Customer Reviews:
Cream of the Crop.......2006-07-09
I read Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" way back yonder and was impressed with it. This work far surpasses that book and is one of the most lucid I have read about the giants of astronomy. This book ought to be required reading!
A Masterwork.......2006-01-23
Koestler has written a superb summary of the early history of science. The views expressed are certainly partial but it is almost impossible not to be transported by Koestler's prose into a world inhabited by Aristotle, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo. It is a wonderful exploration of the progress of science and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the history and philosophy of science.
A GREAT INTELLECT, PERHAPS, BUT A HIGHLY PREJUDICED ONE!.......2005-10-04
Arthur Koestler was touted throughout his life by many for his courage, insight and style, qualities he exhibited in works such as Darkness At Noon. But in this book, he appears more interested in swiping at great scientists with a broad axe than in providing unbiased insight regarding their works and achievements.
He has a special enmity for Galileo, whom he accuses of arrogance, ego-centricity, outright falsehoods, and a wide range of various admirable qualities. The author uses Galileo as a poster boy for everything he dislikes or mistrusts about scholars, stating "... scholars have always been prone to manias and obsessions, and inclined to cheat about details; but impostures like Galileo's are rare in the annals of science." He launched into this tirade simply because Galileo was mistaken in his theory of the cause of tides, almost ignoring the fact that Galileo was correct about everything else.
Keep in mind that Koestler wrote this in 1958, 320 years after Galileo's trial and 35 years BEFORE the Catholic Church admitted that Galileo was correct about supporting Copernicus.
Several books have been written since that treat the Galileo situation in a much more enlightened manner, especially Galileo, Science & The Church and Galileo Heretic. Both are at least as readable as Koestler, fare more broad-minded and much more intellectually honest.
Finally, I found it both amusing and frustrating that much of Koestler's attacks on Galileo et al is based on their arrogance and self-confidence; I have never read a text more arrogant in its tone than this one, and Galileo, Kepler, Newton and the rest possessed far greater qualifications for their statements and opinions, in the scientific arena, than Koestler. As someone pointed out, Koestler was a great advocate of ESP, a belief that still retains far less evidence of its existence than the most imaginative conclusions and theories of Galileo and the rest.
If this is Koestler's best example of intellectual honesty and perception, the rest of his works are surely easily dismissed.
How did I miss this book?.......2005-05-09
How did I miss this masterpiece? Perhaps, because it is not referenced in all the histories of astonomy and cosmology I have read; it gets short shrift from the academics. Koestler was not an astronomer. Thank heavens! May we have more such amateurs!
This is the best history of asronomy and one of the wisest books I have ever read. . Koestler applies his knowledge, his life, his experiences, to this topic, and places the astonomy of each period beautifully within the context of the politics, religion and philosophy of the time. And shows, with crystalline clarity, how one (philosophy) could pollute the rest.
It is the best written book I have ever read on a scientific topic. On almost every page, the eloquence, intelligence and skill of Koestler illuminates a point obscured or ignored in other treatments. He brilliantly shows how astonomy suffered the same decline as the other sciences and technologies, for the same reasons, and puts this in the context of a collapsed Grecian and a collapsing Roman world seeking refuge in religious obscurantism for 1,200 years.
He laments the same point Carl Sagan makes in "Cosmos"; Plato and Aristotle cost us a thousand years of technical progress..Sagan points out that the people who built the medieval cathedrals lived in housing and health conditions worse than the Greeks. Koestler wryly observes that we were delayed the benefits of Satellites and Hydrogen bombs for the same interval.
He treats evenly with all the icons we have learned to revere. Copernicus was a coward and a lecherouos churchman, who opens his great book with a clumsy lie. Kepler was almost a raving lunatic (for good reason). Galileo is described as one of the truly offensive and annoying men of science, rarely giving credit, treated better than he deserved by the Church, and finally caught up by his defence of a book which he probably did not read. Amazingly, Galileo was no astonomer at all; just one who happened to do some early telescopic observations, and then attempted to establish a monopoly on observations for himself.
My eternal thanks to Owen Gingerich for his reference to this book. The jury is out, in my mind, on the other two volumes of his technical triptych, but this is an undoubted masterpiece.
Everyone should read it.......2003-01-09
Fascinating account of the history of astronomy through the discovery of classical mechanics by Kepler, Galileo and Newton. We may see it as the history of the replacement of religious-based dogmatism by what physicists today call the Galilean approach: the discovery and consequent mathematical description of nature throughy repeated, identical experiments or observations. This is the book that wheted my appetite for the history of physics. For the serious reader, there are also Julian Barbour's Absolute or Relative Motion and Fred Hoyle's history of Copernicus's contribution. Of interest as well, if less exciting, are Galileo's Dialogues.
Book Description
An old-earth view takes on the challenges of young-earth proponents through a study of history, Scripture, and nature-and a testable creation model.
Customer Reviews:
not just for people with religious beliefs.......2007-07-25
This book serves many purposes.
One is to counter the claims by many dishonest and incompetent journalists that people with religious beliefs are stupid and ignore scientific evidence.
The second is to report that theologians of several respected denominations have made pronouncements that the Hebrew word Yom in Genesis can easily mean long time peroids. The pronouncements of theologians over the past two thousand years have indicated that Yom could mean time periods of a fraction of a second to thousands or more years.
The third is to summarize just how consistent vastly different ways of estimating the age of the universe are.
The fourth is that the universe age is too short to produce life by accident.
A Matter of Incomplete Arguments.......2007-05-30
Dr. Ross does a commendable job of trying to explain complex astronomical data to laymen. Unfortunetely, he also obscures some issues wth selective data which paints a picture decidedly one-sided. He is not as objective as he tries to make himself out to be. Apart from that, this book is a reasonable attempt to summarize one side of the age of the universe issue and harmonize it with the Biblical story.
A specific example of one-side only rhetoric is in Dr. Ross's discussion of the Hebrew language case for an old universe. He discusses at length his own position, without reference to the fact that nearly all authoritiative experts in Hebrew language studies consider his position to be at odds with accepted interpretation.
Overall this book is well written and informative, but should be balanced with opposition arguments which will not be found between its covers.
A matter of truth.......2006-09-17
It has been noted that the Christian faith has suffered as much at the hands of certain of its adherents as those of its enemies. A strictly literal or concretist interpretation of scripture alienates many ordinary people and of course many scientists, who would otherwise be receptive to the gospel message.
This book addresses the question of the duration of the creation days of Genesis in the light of both scripture and science. Still dividing the Christian community, the matter revolves around the Hebrew word "Yom" in the creation account. Young Earth Creationists ascribe a concrete meaning of 24 hours to these days whilst Old Earth Creationists consider the word to mean a long period of time.
In a spirit of civility, the author weighs up the evidence from the Bible and from nature, that is, God's revelation and God's creation. Sympathetically considering the reasons why Young Earthers are so dogmatic about the duration of these creation days, Ross firmly believes that the controversy ought not to divide the community of believers.
From the earliest times, Jewish and Christian theologians like Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine and Eusebius have held a tolerant attitude towards differing interpretations of the length of the creation days. It was only in the 17th century that two British scholars, John Lightfoot and James Ussher introduced the dogma of 24-hour days.
Chapter 7: Anchored In Scripture, looks at 21 major scriptural passages that address creation. The meaning of the Hebrew words Yom, Ereb and Boqer are analyzed here in their biblical and linguistic semantic contexts. It is clear as daylight to this reader that the word Yom may signify a long time period; it certainly does so in the Bible itself, for example the end-time Day Of The Lord.
Amongst other fascinating insights, Ross demonstrates how the Biblical account and the Big Bang theory are in complete harmony. He addresses the evidence offered against an old earth and refutes it point by point. Ross deals patiently and respectfully with even the nuttiest of theories for a young earth.
