Book Description
You think you know about Darwinism and intelligent design, but did you know: *There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism; *Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief; *What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods; *Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design; *Scientists who question Darwinism are punished --by public institutions using your tax dollars. Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design.
Customer Reviews:
The index tells it all.......2007-09-20
If you simply look at the index for Intelligent Design, evidence for, you will see listed 1, 4, 8, 198-199. Turn to those pages and you will see the "evidence" is merely the use of the word evidence in a statement like "since intelligent design is based on evidence..."
I've read this cover to cover, and I did find the arguments ID makes against Darwinism's evidence (which have been answered in other books -- flagellum, blood cascade, the eye) but there is no evidence presented for ID beyond that. Wells just says it's based on evidence, that there are experiments and field work being carried out (in secret), but he never gives us more.
It is interesting that Wells states that the evidence for Darwinism --common descent, natural selection, random mutation--is underwhelming. Interesting because his friends and ID colleague Michael Behe writes:
"As I wrote inThe Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Common descent, natural selection, and random mutation are separate concepts; the first two are well supported, but the power of random mutation is not. " The first two are well-supported. By evidence, one assumes.
This was a truly frustrating book.
Same old rehashed "arguments"..........2007-09-02
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought "politically incorrect" meant "having a charming and irreverent disregard for the political norms of the day when discussing topics that are usually stifled by convention". Apparently it just means "rabid, frothing, conservative pap".
Skeptisim not allowed.......2007-08-30
It is doubtful that there is a more divisive issue in our public schools than the mere thought of explaining our existence in terms other than Darwinism. Regardless of the innumerable holes in the theory any suggestion of other possibilities is anathema.
Intelligent Design the Darwinists say is nothing more than code for God based creation. And of course anything smacking of something greater than us leads secularists to fits of explosive anger.
Evolution means change over time and I don't know many people that have a problem with that. However Mr. Darwin's theory is entirely different. The "theory" holds that... Natural Selection plus Random Mutation equals an ENTIRE NEW SPECIES. And look as they may, over 150-years now, no one has come close to proving that.
My personal problem with Darwin, a problem that is explored deeply in this terrific book, is how those that accept it do so to the exclusion of any other possible explanation. Science has a twin, a virtually conjoined twin, "Skepticism." But Darwinists have rejected sciences twin with the utmost vehemence.
We are not allowed to be skeptics in discussing the origin of life. We must, herd like; accept Darwinism and all its myriad problems. We must have faith that an amateur naturalist that lived 200-years ago, was and continues to be right in all respects regarding the greatest scientific and philosophical question since the beginning of time.
Skepticism is not allowed.
Many of the reviews of this book are being written by people.......2007-08-28
who have not read it.
It is a well written, easy to understand book on an Theory of Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
This book is easy read and will get your brain in gear as you analyize both sides of the story. When, as suggested by the author I took a look at my son's biology book and saw Haeckel's sketches I was convinced.
"To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."--*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.
For that alone it is worth your time.
The Unfittest Sometimes Survive Anyway.......2007-08-27
Jonathan Wells understands current evolutionary theory about as well as George W Bush understands the Constitution... that is, not at all. I'm sorry I was suckered into buying this foolishness by the passion of these reviews; I won't be fooled again. For a solid and lucid statement of how evolutionary development is understood today, please do yourself the favor of reading Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" or any of his other recent explanations.
Book Description
A gorgeous gift and a landmark work that is an essential addition to everyone's personal library.
Never before have the four great works of Charles Darwin—Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle (1845), The Origin of Species (1859), The Descent of Man (1871), and The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)—been collected under one cover. Undertaking this challenging endeavor 123 years after Darwin's death, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Edward O. Wilson has written an introductory essay for the occasion, while providing new, insightful introductions to each of the four volumes and an afterword that examines the fate of evolutionary theory in an era of religious resistance. In addition, Wilson has crafted a creative new index to accompany these four texts, which links the nineteenth-century, Darwinian evolutionary concepts to contemporary biological thought. Beautifully slipcased, and including restored versions of the original illustrations, From So Simple a Beginning turns our attention to the astounding power of the natural creative process and the magnificence of its products. Slipcased hardcover; 101 illustrations, map.
Customer Reviews:
Can't Beat It.......2007-04-03
I bought this book knowing very little about Darwin or his theories. From So Simple a Beginning was an easy read about a very interesting man. I would hope that not just supporters of evolution would read this book there is more to the man then just one theory.
Four classics.......2007-01-12
Excellent in every particular. Five stars in delivery time, condition, quality of the experience.
Wonderful writing wrong package.......2007-01-10
There is no gainsaying the writings of Darwin or the thinking of my favorite living scientist, E.O.Wilson. But the package is wrong.
Four books in one. Too heavy, too cumbersome. Discouraging.
Too big.......2007-01-05
This book is way too big to hold to read, so it is not useful. From the picture I thought I was ordering 4 different books in a book holder, not one giant book. I recommend buying them separately unless you have very strong arms and wrists.
From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books (Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, T.......2006-07-02
Good
Average customer rating:
- very interesting account
- WHAT CONTROVERSY?
- A Riveting Account Well Worth the Read
- Get the monkey off Darwin's back
- Riveting
|
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
Edward Humes
Manufacturer: Ecco
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Education
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Science & Religion
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Creationism
| Theology
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Curricula
| Education
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin®, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania
-
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
-
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA
-
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
-
Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives
ASIN: 0060885483
Release Date: 2007-01-30 |
Book Description
What should we teach our children about where we come from?
Is evolution good science? Is it a lie? Is it incompatible with faith?
Did Charles Darwin really say man came from monkeys? Have scientists really detected "intelligent design"—evidence of a creator—in nature?
What happens when a town school board decides to confront such questions head-on, thrusting its students, then an entire community, onto the front lines of America's culture wars?
From bestselling author and Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist Edward Humes comes a dramatic story of faith, science, and courage unlike any since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. Monkey Girl takes you behind the scenes of the recent war on evolution in Dover, Pennsylvania, the epic court case on teaching "intelligent design" it spawned, and the national struggle over what Americans believe about human origins.
Told from the perspectives of all sides of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.
Customer Reviews:
very interesting account.......2007-09-27
This is a well-written account of the evolution-ID battle in Dover, Pennsylvania. It is more even-handed than many accounts, and attempts to describe the personalities involved. More of a sociological and journalistic treatment than a biological or education one, but the story is well-told, gripping, and complicated nuances are explained clearly.
WHAT CONTROVERSY?.......2007-09-12
Our president was recently quoted as saying the "jury is still out" on evolution. (To which Lewis Black replied: "WHAT jury, where?")
Where, indeed?
There's no need to mince words here: evolutionary theory - Darwin's defined mechanism of change through random mutation and natural selection - has been widely confirmed by modern genetics, to say nothing of "hard" evidence in the form of transitional species in the fossil record.
Specifically, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA as the molecular building block and instructional "codebook" of life, and human genome coding - which were unknown in Darwin's day - all tend to validate evolution.
"As the science of biochemistry has developed, as the science of cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, and other elements of science have developed, all of these have fit beautifully into the general framework described by Darwin almost 150 years ago!" says biology professor and textbook author Kenneth Miller.
Yet there are still those in our society who would have us believe that - to paraphrase Tina Fey - Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church! It seems that these misguided and misinformed souls, (who apparently regard The FLINTSTONES as if it were a documentary,) would presume to indoctrinate our children rather than teach them.
We can thank the Founding Fathers for their wisdom and foresight in giving us the Establishment Clause - thereby fashioning a nation in which religion and government were never to interfere with each other. Without its protection, we'd all be fighting the same Dark Age, regressive, anti-intellectual forces that the parents of Dover, Pennsylvania suddenly found themselves confronted with in 2004. (Yes, you read right - 2004. Not 1304 - or even 1804, mind you - but 2004!!)
I read Edward Humes' excellent MONKEY GIRL from cover to cover in two sittings, and I can recommend it, without reservation, to thinking adults of all walks of life. That is, people who are interested in science, reason, education, law and logic; people who care about who we really are, and how we actually came to be.
"Intelligent Design" proponents - and other children - are encouraged to wait for the comic book version.
[P.S: One amusing postscript - which isn't in the book - concerns the cretinous evangelist "Dr" Kent Hovind, a smug creationist huckster who's been spreading pseudo-scientific babble for decades, both in and out of Dover. He was sentenced in January 2007 to 10 years in Federal prison for income tax evasion. Tsk, tsk! It seems that Mr Hovind's math is just as suspect as his "science"!]
A Riveting Account Well Worth the Read.......2007-09-07
As someone who's never had issues with religion and science, including evolution, I wanted to know what all the Intelligent Design fuss was about. So I started reading books. First I read Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters. This peaked my interest to know more. Then I found Monkey Girl. I almost didn't buy the book, thinking that reading about a court case would be too boring. Boy was I ever wrong!
I couldn't put this book down. The author does a masterful job of painting a vivid picture of everyone involved in the case and providing helpful background information, including history sometimes going back centuries, to show how the U.S. divide between evolution and Intelligent Design came together in one school board in one high school in one small town in Pennsylvania.
