 |
| |
| |
|
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (ConversantLife.com®)
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 14 Reviews
|
Price: $13.99
|
|
Sale: $9.01
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: Harvest House Publishers
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780736924429
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: William A. Dembski::Sean McDowell
|
|
Publisher: Harvest House Publishers
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 213
|
|
Publication Date: 2008-07-01
|
|
Reading Level: 240
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: This compact guide lays out the basics of Intelligent Design, popularly known as ID. William Dembski, the dean of the intelligent–design movement, and Sean McDowell especially target readers whose understanding may have been confused by educational bias and one–sided arguments and attacks. Commonsense and no–nonsense, with pointed examples, the authors explain - the central theories of ID, showing why the presence of information and meaningful complexity require the involvement of intelligence
- why ID adheres to the scientific method and is a valid field of scientific inquiry
- why scientific evidence increasingly conflicts with evolutionary theories
- how both evolutionary theory and ID have religious/philosophical underpinnings, and why this causes so much controversy
- how both systems of thought have radical implications for our culture—and what readers can do about it
Clarifying crucial issues, this key resource gives nonspecialists a solid grasp of one of today’s foundational religious–scientific–cultural concepts.
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Carefully clarified Intelligent Design |
Date: 2008-12-08 |
|
| |
Details: Although I find Intelligent-Design (ID) arguments inadequate (but not nearly as much as Darwinian ones), I would be unjustified in denying the book 5 stars, for its earnest pursuit of truth in the subjects, notwithstanding abusive attacks by opponents.
Let me first get off the chest my main dissatisfaction with the book. It needlessly mixes in Christian dogma while its other arguments may be persuasive to many non-Christians, and disturbing me most is (p.183) the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia that man "has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God...". Did the Holocaust victims transgress that law, or did their persecutors, following the law of Darwin?
Since speaking of Darwin, I might focus on a chief issue doubly discrediting him, the "slight modifications" he contends occur randomly in, and lead to survival of, organisms. Such slight modification compared to the lack of it hardly effects the survival of one group and not the other. There must obviously be a substantial enough difference to lead to that result. But more to the point is his allegation that an organism's form is functional in both stages of the modification. Often quoted (p.138) is his: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This is one instance where ID falls short. Its "irreducible complexity" (p.140) makes a strong case that such slight modification is insufficient for an organ to be functional in both stages. This is, however, not conclusively demonstrated, Darwinists continually arguing, though equally not demonstrating, that an organ can have a function in each stage. The trouble is concentration on an organ, like the eye, or other part of the whole, as if that part belonged at some stage to another whole. The slight modification is to occur to the organism considered as whole; so whereas it may be conceivable that before such modification the eye for one functioned appropriately in another organism, it evidently did not in the same one. It is clear without more research that absence of a functioning component of an organ in the same organism causes some disability.
ID's also introduced "specified complexity" (p.104) likewise lacks reliability. By it "Complexity...ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance", and "Specificity...ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern that could signal intelligence". "Pattern" is vague here. It is exemplified (p.106) by "ice crystals, but such a design would be embedded in the laws of nature". It may be asked whether ID would not belong to laws of nature as well; regardless, as an example of a qualifying pattern is given the combination that opens a lock and "is therefore both complex and specified, and thus exhibits design" (p.107). The combination, however, could be said to display a purpose rather than pattern.
Purpose, or goal, is indeed what ID looks for in the formation of organs spoken of above by Darwin, as noted by the authors regarding computer programs (p.109): "The specified complexity was there all along, having been inserted by the programmer to achieve the program's goal". Whether the formation of organisms is "directed", "guided", "purposeful", or not is what the great dispute is about. From purpose is then made something of a leap to intelligence, and God.
It has been my effort in reviews here and in other work (On Proof for the Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries) to show that the search for purpose in the organism's form overlooks a much simpler observation, of a phenomenon too familiar to be thought of, namely the behavior itself that distinguishes all live organisms: its "directedness" toward the "goal" of preservation. This purpose controls all of life, including the living's formation and adaptation, requiring no further searches in this respect.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: excellent review |
Date: 2008-12-05 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: This easy to follow 233 page book is one of the best summaries of the evidence and arguments for Intelligent Design (ID) in print. The authors answer most of the common objection against Intelligent Design in a very convincing manner that should convince anyone except diehard Darwin fundamentalists. As the controversy continues to heat up I expect more debates and books, but this book should become a classic. In an excellent section the authors review what can be done to help others understand what ID is and why it is important to science. The section on irreducible complexity was excellent as was the section on a fine tuned universe. All in all a superior well documented and well argued logically presented book. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Love it |
Date: 2008-09-26 |
|
|
| |
Details: It's easy to be a critic. You don't even have to buy the book. Just browse the TOC and spit out your rhetoric. You can go on for 10,000 words and make people think you actually held the book in your hand.