Other topics include the reliability of radiometric dating, scientific signs of old age and the significance of mankind. Occasionally the writing becomes highly scientific but it is still accessible to the general reader. The author also provides information on several Creation Day Church Councils that attempted to resolve the differences in a spirit of reconciliation.
There are three appendices: A - The Meaning Of Faith In The Bible; B - Creation Passages In The Bible; C - The Voice Of Nature. The book concludes with 36 pages of notes, an index, short biography of the author and information on his organization Reasons To Believe. Illustrative figures and tables enhance the text.
A Matter Of Days is a well-written, thoroughly researched work written in an engaging style and a spirit of civility. It proves, inter alia, that belief in an old earth does not equate to belief in evolution. With this book, Ross has made a valuable contribution to the accumulating proof that science and logic support the message of the Bible. I also recommend the book Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana.
Must a Christian reject science?.......2006-02-24
This is a very hot topic! Peace to all Christians, and all people who enter the fray here. What we have here is one group of people, including the author Hugh Ross, who believe that science, properly applied, always reveals God, and who understand scripture as being consistent with what science tells us. We have another group who see irreconcilable contradiction between the "plain meaning" of scripture and the laws by which the universe currently operates, leading to the conclusion that God must have created the universe under a very different set of laws. As God is sovereign, either side could be correct, and I certainly don't see (and Ross does not see) any reason for saved Christians to come to blows over this issue. But I come down solidly on Ross's side in this controversy. The greatest strength of this book is his demonstration that the more science teaches us, the closer its lessons come to reveal the essential creation-related content of scripture as true: that the universe had a beginning, that order was made from chaos, and that the creation of man was of central importance. I also find compelling Ross's understanding of scripture as consistent with scientific discovery, and his illustration of some of the logical pitfalls of "young-earth" theories. So I believe he has done us all a great service in writing this excellent, well-reasoned and thorough book. Given the vehemence of many of his opponents - which he fully expected - my hat is off to him also for his boldness, and his Christian love.
bad exegesis.......2005-12-27
[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp] [www.answersingenesis.org] has numerous refutations of 'progressive creationism' and specifically of Ross' assertation of the meaning of the Hebrew word for day (yom). They clearly demonstrate the grammatical errors of his claim. Also see the book "Refuting Compromise" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Book Description
"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH."-Genesis 1:1
One of the most commonly held beliefs among Christians and nonChristians alike is that science and Scripture absolutely and irreconcilably contradict each other about the age of the earth. While most scientists affirm an "old universe" theory, may Christians favor a "young universe" interpretation and somewhere in between, million of devout Christian who respect scientific finding are deeply and painfully torn.
"How can we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength if we must separate our minds from our faith?" asks Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and a Bible-believing Christian. "Such a separation violates the very meaning of faith."
In Creation and Time, Dr. Ross provides a solution to the creation-date controversy that requires no compromise by either the scientist trusting in the facts of nature or the Christian holding to the inerrancy of Scripture.
"Dr. Ross graciously examines the scientific merits of a young-earth creation and its biblical foundation. He not only demonstrates the more likely age of the universe, but also celebrates the greatness and majesty of its Creator. Creation and Time is a valuable gift to the Christian community."-Chuck Smith, Jr., senior pastor, Capo Beach Calvary Church, Capo Beach, CA
"This is a most important book that should be taught in every church and in the every school to stop the unwarranted war between science and religion."-Allan Sandage, Ph.D., astronomer, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, recipient of the Crafoord Prize
"Creation and Time is the best book on this topic in print. It is a must for anyone interested in the conflict between science and Scripture. Dr. Ross' pleas to overzealous 'young earthers' not to make the age of the earth a test of orthodoxy is long overdue."-Norman L. Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary
"This is a book whose time has come. Never has there been a more urgent moment to staighten out this deep misunderstanding in the evangelical community."-Ralph D. Winter, general director of the U.S. Center for World Missions
Customer Reviews:
Good Overview of Old-Earth Creationism.......2006-11-25
Dr. Hugh Ross has an updated treatment in his newer book "A Matter of Days." I haven't read that one yet, but that may be a place to go after this one.
This book is geared towards Christians who accept the authority of Scripture.
This one was a quick read, but it contained a good bit of information. The three best things found in this book supporting the author's point of view was 1) a biblical defense of "day" in Genesis 1 being longer than 24-hours 2) a theological defense of Old-Earth Creationism (for example: the revelation of nature doesn't lie) 3) a quick examination of some Young-Earth Creationist scientific evidences.
The best biblical evidence for the Old-Earth view was, I found the most valuable. Of these, those that struck me the most were:
1) The seventh day doesn't contain the "morning and evening" phrasing. Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 relate God's rest to God's favor and peace with God. In other words, the Sabbath rest of the seventh day is ongoing and we should strive to enter that rest via belief in Jesus. If it is ongoing, we are currently living in the seventh day, and it is much longer than one 24-hour period.
2) When you parallel the sixth day account with the account in Genesis 2, that very much looks like longer than one 24-hour period. In the 6th day male and female are created in God's image. In Genesis 2, Adam is created. He names all the animals. He realizes he has no suitable partner. He is put into a deep sleep. God performs surgery on him and creates Eve. He wakes up and realizes Eve is great for him. I think that suggest a longer period of time than 24-hours.
3) Genesis 2:4 reads "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." So we have an instance where "day" at least means at least 6 24-hour periods.
Ross fails to legitimize progressive creationism.......2006-08-13
This book was Hugh Ross's first major effort to defend and legitimize his views on creation, often called progressive creation (PC), as being consistent with biblical orthodoxy. It was published by the once biblically sound publisher Navpress who has since lost all credibility as a trustworthy Christian publisher by continuing to publish works by Ross. This books main aim is to show how the biblical data is consistent with the standard evolutionary views on the order of events in earth history. Though Ross denies that this order proceeded entirely by natural process, especially in biology, he accepts all the evolutionary dates for the major appearances popularized in evolutionary circles. Many of the arguments that Ross uses in this book have been refuted by young earth creationists (YEC's) in books and articles responding to this book. However, Ross seems to have ignored these responses and repeats much of these same arguments today.
The critical reader will find that Ross has failed to demonstrate his position is a real biblical position. Unlike other genuine biblical debates like eschatology, baptism, election, etc. that is debated primarily with biblical arguments, this debate is a debate between one side that uses biblical arguments (YECs) and the other side that ultimately uses scientific arguments (PCs). Sure Ross uses many biblical arguments in this book and others. He knows he has to do this to give the appearance that his views are biblically based and consistent with Christian orthodoxy. Many cults use this same tactic. But like many cults, his main source for defending his position is extra-biblical. What he calls the 67th book of the Bible (pg 56), the `facts' of nature. These `facts' are really just the standard evolutionary order of events that everyone has heard before. It is important for Ross to convince people that science `proves' his position (p. 138). This is needed because he knows without the intimidation of science, very few people will every come to the conclusions he makes from scripture alone. It can be argued that this is Ross's must successful tactic in promoting his position. Instilling fear into non-scientifically trained Christian laypeople that a young earth position will drive people away from Christ (p 122) rather than convincing people with scripture that his position is consistent with the biblical data. Of course there are thousands of scientifically astute young earth creationists who prove otherwise, but Ross ignores them.