Now I understand much better.
The last chapter of the book begins:
"It is humanity's unique blessing and peculiar curse to be the only species on Earth, as far as we know, that worries so obsessively and at such great expense about where we came from and why we're here."
My journey to know these things has taken me through Protestantism, Judaism, and now Buddhism. I've felt fortunate to live in a country that protects my right and everyone else's to be able to learn about and practice my chosen spiritual path. Or to choose to follow no particular path if I want.
But some Christians in this country want to do away with this right. To them, their approach to religion is the only approach. They even say it's what this country was founded on. I've read that's not the case. So now I'm reading about the faith of our founding fathers.
What bothers me the most, if the recounting of the Dover case is true, which I think it is, is that people who call themselves religious believers will lie to try to impose their beliefs on others. This seems very unChristian to me, and unJewish, unMuslim, and unBuddhist for that matter.
Given the judge's ruling in the Dover case that Intelligent Design is religion, not science, I'm hopeful that my Constitutional rights will continue to be upheld by people who understand their vital importance to our country. I have no problem with any religion, as long as I or my children or grandchildren are not required to learn about it in school or any other public or governmental place.
Get the monkey off Darwin's back.......2007-08-11
Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes, is the story about the ongoing conflict between the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). While Humes holds no official training in biology or theology, in this book he has been able to use his skills as an investigative writer to bring the conflicts of these two theories into a clearer picture than what other books have been able to achieve. According to Humes, the intent of this book was to "help dispel the larger myths about evolution theory, its relationship to religion, and the questions that science can and cannot answer." It is the goal of this author to clarify the facts of this dispute in order to allow his open-minded readers to decide what they believe to be true. I believe Humes has achieved this goal.
A major part of the appeal of this book is the style in which it is written. It allows the non-scientific reader to understand some complicated topics. As shown in the trial in Harrisburg, PA (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District), it is very easy for people to get bogged down or even bored by the details of evolution. The greatest strength of this book is that it teaches the reader about these details inside a story that is not just easy to comprehend, but in a way that keeps the reader's attention from beginning to end. To do this, Humes ably portrays the ridiculous and shameful behavior of fundamentalist Christian groups of people who have played and who continue to play an active role in this controversy. One extremist that Humes points to is the fundamentalist speaker Kent Hovind. According to Hume, Hovind outlandishly preaches that the teaching of evolution is the cause of the moral decay in this country and is directly related to "increases in crime, premarital sex, adultery, and drug use." What is scary is that Humes never runs out of extremists to talk about, as he is able to tell the reader about death treats Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by George W. Bush and much approved of by the Intelligent Design people before the trial in Harrisburg, received when he dared to rule against their case. While the portrayal of these extremists is a strength for this book and is understandable, it also could be considered a weakness. I believe that Humes devotes too much print to these extremists. While he does say that there are mainstream Christian groups, including the Catholic Church, that have no problem with theory of evolution, much less time is given to this much larger group of people.
In leading up to the climax of this book, Humes gives the reader a history of evolution's disagreements with creationism and introduces the latest challenge, ID, being put forth by the Discovery Institute. A well-funded think tank of some very bright "scientists", the goal of the Discovery Institute is to introduce ID into the public school system. Once the stage has been set, Humes describes the scene in Harrisburg where, not only was the judge convinced that ID was essentially creationism, but also a scene where one by one, scientists convincingly showed that the theory of evolution is real science and ID is not. For example, proponents of ID dispute the evidence of decent from a common ancestor. Yet, evidence in the trial showed that the chromosomes of chimpanzees are remarkably similar to those of humans. Also, Dr. Michael Behe has argued that complex parts of an organism such as the blood-clotting cascade could not have come from evolution. His theory, irreducible complexity, is that "natural selection can't create such a complex machine all in one step, nor could it gradually assemble it in the conventional evolutionary model, one bit at a time, because the bits don't work on their own." But, much to Behe's embarrassment, his theory was proven wrong under cross-examination in a way that the judge described as "painful." Time and again, Humes describes scientists who were very able to convince the judge that the facts show that ID is not science and is religiously based and therefore should not be taught in a public school system.
Monkey Girl is a well-written and informative book that should play a crucial role in helping many legislators, judges, school officials, and average Americans understand the controversy between evolution and Intelligent Design and the true facts about each theory. In writing this book, Edward Humes has provided a valuable service to the world of science that will hopefully have a positive impact on the theory of evolution and how it relates to religious beliefs. For those mainstream Christians who believe that an intelligent designer has utilized evolution to mold the creation over the last 3.5 billion years, this book will provide some answers.
Riveting.......2007-08-10
I thought I knew a lot about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial: I had read Judge Jones's decision and some of the trial testimony, I've read books written by some of the witnesses, and so forth. I expected this book to fill in around the edges of my understanding.
Instead, it showed me a whole new picture of the trial and its place in the American "culture wars." To begin with, the book is very well written and exciting. (I stayed up reading it last night four hours past my usual bedtime.) Second, it shows players on all sides as intricate, three-dimensional individuals. It would be easy to ridicule Bill Buckingham as an ignorant rube, but in this book he comes across as a man of courage and conviction, as well as a man lacking an understanding of either science or religion. Humes makes his own opinions clear, but those who disagree with him are treated with respect, while those who agree with him are not given a free pass. Finally, while Humes centers his writing on the Dover trial and the science of evolution, he also puts it into context with discussions of Scopes and Kansas, as well as the role of reason in making policy.
One specific thing I learned from this book is that Dover school board members and administrators thought that the term "origin of life" meant macroevolution, speciation, and the origin of humanity. I didn't believe anyone could be so far off base, but I looked up the trial transcripts and found that he was not exaggerating.
I found three errors: (1) Humes claims that the Revolutionary Battle of Yorktown, Virginia occurred in York, Pennsylvania. (2) He describes iron molecules (not atoms) as spin aligned. (3) He twice claims that Bill O'Reilly broadcasts for the Cable News Network. (On a third occasion Humes correctly places O'Reilly at Fox News.)
Humes's love of America, while never mentioned explicitly, comes through clearly on every page. Humes worries about our country in an environment were every complex question is reduced to a simplistic two-sided barroom brawl, and were people cannot distinguish fact from opinion.
Book Description
This book describes how understanding the structure of reality leads to the Theory of Everything Equation. The equation unifies the forces of nature and enables the merging of relativity with quantum theory. The book explains the big bang theory and everything else.
Customer Reviews:
The Real Deal.......2006-09-25
Although Mr. Wheatley is a little verbose in sections, his documentation of Zen Buddhistic Principles found throughout the disciplines of Mathematics, Physics, Theology, etc. forms a nice reference guide for anyone tuned into that wavelength. In particular, his explanation of how Godel's Theorem and Cantor's "Confusion" shed great light on the difference between GOD's Logic and Man's Logic should be a revelation to any undergraduate level math students who encounter these ideas for the first time. Curiously, Mr. Wheatley makes many misstatements about both Zen Buddhism Principles and the Bible, however. For example, by accepting the false biblical teaching of Original Sin, he misses the point that eating the proverbial apple gave Adam and Eve the ability to make Moral Discernments in fulfillment of GOD'S PERFECT PLAN. As proof, read Genesis 1 which states that Man and Woman were made in GOD's Image. Genesis 4 shows that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans on Earth at all, there were plenty of others by then. The allegorical meaning of the story of Eden, then, isn't that Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth, but they were the first humans with the ability to make Moral Discernments (in GOD's Image). In fact, Moral Discernment is God's Unique Gift to Man, which is the basis of consciousness, not some Math Formula. But because the wages of the resulting, unavoidable sin are Death, many people foolishly try to return to Eden by: (1) living a sinless Life (2) by removing choice altogether by passing and enforcing strict Laws (3) by attempting to do away with Moral Discernment and the resulting consequences for our actions altogether by trying to remove Shame from Shameful actions. GOD is not some ethereal Man-In-Space, but is simply the Totality of all Real Things, The Set of All Real Sets. GOD's Love manifests itself from the amazing sub-atomic relationships that underly this magic Life all the way to the grandest of Macroscopic Scales, the Interconnected Totality itself. The Zen Buddhism connection can be found by simply superimposing the 0 symbol and the symbol for infinity (8 on its side) in Mr. Wheatley's supposedly "new" formulation that 1 = 0 x infinity. Superimposing them gives you the yin-yang symbol. A potential disadvantage of artificially separating the infinity from the zero, however, is that Mr. Wheatley is able to equate the entire expression to be equal to 1. This potentially might obscure the fact that the deepest meaning of the yin-yang symbol is that it is both 2 and 1 AT THE SAME TIME. His overall equation does preserve that important meaning by utilizing a single element on one side of the equation and two elements on the other side of his final TOE equation. This may be hard to see for some at first, however, which could potentially obscure the richest meaning of this beautiful symbol/equation. A much more GODLY TOE, in my opinion, comes from Euler, who discovered that e ^ (i * pi) - 1 = 0. When someone can explain that relationship, then they can say they know GOD.
