on the computational power of the universe included examples of how Dembski's "No Free Lunch" arguments fail on several key points. (Dembski is so well educated, it's hard to believe that he could make so many obvious mistakes by accident. The inference to sleazy dishonesty seems a much more plausible explanation.)

Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller case, excerpted in this book, is likely to be a legal landmark. While there are always nits to pick in a 139-page decision about a complex, wide-ranging controversy, Jones' decision got so many major points right, that ID-proponents have no other option but to resort to blatant misrepresentations and other illogical arguments. (See my review of the Discovery Institute's book-length critique of Jones' opinion, "Traipsing Into Evolution," co-written by spokesmen from the so-called "Discovery" Institute. As I said in that review, there is literally a major error of fact, law, or logic on virtually every single page of Traipsing.) The seriousness of the problems that ID-proponents face is demonstrated by the fact that many of Jones' most severe criticisms of ID simply echo statements that Behe himself made, a fact which the authors of "Traipsing" conveniently ignore. (See my review of Darwin's Nemesis for examples.)

One last point: The essays in this book covered a wide range of ideas, but all of them were written by experts in the particular fields that were the subject of their respective essays. That contrasts sharply with books published by ID-proponents, who typically have little or no educational or professional background in the relevant fields that they discuss.

Terse, Well-Written Rebukes of Intelligent Design from Eminent Scientists and Philosophers
In "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement" editor and literary agent John Brockman has assembled sixteen insightful, quite well-written, essays from leading scientists and philosophers regarding the so-called "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design creationism" debate. While most essays offer ample refutations of Intelligent Design, others explore other, related issues, ranging from the evolution of human consciousness and whether there is indeed evidence supporting the very idea of a "designed" universe. Noted evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne distinguishes between "soft" scientific Intelligent Design, and its harder "religious" version, in the opening essay, "Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name". Eminent philosopher David Dennett explains why Intelligent Design is a hoax in "The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated", discussing at length, favorite Intelligent Design rhetorical techniques like "insisting" that a scientific controversy exists when one doesn't, simply by criticizing or misinterpreting valid published scientific research (One that is clearly a favorite pastime of Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer William Dembski.). Paleontologists Tim D. White and Neil H. Shubin weigh in with succinct essays on, respectively, the hominoid fossil record ("Human Evolution: The Evidence") and the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods ("The `Great" Transition"). Historian of science Frank J. Sulloway explains "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design". Distinguished physicist Lisa Randall compares and contrasts evolutionary theory with Intelligent Design ("Designing Words"), discussing both the extensive evidence for evolution and the history of evolutionary thought, while also noting why Intelligent Design fails scientifically. These sixteen essays are an excellent overview of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design; for this very reason alone, they deserve to be read by as wide a readership as possible.

Novel Perspectives on the Utility of Darwin's Theory
Over 200 years after the Enlightenment, and about 150 years after Darwin's theory revolutionized biology, most of the United States (among other countries) remains incredulous towards biology and scientifically illiterate. Coupled with a popular conservative movement, dedicated to actively fighting progress in the biological sciences, and intellectual thought in general, the capacity of future generations to advance science and technology is being threatened.

This threat is called Intelligent Design, and slowly the science community is recognizing that to combat this threat, they as scientists must reach out to the public at large to proactively explain the utility and necessity of their chosen fields, and in relation to Evolution, in particular. In that vein steps John Brockman and a list of 16 highly-respected contemporary scientists, with exceptionally well-written essays.

Intelligent Thought's greatest weakness is that it only offers 16 essays - the scope, impact, and supporting evidence of Darwin's The Origin of Species could accommodate many more discussions. As such, this book will not convert the radical devotees and preachers of Intelligent Design, but you can count on it to bring to focus at least a few concepts related to Evolutionary Theory that all but the most well-read readers will find eye-opening.

Among them:
Several of the authors in this collection of essays address ID's two-faced propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. While often-discussed in the public forum, here these problems with ID are discussed in a fresh way that reinvigorated my view of such tired discussions, and I suspect will persuasively summarize such discussions for newer readers of the Evo/ID Wars discourse.

Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey explores a topic completely novel to me: the problem of consciousness and Darwin's theory, including the modern interpretations of Wallace, Descartes, and others, and balancing the dichotomy of special creation's supposed "moral lesson" with the evolutionary benefits of human consciousness.

Elsewhere, paleontologist Tim White tells the stories of seminal discoveries along the path to reconstructing the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens, as well as the anthropological importance and undeniable logic of such discoveries.

Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin explains the discovery and study of fossils important to the fish-to-reptiles transition in Devonian times, showing that such a transition was not only possible, but nearly inevitable, given the diversity of fish fossils that have been discovered dating back some 370 million years.

Historian of science Frank Sulloway tells the story of Darwin's conversion from creationism to "descent with modification by natural selection" with fascinating details I'd not heard before. Dispelling dramaticized versions of Darwin's Galapagos trip, Sulloway adds tremendous insight into how real scientific discoveries are often stumbled upon, with even their own discoverers being highly skeptical at first.

Psychologist Scott Atran and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker together dispel the notion that morality comes from religion, instead showing the evolutionary roots of morals and other social values, and simulateously criticizes the anthropomorphization of biological change in favor of recognizing that H. sapiens is not the pinnacle of Earth's biosphere - just a haphazard byproduct of Evolution - and that these two observations are completely compatible.

Physicist Lee Smolin and quantum mechanical engineer Seth Lloyd also takes a routes that's entirely new to me - Smolin applies the notion of "Decent with modification by natural selection" to cosmology in a convincing manner; while Lloyd reduces the Universe to bits and computations to demonstrate that the Universe itself is "Intelligent" and biofriendly, adding in a free debunking of Dembski and a list of "Free Lunch Theorems."

And lastly, evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser and chief curator of the Utah Museum of Natural History Scott Sampson make a case for restoring the integrity of science to America's educational system, and leading a campaign for science literacy directed especially towards ecology and evolution.

My only suggestion to the editor, John Brockman, is that a broader repository of essays by eminent scientists, supporting scientific integrity, science literacy, and evolution, in particular, would be a wonderful resource to have.