This really is the thrust of the so called `debate'. YEC's never make the claim that science proves their position. Sure they use science to support their view, but ultimately its biblical data that their case stands or falls on. PC's on the other hand use scientific data to 'prove' their position is correct. Though Ross will claim his position is consistent with a literal reading of Genesis (p. 143), its clear by arrogantly claiming science proves his position, no biblical arguments alone will ever persuade him. In fact, you will never hear a progressive creationist say that they became a progressive creationist because the biblical arguments compelled them to become one. In this book, Ross acknowledges he already accepted the big bang as a `fact' before he read Genesis (p 143). And its clear this was his primary hermeneutic for long creation days of millions and billions of years. What this does is exclude about 99% of the Christian community from the debate. Only people with earned PhD's in relevant disciples are capable of challenging his views. And when people who have those credentials disagree with him, he dismisses them because the majority of non-Christian secular scientists agree with Ross (p. 118). Of course any non-conservative Christian will never accept a young earth because only conservative Christianity can accommodate this position. This elitist attitude with regard to scripture is textbook cultism. Yes Ross shares many central Christian beliefs with regard to the deity of Christ, and other views, but his position is really an attack on the reliability of the Bible.
Ross also makes use of noted theologians who he claims agree with him. However, by checking out what many of these theologians really believe who will find that they disagree with Ross on many key areas, or make it clear that science is driving their biblical interpretation. For example, Ross often names Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler as supportive of his position. However, neither believe in a local flood like Ross does, and Archer has stated that a `superficial reading of Genesis without considering scientific data leads to 24 hour creation days'.
I encourage Christians to really checkout the claims that Ross makes in this book and others. Many resources are available that respond and refute what he has to say in this book. Too often we Christians are so eager to gain intellectual respectability in a non-believing world at the expense of the word of God. However, we would be much better off putting our trust in the One who knows everything rather than in fallen mankind with limited knowledge who in comparison knows nothing.
Proverbs 29:25 -- The fear of man lays a snare, but he who trusts in the LORD is safe.
Old Earth Creation.......2005-07-09
Evolution does not give all the answers. Paleontologist discovered many Species spanning different intervals of time. The intervals of time are too short to be explained by evolution. Species do not proliferate rather they reduce in numbers. The evidence of dinosaurs suggests a vast array of species.
The earth is old. There are hundreds of reliable scientific tools demonstrating the earth is old. The size and age of the cosmos and the gravitational motion that shapes and moves the universe suggest the earth is old. There are three evidences the earth is old: 1. Expansion of the universe. The cosmos is expanding outward from a starting point which is an infinitesimally small volume. The cosmos has been expanding for 15 billion years and based on the temperature and smoothness of the background radiation, we know the origin must have been very hot and extremely compact, at the time of the explosion. Entropy explains the observed affect of order moving to disorder. The second law of thermodynamics means a tendency for disorder to increase over time. Hydrogen is more ordered and less entropic than galaxies, stars, planets, and life essential elements.
2. Stellar burning. The brightness of the stars tells us how long the star has been burning. Stars convert hydrogen to helium. Based on this conversion process, Stars in our universe may have started forming 1.5 billion years ago. 3. The Abundance of radioactive material. Supernovas produced Uranium 238 and Thorium 232. We know the universe can not be older than a trillion years because Uranium and Thorium have half life of several billion years and these elements can still be found.
Star formation did not have to occur during genesis. 1987, the Large Magellanic cloud was discovered, a Supernova, whose light took 80,000 years to reach earth. This supernova outshined 10 billion other stars. Dr. Hugh says, "It's fear that runs deeper and wider then the specific case of creation time scales. Nature may tell us something-if not long ages for the cosmos and life, something else - that inescapably disagrees with God has said in his word. Then where will the Christian faith be?" Then quoting 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and a sound mind" What are the evidences of nature: 1. fossils representing ancient creatures 2. coal, oil, gas the remains of previous generations of life 3. the earth's crust testifying of rock subjected to past pressures 4. Tree rings, ice layers, erosion of craters and mountains the result of ongoing natural processes.
The known facts: Fact 1: The universe is only billions of years old, not quadrillions or a near infinite number of years. Fact 2: The universe can be traced back to a single, ultimate origin of matter, energy, time, and space. Fact 3: The universe, our galaxy, and our solar system exhibit more than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their existence, and also for the existence of life.
Where does God fit in? God comes in both before and at the moment of creation. God intervenes along the way, personally designing and crafting a particular galaxy, star, planet, moons, and a set of heavy elements in preparation for his creation of life on one planet, earth. If the universe contained more than 10 billion-trillion stars, nuclear fusion would proceed so efficiently that all of the stars would burn up too quickly and erratically to support a planet carrying life. Fewer than 10 billion trillion stars the stars would never fuse the heavier elements - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen that are essential for life chemistry.
Dr Huges estimates the creation of man at (10,000 - 35,000 years ago) evidence of a Spiritual creature who worshipped. Religious relics have been discovered dating back 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. The First spiritual creatures are in complete agreement with biblical dates. Prior species were intelligent mammals and not spiritual beings or in other words, human.
Bad Theology, Bad Science.......2005-06-22
I originally was a supporter of Ross' "Day-Age" Theory until reading Universe By Design by Dr. Danny Faulkner and learned of the "White Hole" cosmology coming from Dr. Russ Humphreys. Not only are there numerous problems with the "Big Bang" theory, Ross' theology ultimately negates Christianity's main point, salvation through Christ's death and resurrection. Ross' theology REQUIRES that animals live and die before man's sin, which the Bible states as the cause of death, decay, and suffering (I hope you can see where I'm going with this). Therefore, Ross' "God" is one who enjoys seeeing his creation suffer. In the description on this site, Ross is quoted as saying that God could've created through evolution, but whose to say that God couldn't have created us like he said?
Simply erroneous, though well-intended.......2004-07-29
This unfortunate book only succeeds in defending the 'science' theories of predominantly unsaved men while downgrading the Holy Bible in the process.
Beware whenever an author attempts to synthesize or integrate the Bible with anything else. You end up with a mixture of iron and clay that collapses under its own tottering weight.
Here the alloy of Genesis and astrophysic-geologic-genetic- evolutionic hypotheses does violence to both sides of the equation.
GENESIS vs. sciencism. They are not equivalent or alloyable.
Book Description
This book's main idea is that this century's global politics will be dominated by the "species dominance" issue. 21st century technologies will enable the building of artilects (artificial intellects, artificial intelligences, massively intelligent machines) with 1040 components, using reversible, heatless, 3D, molecular scale, self assembling, one bit per atom, nano-teched, quantum computers, which may dwarf human intelligence levels by a factor of trillions of trillions and more.
The question that will dominate global politics this century will be whether humanity should or should not build these artilects. Those in favor of building them are called "Cosmists" in this book, due to their "cosmic" perspective. Those opposed to building them are called "Terrans," as in "terra," the Earth, which is their perspective. The Cosmists will want to build artilects, amongst other reasons, because to them it will be a religion, a scientist's religion that is compatible with modern scientific knowledge.
The Cosmists will feel that humanity has a duty to serve as the stepping-stone towards building the next dominant rung of the evolutionary ladder. Not to do so would be a tragedy on a cosmic scale to them. The Cosmists will claim that stopping such an advance will be counter to human nature, since human beings have always striven to extend their boundaries. Another Cosmist argument is that once the artificial brain based computer market dominates the world economy, economic and political forces in favor of building advanced artilects will be almost unstoppable. The Cosmists will include some of the most powerful, the richest, and the most brilliant of the Earth's citizens, who will devote their enormous abilities to seeing that the artilects get built. A similar argument applies to the military and its use of intelligent weaponry. Neither the commercial nor the military sectors will be willing to give up artilect research unless they are subjected to extreme Terran pressure.
To the Terrans, building artilects will mean taking the risk that the latter may one day decide to exterminate human beings, either deliberately or through indifference. The only certain way to avoid such a risk is not to build them in the first place. The Terrans will argue that human beings will fear the rise of increasingly intelligent machines and their alien differences. To build artilects will require an "evolutionary engineering" approach. The resulting complexities of the evolved structures that underlie the artilects will be too great for human beings to be able to predict the behaviors and attitudes of the artilects towards human beings. The Terrans will be prepared to destroy the Cosmists, even on a distant Cosmist colony, if the Cosmists go ahead with an advanced artilect building program.