A life changing experience??.......2005-06-13
This book is an easy read and does succeed in being somewhat thought-provoking. However, I am a little surprised at the awesome, "life changing" experience it apparently was for many of the readers. Wheatley's conclusions were interesting but nothing really new. All of his material should have passed through the mind of any thinking person without the aid of this book.
The reason I gave this book three stars is because he uses unneccessarily wordy ways of describing simple things. Also, the author and many other reviewers insist that Wheatley makes only one assumption. Wrong-his whole theory is one big assumption.
Overall though it was a very interesting and worthy book.
Should be Required Reading for everyone.......2004-06-26
This book will change your life. You will never think the same way you did before reading it.
I have a degree in chemistry and I think this book should be read by everyone in the sciences. Without a doubt, the best book I've ever read. Why and what are two of our best friends
A Very Important Book.......2004-01-26
I must preface my review by stating that I have never been so excited and moved by a book that I have wanted to contact the author. That is what I found myself doing upon reading this book. This book is just what its title says. The author does not "miss a beat" describing in great detail using practically every aspect of scientific knowledge from atomic structure through logic to quantum theory---we are even given a valuable explanation of Love. This text may be challenging to read for those unfamiliar with scientific terminology. And it can also be difficult for those with a science background, such as myself. However, for me it is well worth the work necessary to strive to understand the unfamiliar terminology. (I am continually learning from this book. I am presently on my third reread).
One of the author's main messages is "not" to believe anything without first verifying it with reality, as we know it. He calls it the "Personal Explanation Principle". He indicates that religions are just such belief systems that we as people "fall" victims of; because we do not verify the beliefs with the facts, as we know them, of reality. He gives a very detailed explanation of how the New Testament can be explored using his methodology.
The author methodically and meticulously walks us through his thought processes, which took 30 years to assimilate, of delineating the structure of reality and the nature of consciousness. Included in the "walk" are many of reality's phenomena made revelatory. An example of that, for me, would be the dual nature of light. It's particle/wave duality, which is explained as "functions". Also, when the author took me on the mental journey of "Setness" an exhilaration of the magnificence of life swelled up in me.
To me this is a very important book that should be read by all that are seekers of truth. It is for all those wanting to gain an understanding of the purpose for their existence, wanting to know where life is headed towards, and wanting to know who God is.
This book will enlighten and develop one's mind substantially. You will discover that this is our objective.
And yes, I contacted the author and he responded openly.
Illuminating!!!.......2002-12-30
This is a really great book. It combines philosophy and science in order to tackle a multitude of existential problems. The author's style of writing is fresh and alive, I recommend ths book to anyone interested in expanding the fronteirs of their understanding. Books I also liked are a Universe in an Nutshell by Steven Hawkings and Descent into Illusions by Paul Omeziri.
Book Description
A creationist-turned-scientist demonstrates the facts of evolution and exposes Intelligent Design’s real agenda
Science is on the defensive. Half of Americans reject the theory of evolution and “Intelligent Design” campaigns are gaining ground. Classroom by classroom, creationism is overthrowing biology.
In Why Darwin Matters, bestselling author Michael Shermer explains how the newest brand of creationism appeals to our predisposition to look for a designer behind life’s complexity. Shermer decodes the scientific evidence to show that evolution is not “just a theory” and illustrates how it achieves the design of life through the bottom-up process of natural selection. Shermer, once an evangelical Christian and a creationist, argues that Intelligent Design proponents are invoking a combination of bad science, political antipathy, and flawed theology. He refutes their pseudoscientific arguments and then demonstrates why conservatives and people of faith can and should embrace evolution. He then appraises the evolutionary questions that truly need to be settled, building a powerful argument for science itself.
Cutting the politics away from the facts, Why Darwin Matters is an incisive examination of what is at stake in the debate over evolution.
Customer Reviews:
Intelligently-Designed atheism. .......2007-09-28
For the past year, writing what I think will be the definitive reply to the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett(The Truth Behind the New Atheism), I've immersed myself in arguments for the falsity and dangers of religion. So far Shermer has seemed, if not the most intelligent, the most open to contrary evidence, and the most likeable, of those I've read.
Shermer's arguments helped persuade me of the truth of Common Descent. (Along with those of Francis Collins and other Christian scientists.) He does not as directly challenge the ideas of ID proponents like Lee Spetner or (in his latest book) Michael Behe, who grant common descent, but argue that mutations can't explain it.
One of the most interesting sections of this book is Shermer's discussion of his survey of the basis for religious beliefs. Shermer asked 10,000 Americans why they believed, and why they thought other people believed. He found that most people think others believe for non-rational reasons, but themselves saw reason (design of universe, experience of God, etc) as the grounds of their own faith.
My own, more limited, study of people in conservative churches, underlined the point. When I asked smaller groups of people who had been Christians for many years, "why do you believe in God?" the least popular responses were those farthest removed from facts. ("You have to believe in something;" "I enjoy the fellowship in church . . . ") A large majority gave responses that had at least some intellectual component, such as "The evidence seems good" (62%), and "I have had supernatural experience that taught me the reality of the spiritual world."
What this reflects, I suggest, is just how far wrong the Dawkins crowd are, in their uncritical assumption that Christianity demands "blind faith." Shermer seems to have assumed that, but then to begin changing his mind when the evidence undermined his assumption. I respect that. He should go further, and study what Christians have said about the subject down through the years.
Shermer's book is moderately persuasive until he begins talking about the law and the philosophy of science. At that point he discredits himself a bit, to me anyway. He warns us that ID proponents want to "get government to force teachers to teach it," (not I think the position of the Discovery Institute at all). Then in the following chapter says not only that teachers should be forced to teach evolution, but that it should be illegal even to say God was behind it! I prefer the Shermer who writes, "In the freemarket of ideas, turning to the government to force your theory on others -- particularly children -- goes against every principle of liberty upon which Western democracies are founded."
"Science knows no religious or political boundaries," Shermer says. This is more reasonable than when, a few pages earlier, he calls Philip Johnson's Wedge a "religious war against all of science." While I am not a big fan of Johnson, it seems to me his proposal is at heart pretty conservative: he wants us to do science as the inventors of science -- Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle -- did it, within the context of a life infused with the glory of God. The founders of modern science were hardly at war with the discipline they founded; neither need be people who do science in the same spirit today.
In short, there are claims in this book one can argue with. (I could add others.) But unlike some of his allies, Shermer gives the impression of one with whom one can civilly disagree.
Why does it matter.......2007-09-24
I am Halfway through the book and it is a struggle....
I am at a loss as to why the author felt compelled to write this. I agree with the premise 100%, but there is no hook and all in all this is a VERY dull read...
Why DOES Darwin matter?.......2007-09-22
An excellent treatice on an increasingly important subject. It "turns on the light" that so many fundamentalists of any faith so abhor. Certainly, along with Hitchen's God is Not Great, allow free thinkers to gird their loins for battle.
It Matters.......2007-09-16
I always enjoy reading Michael Shermer, his books educate as well as entertain and he did it again with "Why Darwin Matters". Like Shermer I too am a converted atheist who as a believer attempted to prove that god was responsible for creation. Many of those feelings came back to me as I read of his conversion to Darwinism. He describes it like confessing to a murder, I think many others can also relate to that.
It is remarkable to learn that most of the world has come to accept evolution, creationism is only popular in the United States and then mostly in the south. Shermer is a very good writer however I think the maxim "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear" applies to the level of comprehension one gets from this book; it probably will not change the opinions of those who minds are closed on the subject. The book didn't take longer to read but was very complete; I have never understood the concept of "nonoverlapping magisterial" and I still don't really get it however Shermer's explanation has got me the closest to figuring it out. I also appreciated his explanation of how religion developed as a mechanism of the societal evolution. Religious practices arose from the communal necessity of maintaining reciprocal altruism for the survival of our species, I found this most illuminating.
I do have one area of disagreement with Shermer at his attempt to be conciliatory with creationist in his chapter, "Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution". He suggests that they accept a non literal account of the bible which would allow them to acknowledge the reality of evolution as they embrace the comforts of religion, in my opinion this is a very weak position to hold. It is an acknowledgment that the existential angst of atheism is too great for some and that we must "play along" in order for them to deal with it. I fail to understand why he finds it necessary to patronize believers in this manner while he endeavors to analyze their viewpoint as a skeptic. Perhaps because of Mr. Shermer's experience and understanding of socialization he has developed a greater insight and sensitivity to believers however I don't find this stance to be consistent with that of a scientist. This is a great book because it provides challenges to both believers and skeptics in this manner.
truth cannot contradict truth...John Paul 11...........2007-09-12
You can have both religion and science as long as you don't try to make reality unreal, to turn naturalism into supernaturalism. God is outside time and space, God is beyond nature, or supernatural and therefore cannot be explained by natural causes. God is beyond the dominion of science, and science is outside the realm of God....so you see it is possible to have both religion and science side by side. Thank you Michael Shermer author of "Why Darwin Matters"
Average customer rating:
- Every Christian and Intelligent Design Proponent should read this book...