I bought it, I read it. I liked it. It was the easiest book I have found on Intelligent Design. I generally have a hard time reading Dembski. But this book was an easy read. And it addressed every aspect of ID that I have come across.
I was a little put-off by the first few pages that made the book sound like a creationist work because it talked about how naturalism/atheism is a dominating ideology (theology) in the media and in the education system that causes young people to lean towards atheism -- which is no doubt true. But after those first few pages it was all ID.
I liked the discussion of why critics continually call ID "creationism" even though they must know the difference, or else they have never actually read anything about ID. That reason being the presumption of materialism/naturalism -- if a conclusion suggests a possible non-materialist cause then it must be thrown out according to their "methodology." So when someone says "design" then these folks scream "creationism" (although it seems to me that if you insist on materialism, then you could use that "design" evidence to justify your belief that life on earth was created by space aliens, as we saw Francis Crick do many years ago, and also saw Dawkins admit in "Expelled"). Creationism, of course, is actually an evangelical biblical literalist belief system that says the bible is first and if science doesn't fit it, then science is wrong. This book is not that.
In my opinion this is the best ID book that I have seen for regular folk. Its a great book. Love it. Highly recommend it.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Good summary of Intelligent Design but.... |
Date: 2008-09-07 |
|
| |
Details: It does not give a good reason for the long chain of fossil creatures that appear to lead up to humans. It does not specify WHERE or WHEN the Intelligence inserts information. It too easily writes off the fact that we share DAMAGED and USELESS viral pseudogenes with other primates by supposing they have a yet to be discovered function.
Maybe they are left over and GOd took an existing genome and altered it to make the next species. Intelligent design of genes AND common descent can BOTH be true. Each species could have been the surrogate mother of the next - passing on designed genes with God altering or adding to them at the fertilized egg stage (zygote). See ZYGOTE THEORY in Wordpress.
http://zygotetheory.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/zygote-theory/
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Lying for God. Dembski's latest anti-science tract aims to twist the young. |
Date: 2008-09-06 |
|
| |
Details: "Welcome to the Debate" heads Chapter One. What debate? This book sets out to debate nothing whatever. Its one purpose is to discredit evolution in the minds of its readers and suggest ID is a better alternative. Debate never enters into it. Not there is really even a debate between evolution and ID for not a shred of evidence has ever been produced by ID to support it claims. It is in fact wrong to even term ID as a theory for it has no supporting hypothesis, no predictive ability and nothing quantified and is devoid of specimens and biological examples that stand up to scrutiny. These not insignificant fatal drawbacks however have not prevented leading religious apologist and ID proponent William Dembski and Sean McDowell, Head of the Bible Department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools from writing a book against evolution, a subject neither of them are in any way qualified to write about, and it shows.
Firstly, this book is not written for those who are already science literate and educated. It is written for teenagers who have yet to come fully into contact with science at school or for adults who lack real science education but might be wavering in their faith. It is basically a pre-emptive strike. Whilst it might come across as a friendly fireside chat, so-to-speak, Dembski and his cohorts must be extremely worried by the prospect of real education and science demolishing their religious drivel for him to write such desperate rubbish as this. In this respect Dembski is doing nothing different from the practice of religion worldwide; whilst their young, indoctrinate them with religion. After that a diet of circular reasoning, evasion and outright lies when required should keep most of them in line.
The plan of the book will surprise no one accustomed to ID tactics for it trades on exploiting the confusion in the public mind of the equation of Darwinism with evolution.. Firstly, present yourselves as open minded and balanced, even though you are not. Second, shift the emphasis onto spreading doubts about evolutionary theory and attempt to discredit evolutionists. Third, suggest ID is a better explanation. Four, blame evolution for all sorts of nasty events and outcomes. Five, propose a plan of action to bolster ID. To achieve this, Dembski and his apologist co-writer McDowell have to repeated lie through their teeth, misrepresent evidence in favor of evolution, take quotations out of context and widely exaggerate the validity of ID. And lie in support of their errant God they most certainly do.
The lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations come so thick and fast it becomes almost impossible to keep count. Here is a small selection from the twenty-two (22) that litter pages 32-35.
* For the scientist to study nature, nature must have an underlying rational order that the scientist can grasp.
* If the natural world was random and lacked order, scientific study would be impossible.
* Nature is not the confusing world of Alice in Wonderland, but an orderly place that our minds seem ideally suited to understand.
* Why the world is law-governed is ultimately a question not for science but for philosophy.
* Naturalism (believing nature is all there is) is as much a religious commitment as theism.
* Naturalism is a depressing perspective. It offers no hope beyond the immediate future (after you die, you're worm food) We would also argue it is demonstrably untrue.
* If God does not exist, then sin and guilt are illusions.
Yet more blatant lies are forthcoming when Dembski starts on the supposed merits of ID. All of these can be found in the lower half of page 41.
* Today, design can be rigorously formulated as a scientific theory.