In the short to middle term, say the next 50 years or so, the artificial brain based industries will flourish, providing products that are very useful and very popular with the public, such as teacher robots, conversation robots, household cleaner robots, etc. In time, the world economy will be based on such products. Any attempt to stop the development of increasingly intelligent artilects will be very difficult, because the economic and political motivation to continue building them will be very strong in certain circles. If the brain-based computer industries were to stop their research and development into artilects, then many powerful individuals, including the artilect company presidents and certain politicians will lose big money and political influence. They will not give up their status without a fight.
However, as the intelligence levels of the early artilects increases, it will become obvious to everyone that the intelligence gap between these artificial-brain-based products and human beings is narrowing. This will create a growing public anxiety. Eventually, some nasty incident or series of incidents will galvanize most of society against further increase of artificial intelligence in the artilects, leading to the establishment of a global ban on artilect research.
The Cosmists however, will oppose a ban on the development of more intelligent artilects, and will probably go underground. If the incidents continue and are negative enough, the anger and hatred of the Terrans towards the Cosmists will increase to the point where the Cosmists may decide that their fate is to leave the Earth, an option that is quite realistic with 21st century technology.
Since the Cosmists will include some of the most brilliant and economically powerful people on the planet, they will probably create an elite conspiratorial organization whose aim is to build artilects secretly.
The book presents a scenario in which the Cosmists create an asteroid-based colony, masked by some innocuous activity. In reality, this secret society devises a weapon system superior to the best on the Earth. With their wealth and the best human brains, this may be achievable. They will also start making advanced artilects. If the Terrans on the Earth discover the true intentions of the Cosmists, they will probably want to destroy them, but not dare to because of the counter threat of the Cosmists with their more advanced weapons. The stage is thus set for a major 21st century war in which billions of people die - "gigadeath."
This horrific number is derived from an extrapolation up the graph of the number of deaths in major wars from the beginning of the 19th century to the end of the 21st century. Approximately 200 million people died in the 20th century, for political reasons -- wars, purges, genocides, etc.
The profound schizophrenia that the author feels on the Cosmist/Terran species dominance issue will be felt by millions of people within a few years he expects. There is probably Cosmist and Terran in nearly all of us, which may explain why this issue is so divisive. The author is simply one of the first to feel this schizophrenia. Within a decade it may be all over the planet.
The last chapter of the book closes with a repetition of a pithy slogan that summarizes the two main viewpoints in the artilect debate in a nutshell; a debate that the author believes will be raging in the coming decades.
"Do we build gods, or do we build our potential exterminators?"
Customer Reviews:
Overblown, maybe. Or maybe not........2007-03-27
The author argues that one day soon, humanity will divide into two warring camps: those who favor the development of superintelligent computers (which he calls Artilects--short for artificial intellects) and the humans who oppose this development. His thesis is that the opposers will so strongly fear the possibility that the artilects will exterminate humans that they will do anything to prevent their development--even waging all-out war against the humans who favor their development. He asserts that the result of this war will be nearly a total annihilation of humanity. The book takes up all manner of counterarguments and bats them down. The oddity is that the author claims to be a developer of these artilects who is genuinely conflicted about which camp he should belong in. Yet he can't bring himself to suppress the inventions he is working on that will help bring about the catastrophe he predicts. So rather than stop the work, he writes the book as a form of penance: "Stop me before my science runs amok and kills off our species--but if you don't, I'm having a wonderful time stroking my ego as one of the foremost cybernetic thinkers and doers of our time--which may well be the end-times of our species!" One argument he doesn't deal with is what happens if nobody pays much attention to the development of artilects--which, after all, won't just be sitting around philosophizing: they'll be put to work running our air traffic system, our energy grid, and all manner of other vital functions. By the time the potential enemies of the artilects take their eyes off Britney and other pop-culture distractions, it will be too late to stop the artilect supporters or the artilects themselves. At that point, we will just have to hope the artilects are sufficiently amused by our antics not to exterminate us. This, by the way, would be before they build themselves some space vehicles and depart on an exploration of the universe, where they'll find a way to tap into the power supplies of many different suns, so they won't be dependent on any one solar system for their survival--thus achieving immortality.
food for thought but motives questionnable.......2007-02-13
De Garis argues that the ability to build 'Godlike massively intelligent machines', which he believes will be achieved sometime this century, will produce a global schism between those of us pro (Cosmists) and those of us against (Terrans) the utilisation of such technology. The result will be global war between the opposing camps, with the use of the vastly advanced weaponry which will then be available leading to what he describes as 'gigadeath'. Whether such a prophesy is realistic or purely in the realms of science fiction is debatable - the problem I have is with the motives behind de Garis writing the book the first place. De Garis tries to portray himself as a Cosmist with a conscience - he is definitely in the 'pro' camp (he is a prominent figure in the field of Artificial Intelligence and currently working on building 'brain machines'), but confesses to being tormented by nightmares of what his work may result in. To appease his conscience, de Garis therefore has published this book as a warning against what his work may lead to. I find this attitude very difficult to swallow. Considering the potential consquences of his work - the end of humanity - if de Garis has even the slightest moral doubt he should postpone his work and focus on resolving the ethical implications first. On the other hand, if he truly believes in his quest - which he compares to a religious one - he should just quietly go ahead with his work. But what de Garis is effectively doing is saying "I'm going to build something that will kill your grandchilden - try and stop me!". What is allegedly an attempt to raise public awareness comes across more as an attempt to raise de Garis's own profile.
Fantasy For The Most Part....I Hope!.......2006-07-17
This book is largely a one man debate by A.I. researcher Hugo de Garis on whether we should build massively intelligent machines later in the 21st century. Hugo presents to us a new vocabulary: artilect means artificial intellect, cosmist means those people in favor of building artilects, and terrans are against building artilects. Garis, by his own admission, describes himself as a cosmist, with misgivings, as this future technology gives him pause to reflect on it's awesome power, and whether it will be safe to build them, as regards to human safety and survivability. Consider this: an advanced artilect could easily have a mind trillions of times more powerful than a human mind, thus they may consider us vermin fit to be exterminated! Garis presents many arguments from both the cosmist and terran viewpoints. He also writes that it will be almost impossible to prevent artilects from being built. Garis believes that the primary global political question of this century will be which species will be dominant, human or artilect?
Well, Garis is much too negative for me. For a more positive spin on all of this you could read THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR by Ray Kurzweil. In his book Kurzweil writes that advanced artificial intelligences could be designed to be friendly to humans (Garis disagrees) and probably will respect their creators. Between these two books I consider Kurzweil's book to be the far superior, with many references. Garis is too self-congratulatory for my taste, and I personally believe the whole cosmist-terran debate as presented by Garis to be a non-issue. Artilects will arrive among us in a gradual way as very useful devices, and eventually become conscious beings in and of themselves, and we will be glad to have them around. I do agree with Garis on one point, however, and that is that advanced A.I. and it's applications will come to dominate 21st century economics.
Farfetched.......2006-01-23
If one examines the history of research into artificial intelligence (AI), one will see it to be one of periods of incredible optimism as well as periods of extreme pessimism. Funding for research into AI, both private and public, is partly responsible for this. But the researchers themselves bear a certain measure of responsibility for the wild swings that have marked the history of AI. It seems that as soon as something is invented that appears promising or "intelligent" it is shortly thereafter abandoned as being "trivial" or uninteresting. Researchers always seem willing to go along with this unfortunately, even though they have indeed made significant progress in certain areas. Once an algorithm or reasoning pattern is understood, its status as `intelligent' is taken away and it is thereafter viewed as `just another part of the programming toolbox'. There is strong evidence, coming mostly from the commercial realm, that truly intelligent machines exist and are saving and making companies hundreds of millions of dollars in their deployment in the field. This intelligence is however not noticed or recognized as such. It is viewed merely as software that is `running' on the machines, complex yes, but not really different than `ordinary' software that has been used for decades now. If this pattern continues, then no matter how intelligent machines get they will not be viewed as being so. Their human users will therefore not be intimidated by or even impressed by them. They will become accepted just like any other piece of technology, usually taken for granted, although at times becoming an annoyance due to their need for repair and adjustment (this need becoming more critical as their complexity increases).