- Gobblty Goop
- Grossly misleading
- Scientists Separate Sense From Nonsense
- Clear, precise, logical, effective.
|
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Science & Religion
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Creationism
| Theology
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
History of Science
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Organic
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
-
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
-
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA
-
The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition
-
Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Philosophy in Action)
ASIN: 0393050904 |
Book Description
From leading scientists, lawyers, and educators, a new and decisive rebuttal to the assault on evolution from proponents of "intelligent design."
With the pseudoscience of creationism rising again under the guise of "intelligent design," this powerful collection eviscerates the new assault on evolution and reveals the pervasive and insidious threat posed to genuine science by ID proponents like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. The sixteen original essays address two key issues: the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution gathered over 150 years and the dubious underpinnings of creationism; and how society can mount better educational and legal policies to prevent a theological takeover of our public and scientific institutions. The book includes powerful voices in the modern culture war against ID, including Kevin Padian, paleontologist and expert witness in the landmark lawsuit of Kitzmiller v. Dover. With creationist arguments forever morphing and reappearing under new aliases, this new confrontation is a must-read for teachers, students, and general readers, and a ringing and lasting refutation of creationism's fraudulent claims. 12 illustrations.
Customer Reviews:
Every Christian and Intelligent Design Proponent should read this book..........2007-09-05
This books is, without question, a must read for individuals on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate. I, for one, do not understand why Christians are threatened by reading such material and why it is automatically given low reviews (1 or 2 stars) as a method of attack. First, I am an author and I know that having reviews helps sell books and one or two negative reviews can be very good for a book. Second, I am a Christian and I found the book very well written and full of interesting information.
Now, before all the evolutionists get to excited, the book did not present any "conversion" power arguments. In other words, there was nothing here that made me say, "Wow! Evolution did happen." There were many things that made me think more deeply and there were also some interesting insights about the thinking of the opposing side.
For example, on page 182 speaking about a comment by Francis H. C. Crick made in an application for a student research fellowship, the author admits that the goal of showing that areas apparently too mysterious to be explained by physics and chemistry could actually be explained has not been achieved. Then, in the next breath, the author says, "there is no evidence indicating an ultimate supernatural origin of the basic biological phenomena." So we see that the author requires evidence to believe there is a supernatural explanation, but he does not require any evidence to prove that there is a natural explanation. In other words, things that science has failed to explain must be believed to have a natural explanation even though there is no evidence for it. Notice how this is accorded to the naturalistic viewpoint, but not to the supernatural viewpoint.
I appreciated the book greatly because it helps me understand the arguments from both sides better and it also provides me with windows into the thinking process of the evolutionists mind. I think we all need to work harder to understand each other and we need to spend less time attacking the character of each other. Creationists, IDers and evolutionists are nearly all sincere. There have been liars on both sides, but we need to realize that the person against whom we are debating is just that: a person. Whether they evolved or were created, they are of the same species as me and I respect them.
Gobblty Goop.......2007-06-27
This book seems desparate to me. I am baffled that learned men differ so vehimently on this topic; men of science, which is by definition driven by emperical facts... with conclusions derived by using laws of logic. I conclude that, ironically, it is the Darwinists that are hanging on to their dogma, choosing to embrace that which is seriously flawed, and ignore the validity of the I.D. conclusions. It is the same ignorance that our politicians are exhibiting regarding the Jihad threat, and the unsecured southern border.
Don't bother them with facts... or logic... they've made up their minds.
Grossly misleading.......2007-06-21
This was a highly disappointing book, which I knew it would be from the title. Instead of addressing the merits of the ideas and concepts of ID head on, the authors decided on an end run by conflating intelligent design with creationism in an all out attack. They effectively setup a straw man and attempt to knock him down because they are aware how ignorant most people who read this book are of ID and the scholarship behind it. I can promise many who would give this book 5 stars have not done any significant reading on ID (which is simply due diligence), and are not aware of the dishonesty to be found in this book.
I have read over a dozen books on ID, and I can say with certainty (having read both sides of the argument carefully) that this book completely misrepresents its goals and assertions, and that there is a clear distinction between ID and "creationism." The only balance to be found is in Ronald Numbers' chapter. ID is not and never has been "anti-evolution," and has a diversity of working scientists from prestigious universities ranging from agnostic to evangelical Christian. What they all have in common is their understanding of what evolution can do, and what it can't do (as I recall, I don't think anyone has yet provided a satisfying explanation for the evolution of intentionality or of consciousness, let alone the astonishing complexity of "simple" one-cell organisms).
Understanding what evolution can and can't do opens up the doors to see other ways of looking at the problems considering gaps in the fossil record and problems of mutation rates which demonstrate statistical improbabilities, amongst others. So ID is not an argument from incredulity (a favorite criticism of scientific popularizers), but an argument from looking at the data and seeing there is more going on than random mutation and natural selection alone. In contrast, the authors of this book are clinging to an outmoded, closed-minded, dogmatic view of the biological world at the molecular level. What is interesting is that the ID folks are the ones who are open and willing to embrace new discoveries in science wherever they lead, while neo-Darwinists continue to flounder with worn out ideas and "just so" stories that simply don't accord with the new data.
But don't take my word for it. Actually READ Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Gonzalez, et al, and evaluate their arguments for yourself on their merits instead of on their religious affiliations (which does not dictate their science, despite what you may read). Read Species of Origins by Giberson and Yerxa, which has wonderful balance. I think you will find there is deep scholarship and thoughtfulness to the work of ID proponents, and that ID is in no way related to or affiliated with "creationism." That is, if you want to be fair and balanced instead of basing your decisions solely on polemics such as this book and Barbara Forrest's, which is more of the same.
Scientists Separate Sense From Nonsense.......2007-04-19
Fervent fundamentalist religious groups (Jewish, Christian, or Islamic), have exhibited chronic allergies to science ever since Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" convincingly presented his theory of evolution by natural selection. Unweaving rainbows could be tolerated - but dismantling cherished creation myths spawned an array of pseudoscientific hives and rashes ranging from 'creation science' to 'Intelligent Design.'
Faith-based resistance to evolution - a theory supported by an overwhelming and extraordinary consilience of scientific evidence - has deleteriously impacted everything from separation of church and state to economic competitiveness as science, and science education, became essential prerequisites for information age economies and political systems. "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" thoroughly and convincingly deconstructs the all dog, no pony, creationist and ID sideshow with sixteen essays by prominent scientists, historians, and educators.
PART ONE focuses on the origins of 'scientific creationism' and 'Intelligent Design.' Ronald L. Numbers unmasks the shell-game strategies employed by creationists attempting to substitute religious dogma for science in American classrooms. Shortly after the Supreme Court rejected 'scientific creationism' in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling 'Intelligent Design,' chronicled by Eugenie C. Scott, whelped into view. Sired by an unremarkable claque of born again lawyers, underachieving academics, and a Moonie; 'Intelligent Design' was accompanied by a strident but content-free PR initiative from The Discovery Institute for the Renewal of Science and Culture. John R. Cole closes this section by documenting the conceit that led backers of 'Intelligent Design' to their own Golgotha in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005.
PART TWO includes essays by Victor J. Stegner, G. Brent Dalrymple, and Antonia Lazcano that roast creationist chestnuts ranging from 'The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution or the natural origin of life impossible' (it doesn't, in fact non-equilibrium thermodynamics underlies a variety of physical and chemical processes that allowed life to develop and evolve on earth); to the age of the earth itself - an incontrovertible 4.54 billion years old. Despite all available scientific evidence, Young Earth Creationists (YECs) continue to insist that earth and the cosmos are only 6,000 to 10,000 years old - only off by factors of 750,000 for the earth and more than 2,000,000 for the universe!
Other PART TWO highlights pair Kevin Padian's and Kenneth D. Angielczyk's paper on how creationists duplicitously deny transitional forms with Robert Dorit's insights on biological complexity - flagellating Michael Behe's clumsy implementation of 'irreducible complexity.' Wesley R. Elsberry succinctly reveals the statistical slight-of-hand inherent in William Dembski's 'Design Inference.' The pretentious pseudomathematics genre was invented by Dembski and Elsberry's denouement is a fitting coup de grace. A summary of Human evolution by C. Loring Brace closes out this segment.
PART THREE pits Robert T. Pennock against an addled Dembski on philosophical and methodological grounds. His summarization is priceless:
"In other words, Dembski's argument works like this: If you cannot think of a way for natural regularities and/or chance to explain something, they say that a 'designer' did it. Dembski's 'design inference' is nothing more than a formalization of a simple god-of-the gaps argument. It is the standard argument from ignorance put in the form of a flow chart." Game, set, and match to Pennock.
J. Michael Plavcan explores how the concept of cognitive dissonance compels creationists to leap from the same conceptual cliffs over and over again with lemming-like disregard for the consequences. This model of how 'creation scientists' regurgitate fallacious arguments in the face of repeated and authoritative rebuttals is my favorite essay. If you want to know how Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Ken Ham (among others) manage to get everything exactly wrong read this chapter first and then enjoy the rest of the book.
Editors Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey worked with the essayists to weave numerous threads into a coherent and compelling tapestry that successfully champions sense over nonsense. If you cherish reason and prefer a reality-based worldview to faith-based voodoo, you will treasure this book.