* Intelligent design has emerged as a new program for scientific research.
* In biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development.
* Intelligent design does not have to prove that it is a science - it already is a science.
Are you open to the evidence, Dembski asks at the end of chapter two? Well, yes we are. We're waiting.
You will wait in vain. Not a shred of supported evidence in support of ID is forthcoming. The next three chapters are solely Dembski and McDowell's attempt to discredit evolution. It will pass muster for no one who already knows and understands evolutionary theory and evidence that supports it. The entire rant consists of nothing more than, if it LOOKS like it was designed, that will do. Therefore let's say it WAS designed and talk round in circles. But whatever happens don't commit yourself and stick your neck out and present any evidence because actually, we don't have any. The simple fact is this: if Dembski had ANY real evidence of ID, he would have announced in on page one, chapter one.
Not surprisingly, the barefaced lies and blatant exaggerations just keep coming.
McDowell Pg. 52
Yet to count as evidence for evolution, vestigial structures must be truly functionless.
Reference to a real science book however gives a somewhat different definition:
In the context of human evolution, human vestigiality involves those characters (such as organs or behaviors) occurring in the human species that are considered vestigial - in other words having lost all or most of their original function through evolution. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.
Muller, G. B. (2002) "Vestigial Organs and Structures." in Encyclopedia of Evolution. Mark Pagel, editor in chief, New York: Oxford University Press. pp 1131-1133.
McDowell: Page 56
Many have claimed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA. This is often taken as decisive evidence of ape-to-human evolution...As interesting as genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans are, they are not evidence for Darwinism. Design is also able to explain them.
McDowell never gets round to saying how design is able to explain them. Of course he was never going to any such thing; the only thing he was doing was trying to undermine science in the minds of his young readers with an unsupported statement. A somewhat typical approach of the barefaced christian apologist.
In the section, HIV Mutations, McDowell takes a swipe at Jerry Coyne, a name which will most likely be unknown to most readers of this book, and through Coyne at macro-evolution. Why Coyne? Coyne has, over the years specifically targeted ID supporters like Michael Behe, a protein biochemist at Lehigh and perhaps more importantly, a friend of Dembski. McDowell partially quotes Coyne and then proceeds to take it out of context claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution, quoting Behe on HIV virus mutations in support. Behe's nonsense on HIV has been discredited times out of count but McDowell ignores this making unsupported statements that expect the impossible, thus lending an air of discredit to evolution.
McDowell: Page 62
The HIV virus has not undergone the breathtaking changes we should expect if natural selection were as powerful as Darwin claimed.
This response comes from Coyne's, The Great Mutator:
"No sane evolutionist has ever claimed that an adaptation of a parasite to a host will produce complex biochemical changes. Evolutionary theory predicts only that parasites will adapt, not how they will adapt."
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807
At the end of this, McDowell tells his readers, "Ready for the Trash Heap?" and "Darwinism is dead in the water." As if. Even supposing any of these examples had the least validity they would not discredit the theory very much for there is substantially more evidence than Dembski, McDowell or any of the ID brigade could handle. A similar stream lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations follow in chapters four and five that are openly told to readers not in a position to judge or assess the validity of the claims.
Dembski's lies become deliberately mendacious in chapter 6 when he starts on about his "Explanatory Filter" and what he terms Specified Complexity. Dembski knows all his drivel about specified complexity as well as his Explanatory Filter have been totally demolished. In particular he has failed to address the central issue with it, "When do we have enough knowledge to use the Explanatory Filter such that it works reliably?" Moreover, Dembski has never provided a testing methodology for determining whether his Explanatory Filter delivers upon the promises he makes for it, making reliable independent evaluation impossible. As for Specified Complexity, in reply to a critique of the "law of conservation of information" posted on talkreason.org, Dembski states: "I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity"
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf
For a full appraisal of Dembski's Explanatory Filter and his Specified Complexity as well as all of the other arguments used by Dembski and McDowell, refer to this book:
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism
by Andrew J. Petto (Editor), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor) IBSN 0393050904
In Dembski and McDowell's make-believe world old answers that long since lost their validity are held up as examples of science getting it wrong. Neither take any account of the simple fact science does not ever stand still. Any answers are permanently open to review as Dembski knows and understands all too well, but he's not telling this to his audience. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
In the past Dembski has tried to deny the charge that his is an argument from ignorance, but in a recent statement in the Chronicle of Higher Education, he admits otherwise whilst trying to excuse his approach:
"An argument from ignorance is still better than a pipe dream in which you are deluding yourself. I at least I am admitting to ignorance as opposed to pretending that you've solved the problem when you haven't". (Monastersky 2001)
Given his dark age mindset, Dembski clearly can't tell the difference between ignorance and pipe dreams. That however hasn't prevented him foisting both onto a gullible public. Avoid this book. It is full of lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations that do no justice to the subject of evolution.
|
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