When this book is read with this in mind its main thesis, namely that there will sometime in the relatively near future be a controversy over the building of `massively' intelligent machines, completely dissolves. The author believes that sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, humanity will divide itself into two camps. One of these, called the `Cosmists', will advocate the building of what the author calls `artilects', which are "massively" intelligent machines. The other camp, called the `Terrans', is strongly opposed to the building of these types of machines. The tension between these two groups will become so extreme the author argues, that it will result in a full-scale war between them, resulting in the deaths of millions of people.
In the book the author details his reasons for believing that this will happen, and he even discusses his own anxieties on the possibility of massively intelligent machines. The author is a noted expert in machine intelligence, especially in the fields of evolutionary computing and evolvable hardware. Therefore when a researcher like the author makes the claims he does it motivates the reader to examine his arguments in more detail. It is apparent when reading the book that these arguments have been carefully thought out, even though at times, because of the Cosmist-Terran terminology, the reading sometimes appears sophomoric or science-fictional in quality.
The claims made in this book would have more credibility if progress in artificial intelligence could be modeled by large discrete jumps. Central to its claim is that there will arrive a time at which both `Cosmists' and `Terrans' agree that superintelligent machines can be realized or manufactured. The apprehension felt by the Terrans will motivate them to try and suppress this realization, this behavior putting them squarely against the Cosmists. This conflict will escalate into full-scale war, fought with highly advanced and destructive technology.
But progress in AI is basically a smooth function of time, and there has been progress, despite the extreme skepticism of many individuals (most of these, again, being AI researchers themselves). Like any other field, some of the ideas in AI have not been fruitful, and have fallen by the wayside. Advances in AI have been steady, and the advances, as well as its applications are rapidly accelerating. The use of intelligent machines has become routine, so routine in fact that it is not really noticed. One can expect this trend to continue, and researchers twenty years from now will no doubt think that real intelligence has not yet been achieved. The bar will then get raised again. All the while the machines are performing useful functions and will exist in complete symbiosis with the humans around them. However, there will still be anxiety about the future arrival of superintelligent machines. It may take a while, probably till the end of the twenty-first century, for this anxiety to alleviate. Historians of technology in the first year of the twenty-second century will no doubt look back at this one and be perplexed as to why AI progress was not really part of the consciousness of those who were involved in it. These same historians will also feel another emotion when they study the developments of twenty-first century technology, including artificial intelligence:
Astonishment
disappointed.......2005-09-02
My expectations were not met by this offering. Before finding the book on amazon I had quite a hunt to find it. Very early in the read I was first turned off by Mr. de Garis' penchant for stressing how much he simplifies things for us non-scientists. Ok, so thats kind of personal. His work is so interesting and the possibilities are astounding, but I think his expectation that a) cosmists and terrans will likely eradicate each other and b) that super intelligent machines will probably eradicate humans poorly explained. Anyway, all in all, if the reader has never foraged into this area its worth it for the exposure.
Book Description
Writing in an accessible journalistic style, Denyse O'Leary guides the reader on a fascinating journey through the world of Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution. The author approached this subject at the beginning ''with no clear convictions about it, nor any desire to enter a controversy.'' What emerged on these pages is a well-organized and clear introduction to the basic question of life's origins: What is life, and how did it come about? Did the universe arise by chance, or was it designed?
By Design or by Chance is a fresh intellectual breeze that clears away much of the smog and dust obscuring core issues surrounding the origin of life. From cosmology to theology, from the philosophy of science to the text of Genesis, O'Leary addresses all with refreshing clarity.
Customer Reviews:
Interesting views from a leading stand-up.......2006-06-22
Dennis O'Leary is known to most folks as a funny, sarcastic, and irreverent comedian but few seem to know much about his more serious side, along with his impressive array of academic credentials. That he is also a leading authority on the evolution vs. creationism controversy came as a total surprise to even this well-informed reader (I did already know about his PhD work at Stanford, and of the numerous awards he's received for his work in genetics).
Proceeding along at a rapid clip and carefully setting the trade-mark quips and bon mots aside, O'Leary lunges pell-mell straight into the hot fulminating core of this increasingly important pair or two of challenges to conventional notions of logic, common sense, and classic Western religio/scientific method. In a series of discourses over the course of this series of paragraphs, he first broadly outlines the history of the Creationist Creation that mandates the pro-active "contracting" of a higher intelligence, or "Intelligent Designer" to do the important set-up, and then he covers the evolution of the history of the creation of the origin of the theories of Charles Darwin--a man who may or may not have been ascended from an ape-like creature that he one day realized he superficially resembled (his Eureka Moment or possibly his father). Moving beyond this initial rendering, the author then enumerates the problems with the Theory of Continental Drift (one unresolved one being that if all the continents were once part of a single massive continent clumped on just one side of the planet--as is alleged--why didn't the Earth tip over sideways?)and other so-called "scientific" theories that run counter to native, two-bare-feet-solidly-on-the-ground, good sense.
Using famed industrial designer Raymond Loewy and Native American origin myths as suitable metaphors for a sort of sublime "Tinkertoy Universe," O'Leary succeeds in bridging an irreconcilable conceptual gap with a life-line that has so-far posed as an impassable barrier (and a rope for hanging oneself on!) to commentators on this challenging yet pressing topic--perhaps the single most important controversy facing the world today*. By interpolating the two seemingly contrasting traditions in a radical yet highly effective manner (using an almost Rabbinical dialectical style and rhetorical welding tongs) O'Leary then "makes the leap of faith," cuts the Gordian Knot, overturns presumption and applecart, and convincingly shows that, for starters (and beginners), Charles Darwin--his thoughts, his theories--may be viewed (metaphorically, if not spiritually) as an Earthly manifestation of the divine. Those who have worked closely with tenured professors in an academic setting will find this conclusion wholly plausible if not outright worthy of blind worship.
Resolving the two-edged dualistic dilemma at the finely sharpened point at either locus of this particularly linear stick, O'Leary notes (citing countless examples taken from scientific journals, trade magazines, and Jesuitical writings of the 12th and 13th Centuries) that since the beginning of the Christian Era (0 A.D.), the primary argument of Intelligent Design boosters is this: If we don't understand how something works, it must be irrefutable proof of the existence of God. (He tops off this observation by noting that Bertrand Russell frequently used this common sense "law" in the chapter on Godel's Theorem in the Principia Mathematica; and not being mechanically inclined he also had a superstitious fear of clocks) This, he then continues, is a natural step forward from Paleolithic (meaning "before the Creation") notions about the divine origins of species of various "natural" (or are they?) phenomenon/punishments like lightning, darkness, loud sudden noises and the ever-frightening fire. Here he presents the equally controversial and fairly new notion of Intelligent Redesign--essentially the Politics of the Deluge--and explains its all-important economics.