Also try Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock, Unintelligent Design by Mark Perkah, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition by Ronald L. Numbers, or Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest
Clear, precise, logical, effective........2007-04-06
Twenty years ago, although I felt that evolution was probably a pretty good explanation for much of the history of life on this planet, I had read some books by young-Earth creationists Henry Morris and Duane Gish and was puzzled by how strong some of their arguments against evolution and in favor of young-Earth creationism (YEC) seemed to be. Then I read "Scientists Confront Creationism," and my confusion evaporated. The essays in SCC were so clear, so precise, and so logical, especially in comparison with Morris' and Gish's dreadful books, that I quickly realized that YEC arguments were not just wrong, but completely ignorant.
I'm happy to report that this new edition, "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism," is just as clear, just as precise, and just as logical as the original, and is every bit as effective against ID as the original was against YEC.
ID may use different vocabulary, but its fundamental ideas and approaches are indistinguishable from many of the ideas and approaches of YEC. Like YEC, ID relies on rhetorical tricks rather than on research, and uses convoluted bafflegab and mathematizing to confuse readers rather than enlighten them. SCIDAC's short, clearly written essays clear away the smoke-and-mirrors obfuscation that underlies all -- repeat, all -- creationist arguments and show that evolutionary theory has no serious challenger in science.
There are three main types of essays in SCIDAC. The first subset addresses some of ID's key concepts. William Dembski's arguments about information and complexity rely on vague, shifting definitions, applied in an ad hoc manner. As one critic said, Dembski's arguments are "written in jello." Michael Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" changes on a whim, along with his standard of proof. Shifting definitions and ad hoc analyses are worthless in science.
A second set of essays describes recent research in evolutionary biology. This research, needless to say, contrasts sharply with the complete absence of ID-based research.
A third subset of essays contrasts the cultural mindset of the ID/creationism movement with that of the scientific community. In a nutshell, the scientific community is extraordinarily diverse. It is unlikely that such a community would unite behind a demonstrably false idea and maintain that unity for very long. The creationist community, on the other hand, is both narrow and narrow-minded. Many of its most prominent advocates, for example, including William Dembski, have publicly proclaimed that they would remain committed to creationism regardless of what the evidence showed. A narrow and narrow-minded community, of course, is very capable of uniting behind a demonstrably false idea.
I highly recommend this book to anyone curious about the legitimacy of ID's "scientific" arguments.
Book Description
Evolutionary science lies at the heart of a modern understanding of the natural world. Darwin’s theory has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and today it not only explains the origin and design of living things, but highlights the importance of a scientific understanding in our culture and in our lives.
Recently the movement known as “Intelligent Design” has attracted the attention of journalists, educators, and legislators. The scientific community is puzzled and saddened by this trend–not only because it distorts modern biology, but also because it diverts people from the truly fascinating ideas emerging from the real science of evolution. Here, join fifteen of our preeminent thinkers whose clear, accessible, and passionate essays reveal the fact and power of Darwin’s theory, and the beauty of the scientific quest to understand our world.
Customer Reviews:
Papers that challenge the reader to think and argue.......2007-05-20
This book contains papers about creationism and the thought process of Intelligent design. Each paper is written by an expert in a differentt filed and sometimes I found myself agreeing outloud and sometimes I found myself in certain disbelief. That is the beuaty of this book. It stirs you to think and challenge.
A Mixed Bag.......2007-04-23
I wish I could review each essay individually as it bears on the sub-title. If it was not for the importance of getting works like this out, I might have been tempted to only give three.
The book is a collection of 16 essays, some of which deal directly with the "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement, some of which discuss the ramifications of neo-Darwinism. And some that go quite far afield.
The first essay, by Coyne, is about the fallicy of calling ID a science. He does a great job of describing what science is, why evolution meets that definition, and why ID does not. Basic and easy to follow, this was one of my favorite in the book because it goes straight to the heart of the "controversy".
Susskind writes well, but the main thrust of his essay is about the science-religion conflict and the politics that exist to prolong it, not about the crisis of trying to teach religion in science class.
The third review, by Dennett, covers why people are turned off by evolutionary theory's complexities and become convinced by ID'd PR that it has a valid point to make. It's a good overview of how a nonexistant "scientific debate" has been misrepresented to the public.
In the fourth essay, Humphrey discusses the evolution of human consciousness. This piece was confusing and a bit too philosophical for my liking. I know it was a reply to the ID idea that consciousness must have been designed in, but when he starts showing that consciousness is an illousion of mental activity, he lost me.
Paleotologist White rambles about various digs in Africa to show humans have changed over time.
Shubin does a great job of showing that the great transition at the start of the Cambrian wasn't so great, it was just successful. He covers the fish to tetrapod shift very well, showing that evolution is testable, but that's as close as he gets to dealing with ID.
In his essay, Dawkins starts off by showing that ID's claim that maybe aliens designed us begs the question of where did they come from. He writes mostly about the difficulty of finding alien life, but returns to ID at the very end, albeit briefly.
Next, Sulloway reviews Darwin's thought process from the creation idea that was the prime paradigm of his time to natural selection. More of a history of Darwin's change of mind and methods, it doesn't really address the ID topic.
Atran starts off well, showing that if there was a designer, he sure did a crappy job in some places. He provides several examples of anatomy that could have been designed much better, but make sense with evolution using what's available. Alas, he then turns off into a discussion of the role of religion that rambles off the stating point.
Pinker shows that morality can "evolve" in a society without the interferance of a mandate from a creator. I thought this whole thing was off the topic of the book.
Physicist Smolin discusses the possible origin of our universe and ways it might happen absent the creator's hand. It was a bit hard to follow, and, again, I'm not sure this essay belonged in this collection.
The next piece, by Kauffman, was about self-organization and assembly being possible without outside help. It was confusing.
According to Lloyd in the next essay, the universe is so big and so many chemical reactions, or information processing, happen that it was inevitable that life would arise, no help needed. Some good ideas, but boring.
Randall wrote a rambling piece about part of the history of the evolutionary debate, finishing with some comments about how science is almost never 100% sure, but it's still science.
Hauser chimes in with a piece about how the government shouldn't force subjects outside of a diciplin to be taught within the subject's curriculum. While a course on scientific controversies would be interesting, it shouldn't be part of an actual high-school science course for fear it would confuse the students as to what was accepted science and what is not. This was a good piece about education and the importance of keeping to the curriculum needed at that level.
And last, Sampson describes why it's important for evolution not only to be understood itself, but also in tandem with ecology.
Overall, the book was a good read, but some of the essays seemed out of place in this work. Still, I liked it. The addition of excerpts from the anti-ID decision in Kitzmiller vs Dover School District at the end was a nice touch.
All over the map.......2007-01-06
This collection of essays is all over the place. The first essay by Jerry Coyne is a gem. It is the most thorough and concise explanation I have seen of the evidence for evolution and of why Intelligent Design is not science. A similar essay by Coyne is available online if you know where to look.
After that, mileage varies considerably. Daniel Dennett does a presentable job of explaining some of the rhetorical hijinx engaged in by ID advocates. Steven Pinker does a nice job presenting evolutionary models for morality. Some of the others seem off-target or even weak. I would like to know where Lisa Randall gets her numbers, and how deep her knowledge of biology is. I didn't get much out of Nicholas Humphrey's essay on consciousness. It is devoid of any sense of the fascinating findings of cognitive science of the last several decades. Seth Llloyd's essay on the computing power of hte universe was so far out there that I have no idea how sound it might be.
The appendix, with an excerpt from Judge Jones' decision in the Kitsmiller v. Dover case, is another gem, and one that is also available elsewhere.
Great.......2006-12-15
Im not gona pretend im a critic, I think the book was great, period.
irresponsible.......2006-12-14
I agree with the new review of this book in the January 2007 Skeptical Inquirer. This review concluded that a lot of the book "is not devoted to ID creationism nor even evolutionary biology... it is a hodge-podge with no real structure and no real point... do not expect it to be a serious blow against ID.... (page 60). No index, most chapters had no references, and no bibliography is not what I would expect in an academic or even in a nonfiction book. The worst chapter was the one by Scott Atran titled Unintelligent Design. It is obvious that he is not an anatomist (in fact he teaches anthropology and psychology!). Most all of his examples of poor design have been carefully refuted by research completed by secular scientists, including the claims of a poorly designed human back and knee, the backward retina and the other examples given. His suggestion that humans should have four arms may seem to be handy, as would be two hearts. This, though, is not science. The only way to know if the modifications he suggested are truly better is if a large number of persons were surgically modified and studied for a lifetime. This will never happen for obvious reasons. And if these innovations failed some lawyers would clean up on the deal. A study of anatomy and physiology is all that is needed to understand why these modifications will do more harm then good. No wonder scientists have such a bad reputation among the public. The worst example is the putative backward retina. The author claimed it was backward and never delineated how he would improve it. The design of the eye requires the rods and cones to directly interact with the retina pigment epithelium. Vision depends on the interconversion of cis-retinal to trans-retinal by light and the absorption of light causes bonds to break, and an enzyme is required to convert trans back to the cis form. This restoration of the cis form requires a great deal of energy supplied by the retina pigment epithelium. The retina pigment epithelium could be on the side of the rods and cones, but this would greatly reduce their light gathering capacity. It could be in front, but this would block a significant amount of light. The design used in the human eye puts the retina pigment epithelium in back of the rods and cones, clearly by far the best location for this opaque structure. All the author can do is criticize, he offers no valid suggestions for a better design. Anybody can find fault. What is needed is a solution to the alleged problems claimed. In this case he is simply wrong.