The difficulty for the sharp reader who retains a facsimile of an open mind on this confusing subject, wherever he or she or He may be hiding, is that the endless words and threats hurled--like hot chunks of brimstone--from below by advocates of Intelligent Design, coupled with those slower-appearing and more plodding bookish-isms scribed by Supporters of Evolution, are each so utterly convincing in their taut arguments and smack-in-the-head conclusions that open-mindedness is all but impossible to any but the foolhardy or those feverish with the Black Death. For the average seeker-of-answers, it see-saws back and forth thusly: one month--usually just before the Christmas Holiday shopping season--a controversial pamphlet (or book, if enough loose words are available in mid-winter) will be intelligently designed-and-published that effectively proves the presence of God's Hand in Creation beyond all reasonable or even unreasonable doubt; the next month--often just seconds before the first Fourth of July firecrackers are lit--some immense tome will groaningly and spontaneously self-manifest itself atop the uncomprehending public--one that conclusively settles the tiniest niggling smidgen of doubt about the Theory of Evolution (anyone who worked their way through Steven Jay Gould's ironclad 3000 page proof-of-pudding will agree here and we hope he will follow this last word on the subject with an equally convincing sequel). With so much rock-hard and incontestable evidence for two polar-opposite realities what can any sensible or patriotic person do?
BUY THIS BOOK! O'Leary offers a clear-cut way out of this dark and confusing briar patch. Read it, believe it, stop thinking, and relax.
*The supreme importance of resolution here is missed by many. These days drugged-out, over-medicated students with ADD and dyslexia all across America are being taught (and are almost immediately forgetting) Darwin's theories to the exclusion of the opportunity to forget and ignore any other possibilities about the nature of their prized pets. Official acceptance of the idea of "Intelligent Design" means that forgotten curriculums will need to be reordered and unread textbooks rewritten for the near-illiterate whose briefly flickering attentions are almost always elsewhere--it will be a major and costly restructing of our nation's progressively worsening educational system!
A Quagmire of Viewpoints.......2006-01-13
I received this as a gift due to my interest in intelligent design as a response to the theoretical shortcomings of Darwinism. But I'm not looking at ID to confirm religious or philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, the author spends most of her time trying to sort out those beliefs.
She does touch on whether ID is science and the evidentiary and theoretical problems with natural selection as the be-all and end-all explanation of life. But those subjects are not treated in any kind of depth. I was disappointed she didn't explore the mathematical models making it highly improbable that natural selection (chance) can explain the complexity of many life forms, particularly at the molecular level.
I'm a layman but I'm inclined to believe that ID does have scientific implications and that the scientific establishment is overly defensive. It will not do to dismiss all ID proponents as closet creationists.
I did find some useful information, but did not come out of it feeling any more confident of my grasp of of the subject matter than I did going in.
Very biased. Make that EXTREMELY biased........2005-10-27
Though this book pretends to show all sides fairly, it's extremely biased against evolution (and poorly researched on that side too). A quick look at the positive reviews here will show you that they are from people who are on the ID/Creation side. It's a waste of time and paper, unless you just want to make yourself feel good about believing in ID/Creation.
Clear, Concise Entry Into the Discussion.......2005-08-10
This is a well done entry point into the question of origins of life in the universe.
O'Leary as journalist provides welcome toned down insights into the many camps which slug this issue out in the public: the young earth creationists, the old earth creationists, the ID, the evolutionists, the Christian evolutionists, etc.
I like these words from her beginning: "We peer into space, fire off spacecraft in every direction, land on the moon and on Mars, always looking for signs of life. We peer thkrough electron microscopes, below the wavelength of visible light, trying to understand life. Life ... what is it? How does it come about? What does it mean? Where did the universe come from?"
These were supposedly answered (and continue to be answered with constant shifting modification by some) by Darwinism. This is now being challenged by scientists of all religious positions (including atheism, which is a religious position) by Intelligent Design among other models of origins.
O'Leary explores this increasingly debated topic with great clarity and charity. Especially useful are her sidebar discussions which include helpful definitions and background examples of the points expressed.
What this reviewer found has best of this work were the two chapters respectively on "Is ID Good Science? Is ID Good Theology?" The former I think is yes, while the latter is debatable. Clearly, ID can be thought of as an apologetic to begin the dialogue with those who are opposed in everyway to any discussion with theology over science. However, the stated opposition to ID by some creationists are withstanding in their merit. Theology correctly done proclaims that God has given conclusive, judicial type evidence to every human that He alone is the Creator by evidence of His creation, even though it too has been corrupted by the fall into sin. This natural knowledge of God however does not deliver the answers to where this creation is going, nor what this Creator God thinks of us. To that, He has given supernatural revelation in His Word.
What impresses this reviewer is the lack of integrity by many of the Darwinist persuasion who continue to resist their persistent spewing forth of the five evolutionist proofs exposed by such as Jonathan Wells in his Icons of Evolution materials. Scientists need to be more open and honest.
This permits many who have not heard the sides and wish to, or to have a nice compendium summary to use and recommend to others. Most worthwhile volume.
Some will want to check out Henry Schaefer III's salient essay "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence" in the book "Reading God's World: The Scientific Vocation" and Alister McGrath's fine volume "Nature".
Burying the real issues in a pile of chaff.......2005-06-08
The question in the title of the book is an important one well worth a serious philosophical and theological analysis in light of modern science. Unfortunately, the reader will have to look elsewhere for that discussion. Ms. O'Leary's book is a rehash of Intelligent Design (ID) propaganda which promotes shoddy science, shallow theology and incompetent journalistic research.
The basic problematic of the book begins in the preface where Ms. O'Leary states: "I began to see clearly that Darwinism is a theory of evolution that explicitly denies design in biology in order to leave God out to of the picture." Although, in the body of the text, she does make some effort to discriminate between the scientific theory of evolution and a philosophy which she, following the ID lead, calls Darwinism, this is so muted that the average reader must be forgiven if they equate the diatribes against Darwinism as an attack on the science of evolution.
The first example of shoddy science shows up in the introduction where a side-bar defines the Big Bang as an explosion. The next page labels a highly improbable event as "impossible" even though it is part of probability that improbable, even highly improbable events can happen. There is the usual ID/creationist confusion of the theory of evolution with theories about the origin of life leading to inappropriate commentary on the Urey-Miller experiments. There is the usual ID/creationist quote-mining of Gould's defence of Punctuated Equilibrium and misrepresentation of what that thesis entails. And this merely scratches the surface.
A shallow theology also runs right through the book. It begins by equating evolution with chance, chance with nature and nature with athiesm. No supporter of modern evolutionary theory would agree that evolution is a matter of chance. Indeed a side-bar on page 172 quotes "arch-villain" Richard Dawkin' statement from Climbing Mount Improbable to the effect that designoid objects are not accidental but the product of a non-random process.
But the more significant theological error is to assume that a deity cannot or will not use natural, random processes to achieve its goals. There is nothing inherently atheistic about chance processes or natural processes. But the ID and creationist movements have convinced millions of sincere believers that there is. The effect of this theological error is that Christian organizations spend millions on combatting the wrong target: setting their sights on the science of evolution itself, rather than on the philosophies of materialism, naturalism and scientism which mistakenly claim to be the logically necessary conclusions of evolution.
Finally, there is the matter of journalism. Here I can offer some kudoes. Ms. O'Leary does a fine job of recounting the social history of Darwin's theory--of how it came to be associated with materialism, and of the key role played by the evolution=atheism propagandists such as Huxley and Mencken, Dawkins and Sagan. Her analysis of the film Inherit the Wind in comparison to the actual event of the Scopes trial is superb. Her brief history of the rise of creationism is also excellent.
But in contrast to these virtues, her recounting of evolution and science is appallingly bad. For example, the only mention of dinosaur-bird transitional forms is Archeoraptor, the hoax which embarrassed National Geographic. There is not a single mention of the dozens of legitimate finds of feathered dinosaur fossils. In this context, such an omission amounts to the very suppression of evidence which she alleges against supporters of evolutionary theory. She has uncritically accepted a perversion of Gould's punctuated equilibrium thesis when correct information is readily available. Twice she quotes, and once alludes to, Gould's comment on lack of transitional fossils, when a simple reading of the primary literature would indicate that Gould was speaking of transitional fossils at the species level, not transitional fossils in general.
One of the most striking features of the book is that it nowhere deals with the actual science of evolution. The focus is rather on the conflicting philosophies that have gathered around the science. Unfortunately, the implication is that the philosophies establish the truth of the science. This is simply not the case, and, ironically, it is a creationist scientist, Kurt Wise, who points this out. Unfortunately, while Ms. O'Leary is willing to accept that a creationist can still do good science, she does not accept the corollary that "Darwinists" can also do good science, in spite of their belief system.
There are many important matters that do need to be discussed in scientific, philosophical and theological circles around design and chance. Now and again Ms. O'Leary touches on them. But the serious weaknesses of this book preclude it as a significant contributor to this important discussion.
Average customer rating:
- Holy Minkowski line element, Batman!
- An outstanding book
- Less interesting than what most reviewers say.
|
Cosmology and Controversy
Helge Kragh
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Astronomy
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Cosmology
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Universe
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
History of Science
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Physics
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Astronomy
| Astronomy
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Cosmology
| Astronomy
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Physics
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Schrödinger: Life and Thought
-
Cosmology: The Science of the Universe
-
Big Bang: The Origin Of The Universe
ASIN: 069100546X |
Book Description
For over three millennia, most people could understand the universe only in terms of myth, religion, and philosophy. Between 1920 and 1970, cosmology transformed into a branch of physics. With this remarkably rapid change came a theory that would finally lend empirical support to many long-held beliefs about the origins and development of the entire universe: the theory of the big bang. In this book, Helge Kragh presents the development of scientific cosmology for the first time as a historical event, one that embroiled many famous scientists in a controversy over the very notion of an evolving universe with a beginning in time. In rich detail he examines how the big-bang theory drew inspiration from and eventually triumphed over rival views, mainly the steady-state theory and its concept of a stationary universe of infinite age.
In the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître showed that Einstein's general relativity equations possessed solutions for a universe expanding in time. Kragh follows the story from here, showing how the big-bang theory evolved, from Edwin Hubble's observation that most galaxies are receding from us, to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Sir Fred Hoyle proposed instead the steady-state theory, a model of dynamic equilibrium involving the continuous creation of matter throughout the universe. Although today it is generally accepted that the universe started some ten billion years ago in a big bang, many readers may not fully realize that this standard view owed much of its formation to the steady-state theory. By exploring the similarities and tensions between the theories, Kragh provides the reader with indispensable background for understanding much of today's commentary about our universe.
Customer Reviews:
Holy Minkowski line element, Batman!.......2001-01-17
This book is as dense as the primordial singularity! If you want proof, just turn to page 8, where the author blithely introduces Eintein's gravitational field equations: R(mn)-1/2 g(mn)R = -kT(mn). In his words, "Mathematically, the quantities with double indices are tensors, and, since the indices refer to the four coordinates of space-time, the tensor equation comprises ten second-order differential equations (R(mn)=R(nm), etc.; n, m=0,1,2,3)." [Lest you wondered, the "quantity R(mn) denotes the Ricci curvature tensor, and R is a curvature invariant derived from R(mn)."] Now, if you already understand that sort of mathematical symbolism and find clarity in the accompanying verbiage, or if you have an professional interest in recent (20th c.) history of scientific cosmology, then this book is for you. But if you are a reasonably intelligent layperson, with or without advanced degrees in other fields, you may agree that the author's focus on esoteric minutiae and excruciating detail, rather than explanation using ordinary language and analogy--like all good science writers and teachers--rather dashes hopes that "this book will not circulate in academic circles only [xi]." It is very interesting to learn even a smidgen about how SS was repeatedly modified ad hoc to "save the appearances"-yet this is just what we see happening with BB and inflation today. For example, Hoyle's postulation (p. 366) of separate "bubble universes"-that are unobservable in principle-strangely presages much of contemporary "scientific cosmology" involving inflation scenarios. That is, contrary to the previous reviewer's comments, BB is just a ideologically loaded as SS (a topic for which you might see Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers"). Overall, I suggest that you excuse yourself from this user-hostile tome with an audience identity problem. Unfortunately, there seems to be no other work on Big Bang vs. Steady State that follows the arguments and trajectories of these 2 theories as they unfolded in time. Ay, here's the rub: 'tis a pity Thomas Kuhn isn't still around to do justice to this topic...
An outstanding book.......2000-06-20
This book is a detailed and masterful description of the history of big bang cosmology, from its emergence in the 1940s to its observational validation in the 1960s. It is also an inquiry into the nature of the scientific progress -- an equally fascinating subject. The book is complete with personal histories of the main participants and gives unique insights into their motivation and the evolution of their views, often obtained through personal correspondence with the author. Being a cosmologist myself, I can add that the book is written with a deep understanding of the subject.
Less interesting than what most reviewers say........1999-07-09
Indeed, this book is superbly written. The account of the early works on the big bang is excellent. The author's knowledge of the subject is amazing. However, the central subject of the book is the bitter controversy between big bang and the steady state theory during the fifties and early sixties, and the book is very long on this subject. It is difficult to understand how this can have any interest to a scientific readership. The steady state theory was clearly inspired by philosophical prejudices which are quite outside science. The "perfect cosmological principle" on which it is based is quite arbitrary, and does not guarantee, as Bondi claimed, general invariance in the meaning implied by general relativity. This is to be opposed to Weyl's principle, which has a strictly empirical status. How, in these conditions could such a controversy be interesting from a scientific standpoint? I nevertheless give 3 stars to this book, as it remains a good piece of history.
Customer Reviews:
Good Science but it won't Convince a Creationist.......2007-03-03
The people who believe in creation science have a real problem. They are bound to a literal intrepretation of the bible which is now a couple of thousand years old and what little science that can be found in the bible is based on Aristotle. In the centuries since there has been a lot of evidence discovered about things like the Earth going around the Sun. And of course there's hundreds of years of evidence, study, experiments, etc. pretty well proving evolution.
But if evolution is right, then the history of the earth as contained in the Bible has to be wrong. And if that part of the Bible is wrong, why the whole concept of salvation may be wrong. And if that is the case, why their whole religion makes no sense.
This particular book is more geology/physics oriented than most. It discusses things like Noah's flood, and how the speed of light is a constant. Of course to the creationist (Oooophs, I forgot, that's a bad word, it's Intelligent Designer) none of this will matter.
If you're interested in a more recent book with more biological reference, consider Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh.
Full of Answers -- Complete.......2005-06-16
I found this book after a creationist posed some potential problems to me regarding a 4.5 billion y.o. earth. After reading several sections of this book, I am very pleased with the presentation of the material and the depth with which it is covered. The rebuttles to creationism in this book are thorough and often go into more detail than necessary (although I found the depth more interesting and useful if further questions arose).
There are many topics covered in this book. I used information from it on the following potential problems:
-content of the oceans (poor dating method due to "residence times" of elements in the ocean)
-the moon's recession from the earth (consistent with expected age of the moon, websites were also useful in researching this topic)
-radiometric dating with uranium and other radioactive materials (very in depth info on this, and if understood, very convincing of why this is a good dating method)
-decline of the speed of light (this book blows this idea out of the water)
-carbon 14 dating and the earth's magnetic field (these really tie together, and Strahler addresses both very well, showing that C-14 has had variations throughout time, and the magnetic field also variates and can actually flip, as has been observed in the sun; these two tie together since the magnetic field influences how much C-14 is in the atmosphere)
-oil fields (explains how it isn't just a bunch of pools underneith earth, but is in porous rock, which doesn't really support Noah's flood; plus C-14 dating shows it is too old to be from Noah's flood)
This is certainly not an exhaustive list of what is in this book, but these were the topics I found most useful. Because this book was published in 1987, don't expect too much on more recent fields (such as using DNA to discredit the story of Adam and Eve living just 6,000 years ago).