Book Description
Charles Darwin has been at the center of white-hot public debate for more than a century. In Living With Darwin, Philip Kitcher peers into the flames swirling around Darwin's theory, sifting through the scientific evidence for evolution, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design, and revealing why evolution has been the object of such vehement attack. Kitcher ranges back in time to provide valuable perspective on the present controversy, describing the many puzzling issues that blocked evolution's acceptance in the early years, and explaining how scientific research eventually found the answers to these conundrums. Interestingly, Kitcher shows that many of these early questions have been resurrected in recent years by proponents of Intelligent Design. In fact, Darwin himself considered the issue of intelligent design, and amassed a mountain of evidence that effectively refuted the idea. Kitcher argues that the problem with Intelligent Design isn't that it's "not science," as many critics say, but that it's "dead science," raising questions long resolved by scientists. But after providing a convincing case for evolution, Kitcher points out that it is also important to recognize the cost of Darwin's success--the price of "living with Darwin." Darwinism has a profound effect on our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe, on our religious beliefs and aspirations. It is in truth the focal point of a larger clash between religious faith and the discoveries of modern science. Unless we can resolve this larger issue, the war over evolution will go on. Evolution is a dangerous idea. In this balanced and sympathetic volume, Philip Kitcher illuminates this idea while suggesting ways to defuse the danger, suggestions that embrace both the religious impulse and the force of scientific evidence.
Customer Reviews:
Darwin's Personal Life.......2007-09-05
An excllent sumary in small hard-cover format of Charles Darwin's life. It reflects the agony he experienced in knowing that his discoveries were totally contrary to the 1800's teachings of the Church and startling contradictions to the book of Genesis.
Carl Bauer, Prescott AZ
Finding the true path.......2007-09-05
It's a bit depressing, seeing a man of global outlook having to produce a book of such limited audience. Kitcher's philosophical study is an excellent summation of the false ideas forwarded by anti-Darwin forces in the US. His approach is a needed one, that "creationists" of various stripes there must be addressed in rational terms, and on their own ground. He accomplishes the task with extraordinary skill and reserve. It's a badly-needed book, but it's a pity is that this is so. It's to be hoped Kitcher's well-reasoned techniques applied here will reach a significant portion of that targeted readership.
His approach is to categorise the themes of creationist writers as regards the value of the "science" they purport to espouse. He puts creationists in three basic forms: "Genesis" - the biblical "literalists"; "novelty" - special acts of creation by some supernatural interference; and the "anti-selectionists" - composed of the newer "Intelligent Design" advocates. "Anti-selectionism" has found a niche by contesting the concept of the Tree of Life, the graphic representation of gradual change in organisms over time to produce new forms. It isn't evolution itself these writers contest, but the details not readily explained by what we know now. Aimless mutations aren't enough to explain the complexity of some elements in certain organisms, they argue. Some undetectable "force" must be involved. The first two forms are adhered to by sincere, if dogmatic followers. The third is one that must be considered on the evidence under study. That consideration must adhere to the rules of scientific investigation to be valid.
Kitcher understands that the challenge of the anti-selectionists isn't based on scientific, but on cultural, values. He recognises that the real agenda of "Intelligent Design" is to give religious people a way to grasp Darwin's concept within a framework of supernatural forces. They have been forced to concede that "young-Earth" biblical creation is untenable. They also recognise that "special creations" aren't supported by the fossil or genetic record. The only way to allow their deity a means of keeping its hand in is to give some tampering power. Bacterial flagella and some internal functions of the body argue against Darwin's "descent with modification". Building up certain proteins to perform the tasks they do today cannot be sustained, they contend. Kitcher responds by noting that while the "anti-selectionists" can make this arguement due to lack of hard fossil evidence for how these functions evolved, neither do the Darwin-detractors offer any evidence for divine tampering to establish them.
The author's classifications may be novel, but the issues involved have been presented often. What makes this book important and necessary is Kitcher's resistance to sinking into wearying invective. His prose is bright and conversational, his lining out of evidence firmly dispassionate and his conclusions irrefutable. He makes no unwarrented claims, and fully recognises that gaps in our knowledge remain to be filled.
Another gap, however, must also be contended with. What to do about those who feel that "faith" is a human necessity? The author offers an historical synopsis of what the Enlightenment contributed to our view of the supernatural. Of all the challenges to Christian belief, it was Darwin's that was the most devastating. It was one thing to displace the Earth from the centre of the universe. It was quite another to remove any supernatural element from life's workings. In particular, it's devastating to some to learn that humans are not the subject focus of divine attention. Kitcher's answer is that a new form of "faith" must emerge, and be encouraged. That "faith" will not resist natural selection, but embrace it. That new religion will combine a form of Darwinist humanism with a sense of the spiritual as a social mucilage. There will be no "god", but there will be a drive to reduce pain and suffering so far as possible. It won't be easy to establish such a concept, particularly in a nation with such vocal forces objecting to natural selection having a role in human affairs. But success depends on the withdrawal of artificial objections to Darwin's ideas. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Another Round in the Darwin-Intelligent Design Wars.......2007-08-29
I found this to be a very helpful addition to the literature on the continuing conflict between evolutionists and those supporting intelligent design. Unlike some other books on this topic, the author does not try to dispose of ID by declaring it unscientific; rather his view is to demonstrate that it represents "dead science," discarded in 1859-1870, much like alchemy. In other words, the scientific "basis" for ID has not progressed since the days of Paley's "Natural Theology" (1826), while the scientific evidence supporting Darwin has grown tremendously in depth and reach. It is also helpful that the book covers the entire history of creationism, since the author addresses "genesis creationism," "novelty creationism", and "anti-selectionism." The author effectively demonstrates in language generally understandable to the layperson why each of these three approaches is defective in analysis and foundation. His discussion of how DNA and modern genetics support evolution is particularly effective and helpful.
Along the way, he poses some tough questions for those advocating ID. For example, when does "intelligence" act, and how does it affect life. The author's discussion of the "concrete case" argument, i.e., how could complex structures such as the human eye be the result of evolution, and what he terms the "computational argument" that invokes mathematical probabilities as an argument against evolution, casts much welcome light on these contentions. Kitcher is quick to admit there are gaps in the fossil records, and that as of the present some important dimensions of evolution have not yet been proven. But in his view the direction science is going suggests that more and more of these issues will be resolved in the future.
The final chapter, "A Mess of Pottage," focuses upon a key point. For the author, there really is no way Darwinism can be compatible with religion that posits supernatural dimensions. For him, it is either Drawin or God, and there is no way to compromise. There is certainly room to disagree with the book on this point. Instead, the author suggests that there is still room for what he terms "spiritual religion." Much like the author's "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creatinism" (1982), this book is very well written, and at 186 pages fairly compact, including 19 pages of helpful notes. Whichever side one is on in this debate, this book is challenging and worthy of consideration.
Living IN Darwin.......2007-08-05
Although my parents insisted I attend and participate in a christian church environment, they also insisted that I could make up my own mind when I was of age. After visiting various denominational churches,I reached the conclusion that although the basic tenets of Christian religion were commendable,notions of 'creation by a diety'were unacceptable for me.
When a friend gave me a copy of 'Origin of Species' I virtually devoured it.
It is important for a reader of this work to do so with a truly open mind but in the final analysis they will be faced with confronting their ingrained 'faith' or beliefs because those lessons taught in sunday school to impressionable young minds are difficult to abandon.
I have become an unrepentant Atheist and have in turn exposed my children to scientific analysis rather than non-scientific faith based education.
I have confidently offered this book to them for extra reading as it deals with the issues of evolution Vs creationism in a scientific manner without emotional religious bigotry.
Perhaps the fact that I came to live in Darwin Northern Territory Australia, named after Charles Darwin who visited here during his voyages has heightened my interest in his theories and laid a solid foundation to scientific study
I believe I can live with Darwin.......2007-08-03
Ever since the Origin of Species was published in 1859, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection has been viewed as dangerous to Christian faith. This is especially true for adherents of biblical literalism who view it as a threat and have taken various steps to assuage its effects on the faithful. The most recent of which comes under the title "Intelligent Design." [ID] In his book, Living with Darwin, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher sets out to attack claims made by proponents of Intelligent Design by showing their weakness as a "scientific" as well as a "religious" hypothesis." And ultimately demonstrating why a Darwinian orthodox explanation is still the best option available.