This book will explain holes in the creationist story (either can be used to expose these holes or to realize, for creationists, that there isn't a problem). This is quite possibly the most interesting book I have picked up in the last year and I would highly recommend it to any person who believes in a young earth or to anyone debating this topic.
Solid as a rock!.......2003-05-28
With an exhaustive overview of the geologic and evolutionary history of our planet, Strahler vigorously rebuts a multitude of Christian creationist assertions. Strahler takes some effort to expose the faulty logic, poor science and devious methods Christians have used to impair the public's perception of evolution. The author is able to fully detail each creationist assertion and how science refutes them. If there is a pivot point in this presentation, it would be the spurious "human" tracks "found" in a Texas riverbed. Many facets - the age of the earth, the path of evolution and the role of analysis - are exemplified by the circumstances surrounding this artefact.
While Strahler leaves no doubt over his view of Christian creationists, he provides such a wealth of their material that the book might well be considered "balanced". It is certainly thorough in presenting a history of modern creationism and its spokesmen [if there are any women active in promoting "creation science" they don't appear here]. Strahler lays a foundation by comparing science and pseudo-science. The contrast between empirical research and declaration from assertion should be apparent to all, but Strahler spells it out carefully and clearly. From this beginning he takes us through a succession of topics, exhibiting the creationist declarations, then depicting the errors in them. In some cases, the errors are simply false, while others are twisted use of words or ideas. Strahler set himself a monumental task in composing this book, but as someone with long experience in the geologic column, perhaps there is no-one better qualified to assess the material.
This is a rich trove for almost anyone interested in the planet's history. Most of the line drawings and other illustrations are worthy of close attention. Although set as a counter to false thinking, there is a massive amount of material on such topics as radiometric dating, cosmology, geological processes, fossil analysis and the evolution of humanity. Each area acknowledges the leaders in the research. While crediting good studies, Strahler is careful to note where his fellow scientists have been slipshod or dismissive over word usage in dealing with creationists or simply reporting their science. A worthwhile book for a wide spectrum of readers. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Disappointment: The "New" 1999 "Edition" is Only a Reprint.......2001-05-25
I was disappointed that except for an additional preface, the 1999 "edition" is only a reprint of the first edition from 1987. Outside of the new preface, the book does NOT include "responses to new attacks on evolutionary theory" as promised on the front cover. However, far from being "superficial," the book still contains a wealth of detailed and accurate information that is utterly fatal to creationist fantasies.
It is true that Strahler (p. 135) falsely blames creationist John Woodmorappe of misrepresenting the contents of an article on the radiometric dating of some Hawaiian basalts. In reality, the distortions originated from creationist H. Morris. Nevertheless, Strahler's rebuttal of the distortions is valid.
Clearly, Strahler needs to update this book and respond to the blatant misquotes, misconceptions, and errors that permeate the tabloid literature that continuously streams from various creation "institutes" that claim to be doing "research" or have "answers." For example, geologists have known since at least the early 1960's that SOME magmas travel rapidly through crusts, as fast as several ten's of kilometers per month. Since the first printing of Strahler's book, creationists have distorted the literature on magma movement and cooling, including some of the references in Strahler. Creationists illogically imply that because SOME magmas travel quickly and smaller plutons may cool rapidly, ALL magmas must travel and cool quickly. As a specific example, Strahler needs to supplement his discussions on p. 212-213 and further describe how the cooling of huge plutons, such as the Sierra Nevada Batholith of California (p. 213), took more than 10 million years and how this and other numerous plutons thoroughly refute creationist claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Strahler should also discuss the 1989 Science article by Odom and Rink that destroys creationist claims for "ex nihilo" polonium halos.
Disappointment: The "New" 1999 "Edition" is Only a Reprint.......2001-05-25
I was disappointed that except for an additional preface, the 1999 "edition" is only a reprint of the first edition from 1987. Outside of the new preface, the book does NOT include "responses to new attacks on evolutionary theory" as promised on the front cover. However, far from being "superficial," the book still contains a wealth of detailed and accurate information that is utterly fatal to creationist fantasies.
It is true that Strahler (p. 135) falsely blames creationist John Woodmorappe of misrepresenting the contents of an article on the radiometric dating of some Hawaiian basalts. In reality, the distortions originated from creationist H. Morris. Nevertheless, Strahler's rebuttal of the distortions is valid.
Clearly, Strahler needs to update this book and respond to the blatant misquotes, misconceptions, and errors that permeate the tabloid literature that continuously streams from various creation "institutes" that claim to be doing "research" or have "answers." For example, geologists have known since at least the early 1960's that SOME magmas travel rapidly through crusts, as fast as several ten's of kilometers per month. Since the first printing of Strahler's book, creationists have distorted the literature on magma movement and cooling, including some of the references in Strahler. Creationists illogically imply that because SOME magmas travel quickly and smaller plutons may cool rapidly, ALL magmas must travel and cool quickly. As a specific example, Strahler needs to supplement his discussions on p. 212-213 and further describe how the cooling of huge plutons, such as the Sierra Nevada Batholith of California (p. 213), took more than 10 million years and how this and many other plutons thoroughly refute creationist claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Strahler should also discuss the 1989 Science article by Odom and Rink that destroys creationist claims for "ex nihilo" polonium halos.
Book Description
The Post-Darwinian Controversies offers an original interpretation of Protestant responses to Darwin after 1870, viewing them in a transatlantic perspective and as a constitutive part of the history of post-Darwinian evolutionary thought. The impact of evolutionary theory on the religious consciousness of the nineteenth century has commonly been seen in terms of a 'conflict' or 'warfare' between science and theology. Dr. Moore's account begins by discussing the polemical origins and baneful effects of the 'military metaphor', and this leads to a revised view of the controversies based on an analysis of the underlying intellectual struggle to come to terms with Darwin. The middle section of the book distinguishes the 'Darwinism' of Darwin himself amid the main currents of post-Darwinian evolutionary thought, and is followed by chapters which examine the responses to Darwin of twenty-eight Christian controversialists, tracing the philosophical and theological lineage of their views. The paradox that emerges - that Darwin's theory was accepted in substance only by those whose theology was distinctly orthodox theology and of other evolutionary theories with liberal and romantic theological speculation.
Customer Reviews:
Congratulations CUP for reprinting this!!.......2003-10-25
James Moore's brilliant and magisterial examination of the so-called conflict between Religion and Science in Victorian Britain has been reprinted by CUP (Nov 2003) and I've just got my hands on a copy. I'd recommend it enthusiastically to anyone who wants to know more about Protestant responses to Darwinism, Huxley and the 'X Club. It's even cheaper than the rare secondhand copies which is a definite bonus.
Books:
- The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth about Extraterrestrial life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt
- The Transit of Venus
- The Transit of Venus
- The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
- The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
- The View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos
- The View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos
- Tropica: Color Cyclopedia of Exotic Plants and Trees for Warm-Region Horticulture in Cool Climate the Summer Garden or Sheltered Indoors
- What's Your Dosha, Baby?: Discover the Vedic Way for Compatibility in Life and Love
- Yellow Eyes (Posleen War Series #8)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Thanks For The Memories ... The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinge
- Pimsleur Portuguese
- Exquisite Pain
- I Have Heard You Calling in the Night
- Me to We: Finding Meaning in a Material World
- Microbiology: Principles and Explorations
- Mistress of Modernism: The Life of Peggy Guggenheim
- Unscientific Americans
- Heart of a Nation: Writers and Photographers Inspired by the American Landscape
- Genera of Hyphomycetes from Soil
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought
The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage
Kepler
The God That Failed
Harmonies Of The World (On the Shoulders of Giants)