In chapter one, "Disinterring Darwin," Kitcher refers to [ID] as "dead science" a doctrine that "once had its day in scientific inquiry and discussion but has rightly been discarded" (8). This means that at some point in the past it was seriously considered a workable scientific hypothesis but for good reasons it was abandoned and left for dead, to be replaced by a hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the natural world. But Kitcher recognizes that this is not the last word for proponents of [ID], or as he likes to call them "resurrection men." The [ID] proponents have other tricks up their sleeve as Kitcher demonstrates. For one, there isn't just one strand of intelligent design that evolutionists have to deal with. Kitcher concentrates on a total of three anti-evolution approaches: "Genesis creationism," "novelty creationism," and "anti-selctionism" respectively. This makes it a little more difficult for proponents of evolution to refer to [ID] as non-science (nonsense) because aspects of these other hypothesis could easily meet the requirements of a science. Instead, Kitcher seriously considers the [ID] program by playing their game and addressing their objections to Darwinian orthodoxy. Secondly, Kitcher recognizes a two-part distinction between a "negative thesis' and a "positive thesis" in [ID]. The negative thesis says that life as a whole is too complex to have come about the way the theory of natural selection explains it. On the other hand, the positive thesis says that there is an alternative causal agency to natural selection which is thought to be intelligent. Now it shouldn't automatically be assumed that this "intelligence" is the supernatural creator God of the Bible. Kitcher will address this subject in the final chapter (chapter 5). Suffice it to say that merely labeling something "intelligent" doesn't get one closer to the supernaturalism one wishes to prove. In fact, it may just make that understanding of a designer more problematic when one actually considers what kind of world actually exists.
In chapter two Kitcher addresses genesis creationism and ultimately says "Good-bye to Genesis" and any compatibility of a literal interpretation of the flood story with the fossil record in the layers of rocks. The initial problem for adherents of a worldwide flood mentioned in the book of Genesis is that the layers give an ordered appearance with extinct animal fossils at the bottom with the most recent animals at the top (as it should be if the earth is very old and animals have gone extinct). There is, however, a hypothesis by Genesis creationists that Kitcher entertains. Genesis creationists propose that God created all of the animals at one time. If this is the case, then it is impossible that the fossils at the bottom of the strata can be older than the fossils at the top. Instead, they believe the Noahic flood could have mixed around the fossils and distributed them the way scientists currently observe. On problem with this interpretation is that the layers are ordered by ecologies so that it would be unlikely that, barring a miracle, the flood could have washed all of the fossils in the exact arrangement we have them. Not only would one have to grant that God caused the flood, but God also meticulously controlled where each animal would be deposited in the layers of strata. Another problem with a literal interpretation that besets Genesis creationism is the scene Kitcher paints of Noah and his family trying to care for all of the animals, making sure they stayed alive and didn't eat the other. There is also the trouble of creating artificial environments for each animal. If it truly was a worldwide flood then not all animals will obviously be able to survive in a sedentary environment like the ark. When one truly thinks on these things it does become harder to take the biblical account of the flood story seriously. I even found myself laughing when I read Kitcher's account of the birds that weren't taken onto the ark trying to find shelter while Noah and his family fought them off. I suppose God would be very displeased if any other birds than the two "He" told Noah to bring with him onto the ark got on board. When one actually consider the story and the fact that there are flood myths in other religious texts, you see that this is more likely story rife with symbolism and not an account of a historical even that can be used as scientific hypothesis. Kitcher doubts that even the "resurrection men" would want to bring this story back from the dead. As Kitcher explains in the chapter, it was rightly buried in 1831 by a reverend Adam Sedgwick who was a very meticulous geologist and had done the requisite legwork. If the good reverend saw fit to bury it, why not those others who adhere to a literalist interpretation?
In chapter three, "One Tree of Life," Kitcher examines the claims of novelty creationists. But when it comes down to it there are only two options. You can either believe that newer organism's branch from older ones in a tree-like fashion, or they are specially created by a supernatural intelligence. Kitcher exhibits patience once again by taking the claims of the novelty creationists seriously but ultimately showing that their hypothesis fails. For one, Kitcher points out that we cannot ultimately trust the competence of a "designer" who has the ability to create these newer organisms but leaves traces of the structure of previous organisms. Why not start from scratch with a better design than to reuse the same stuff that possibly caused an organism to go extinct? If evolution is correct, then it would appear that the newer organism is a modified descendent of the previous organism instead of one that came into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing) at the whimsy of the "designer." Examples such as this raise more questions than the novelty creationists can answer. Ironically, this is how [ID] thrives. As Kitcher observes, the task of explaining all the details of evolution to a novelty creationist is "Sisyphean, that no sooner has this particular stone reaches the summit than another one will appear requiring the same time-consuming work" (70-71). Evolution is not as quick to answer all of the objections as [ID] is to raise them. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing since it is mostly sophistry, and [ID] still has the problem of providing answers to the objections it raises to evolution's answers. And at the end of the day Darwinian evolution by descent with modification wins out over a special act of creation by a supernatural designer that can't seem to measure up to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of the Bible that proponents of [ID] ultimately wish to defend.
Chapter 4 examines the anti-selectionist's rhetoric and asks if natural selection is "at the mercy of chance?" In this chapter Kitcher identifies two types of arguments at the heart of the anti-selectionists. The first type is what Kitcher calls the "cumulative case argument." This is the view which states that challenges natural selection by calling into question it ability to act on certain types of organisms that are too "complex." The eye is a common example of an organ that couldn't have evolved via natural selection because it would need all of its working parts to have evolved. This was a problem that originally beset Darwin but was addressed in his time. Kitcher observes how anti-selectionists arbitrarily decide how these organisms must have been like and why there explanation is no better than an invention of his as to why we observe the eye as complex today. I think the point he is trying to make is that we don't know the initial conditions for how something as complex as the eye evolved. However, just because we haven't solved the problem doesn't mean it is unsolvable. Furthermore, Kitcher questions the "positive" alternative that the anti-selectionists offer in the way of what most likely is a supernatural intelligence. But why is this better explanation for how certain organisms evolved? Kitcher observes that any good theory is flexible enough to undergo change. As a scientific hypothesis a supernatural designer cannot be scrutinized. If this is the case, then it seems that we have reached the end of the road in scientific investigation. This is not good science and Kitcher knows it. The second approach is what Kitcher calls the "computational case argument." Unlike the concrete case, the computational case deals with probabilities instead of the complexity of an organism being intelligently designed. And it appears that the odds are not in favor of [ID] when one seriously considers the way they use probabilities. It all seems like a carefully crafted part of their rhetorical attack on evolution since it appears that they have an agenda in the way they use probability theory to their advantage. But through careful scrutinizing Kitcher walks through several arguments (e.g., blood-clotting mechanism) and ultimately shows why they fail.
The strengths of this book lie in the final chapter which he calls "A Mess of Pottage." The phrase is associated with a story in the Bible where Esau sells his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew. Kitcher uses this phrase as a metaphor for Darwinian evolution to show the concern of a supporter of supernaturalistic religion that they are surrendering something far more valuable and everlasting for something vacuous and temporal. For some the trade-off isn't worth it and instead they choose to remain faithful to their doctrines. What Kitcher does is introduce a "spiritual religion" into the conversation. This way one could have their lentil stew and eat it too. If you take Kitcher's critique of the doctrines of providentialist faith seriously, then this may be the only alternative open to live with Darwin without falling into an extreme secularism or atheism which strips all of the value from religion or falling back into supernaturalism with the problems it contains, most notably its insoluble problem of suffering vis-à-vis an intelligent designer who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. And you can still have your most cherished stories without taking them as literal historical happenings. It is doubtful that everyone will be satisfied with Kitcher's approach. As a matter of fact, a cursory glance of reviews of his book show that some people cannot accept Kitcher's alternative. I say, so much for those folks. Personally, I found it enlightening and a suitable alternative for the time being. But I also have abandoned supernatural religion for a naturalistic approach called "Panentheism" adopted by philosophers such as Charles Hartshorne, David Ray Griffin, and John B. Cobb just to name a few, so I have less trouble agreeing with Kitcher. The doctrine of Panentheism literally states that "all is in God." So in this panentheistic approach one could use the analogy that we are individual cells in a supercellular organism, i.e. God. It is far beyond the scope of this review to go into detail with this approach. I brought it up because I thought it would be interesting to see how Kitcher would respond to a semi-popular theology such as this. Regardless, it seems clear that in order for one to live with Darwin she is going to have to abandon his faithfulness to supernatural theology.
Average customer rating:
- Turning the baloney-detector on Philip Johnson
- Science can be Dogma, Scientists can be fanatic.
- watered down
- Some of you are missing the point!
- Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
|
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
Phillip E. Johnson
Manufacturer: InterVarsity Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Philosophy
| Theology
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Science & Religion
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Johnson, Phillip E.
| ( J )
| Authors, A-Z
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Organic
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity
-
Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism
-
Is Jesus the Only Savior?
-
Five Views on Apologetics
-
Darwin on Trial
ASIN: 0830813608 |
Book Description
Voted one of Christianity Today's 1998 Books of the Year!For decades, Christians have felt voiceless in the critical debate over evolution. Until now. Finally, ordinary Christians have the opportunity and the resources to defeat the false claims of Darwinism.With all of the complicated scientific debate swirling around the topic of evolution, Christians need an easy way to understand the basic issues without oversimplifying. Phillip Johnson has the answer: the key to defeating the false claims of Darwinism is to open our minds to good thinking habits. Here is first-rate advice on avoiding common mistakes in discussions about evolution, understanding the legacy of the Scopes trial, spotting deceptive arguments, and grasping the basic scientific issues without getting bogged down in unnecessary details.In the bestselling and critically acclaimed Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson took on the academic elites and exposed the misleading claims of evolutionary naturalism.
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds provides a new and powerful treatment of these issues for high-school students, parents, teachers, pastors, youth advisors and ordinary readers. Johnson aims not just to defeat a bad theory, but to defeat it in the right way-by opening minds to the truth.
Customer Reviews:
Turning the baloney-detector on Philip Johnson.......2007-09-22
For someone who purports to build a case against evolution with a fair & open mind, Johnson sure stacks the deck by intentionally biased means. His primary techniques, repeated over & over, are: 1) quoting scientists out of context, & 2) lightly dismissing pro-evolution evidence that deserves serious consideration.
1. Our-of-context: It is not a secret, hidden from the public, that there are, & have been, mildly differing interpretations of the precise ways in which evolution works. The best known recent example of this is the proposal by Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge that the history of life on earth exhibits Puncuated Equilibria, as distinct from the incremental gradual changes that Charles Darwin envisioned. This hardly makes Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge anti-evolutionists. It does however allow Mr. Johnson to quote Niles Eldredge out of context, as if he were precisely an anti-evolutionist:
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen...that's how the fossil record has struck many a forelorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." pp. 60-61.
Johnson oh so conveniently neglects to explain how Eldredge & Gould resolve this apparent dilemma in a manner that is perfectly consistent with neo-Darwinism, in fact in a manner that in my opinion (bolstered by my geology PhD) strengthens neo-Darwinism.
Similarly, Johnson abuses the work of Tim Berra (OSU zoology prof, pp. 62ff), George C. Williams (evolutionary biology prof, emer., Stony Brook; pp. 70ff.), and others.
Laymen may innocently misinterpret the healthy vigorous debate that constantly stirs within the scientific conmmunity regarding details of the evolutionary process as indicating some sort of growing weakness in the overall theory itself. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But Johnson is not an innocent layman, he is willfully misconstruing the thoughts & words of others. To a scientist, this is perhaps the purest form of evil, & consequently it makes me wonder how Johnson manages to square his actions with his Christianity.
2. Lightly dismissing substantive evidence. There are many examples of this scattered throughout Defeating Darwin, but one example will suffice, since it is repeated at least 10 times in Johnson's book. This is his constant derision of the thirty years of work by Peter & Rosemary Grant (& their multitude of students & associates) on the year-by-year changes in the fauna of the Galapagos. Johnson sneers at this massive body of work as "measuring finch beaks", of no relevance whatsoever. But he just happens to neglect to remind his readers that the Galapagos were precisely Darwin's unexpected natural laboratory that suggested the theory of evolution to him in the first place.
Consequently, when the Grants report on the remarkable physical changes that can occur in some species in a single season, that does in fact point precisely to the powerful potential for speciation to occur, given even a very minor amount of geologic time.
Two other points about the book: First, Johnson surprisingly does not speak in this book of 'speciation'. That used to be his mantra: micro-evolution yes, speciation no. Apparently he realizes that he is slowing but surely being driven from that particular battlement by the patiently accumulating work of tens of thousands of evolutionary scientists. Instead, Johnson focusses on demanding proof of the evolution of the first lifeform on earth from non-living organic chemicals. This is as reasonable as my refusing to believe that Philip Johnson exists, unless he can show me the particular sperm & egg cell that gave rise to his embryo-hood. But this sort of pretended willful ignorance is, I suppose, a highly useful tactic on his part, occupying a battlement that he knows can never be stormed, however silly a point it might be.
Second, this book advances no positive program of its own. It is an attack on evolution, but it fails at every instance to state what Johnson would substitute for evolution in the biology & earth science courses of this nation, beyond Behe's Intelligent Design. And presenting ID takes about 5 minutes, for what is there to discuss once the teacher has established that a supernatural intelligence (wink, wink) was responsible for Life, every different species, & every organ of moderate or greater complexity.
One is pretty much forced to conclude, by default, while reading Johnson's repeated pieties, that he imagines the remainder of the semester will be filled with detailed studies of the New Testament (& how many open-minded questions will be asked then?).
Science can be Dogma, Scientists can be fanatic........2007-06-02
Obliviously, most of the negative reviewers didn't even read this book. The main focus of this brief book is to give a quick introduction to philosophical, scientific and theological arguments against the Evolution. What most of the negative reviewers are missing is his main point: Evolution as asserted by Dawkins and other fanatics, means the universe and all life in it came by about by chance - it doesn't mean you disagree with darwin's finches or other microevolution.
He brings up cases of logical, particularly from microbiologists - objections to evolution that are shot down by 'fanatics' and just as illogical as fundmentalist creationists. For example a 15 year boy in denver objected to NOVA special on evolution being shown in his school. The press portrayed him as a fanatic, but his objection was that the flaws in the show, such as 'the first form of life was a bacteria that fed off of other bacteria' (!).
In short, this isn't the either or argument that the press makes it out to be - evolution cannot and has not explained all aspects of life -and for example Richard Dawkin's reductionist theories that we are just walking bits of DNA meant to pass on DNA passes the line from science to fanatical dogma
watered down.......2007-04-05
This was an unecessary book. It is simply a watered down version of Darwin on Trial. This book leaves out the evidence of the scientific flaws of Darwinism that Darwin on Trial contained. Also be warned, Johnson is not a 6 day creationist nor is he a scientist like Duane Gish. He is more in line with intellegent design. You can decide if that is a good or bad thing.
Some of you are missing the point!.......2007-03-01
There are scores of books on scientific arguments with evidence available for those who want to know. This book is designed to get people to use critical thinking and common sense to start a new dialogue on the origins of life. This is the sole purpose of this book, persuading a person to fairly look at both sides. IMHO the naturalistic evidence is so lacking that belief in evolution is equivalent to belief in God as creator in that neither side can explain exactly how it was done. However, the prescence of conciousness and information alone argue in favor of ID for the origins of life on earth. Many people are totally unwilling to consider any evidence contrary to naturalistic theory. And the reference made by another reviewer about Billy Graham is a little lacking. Mr Johnson explains quite clearly that Billy didnt have the time to fully investigate all the evidence and chose instead to believe God. This is not the same as being afraid to evaluate the evidence for fear of finding out you are wrong. In addition I think that most people would agree that just in the last 30 years there have been new discoveries in many fields that place intelligent design in a much more favorable light. So in the past Billy Graham's contemporaries may very well have been swayed by the evidence of naturalistic origins. Today, I think that anyone who honestly weighs the evidence on both sides would be hard pressed to believe that all we see in nature could have arisen by chance.
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.......2007-02-28
I recommend this book if you're someone who is straddling the line between believing evolution and creationism, or believe both. This book will teach you how creationism and evolutionism cannot coexist. I'm almost 14 years old, and I can understand this book, surely anyone else can. This book clearly portrays the falseness of evolution and makes it easy to understand that they can't be true at the same time. Remember, it takes more faith to believe evolution than creationism, because with creationism at least you have a starting point with God, and evolution you have nothing!
Book Description
The debate between proponents of Darwinism and those of Intelligent Design has reached the status of a full-scale public battle. With stories of qualifying statements about evolution in public school textbooks and the recent 70th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey trial in the news, the question about our origins will not be put to rest. Following up his award-winning Doubts about Darwin, Thomas Woodward traces the continuing saga of the ID movement in Darwin Strikes Back. Focusing on the emerging key players on both sides--Michael Behe, William Dembski, Kenneth Miller, Robert Pennock, and more--Woodward helps readers navigate the tangled maze of public debate, including anti-ID activism from Christians, and shows them what might be coming next.
Customer Reviews:
Intelligent Design as a viable branch of Science.......2007-09-23
In the best tradition of a referee, Thomas Woodward explores the exciting struggle between Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Although not unbiased, the author introduces the main players and their arguments on both sides of the issue in an easily understandable collection of events and references to publications. The arguments are simplified so that the ordinary layman should have no trouble tasting the meat, which is easily digestable. I found the book an extremely useful resource for pointing me in the right direction for more intense study of this fascinating subject.
I would highly recommend this book for nanyone with an open mind, who is willing to ponder these opposing ideas and pursue further study.
Unscientific Heavily Biased Book.......2007-07-23
As I see it, there are at least 4 problems which the authors conveniently forgot to mention:
1) Problems with Darwin's ideas, whenever they arise, have NOTHING to do with proving "Intelligent Design" theory. Any problems which arise out of continuing research of the theory of evolution do not automatically give one shred of evidence FOR the other theories including ID. In other words believing that because one theory has a potential problem in it, that it automatically means that another unrelated theory must be true. ID can't exist by simply proving that another theory is "wrong", it must stand up on its own. You must be able, in other words to prove the validity of your own theory, you can't just attack another theory as the scientific basis of yours. Pure silliness. Completely unscientific and illogical.
2) I find it amazing that so many people think that just because there are some small "holes" in Darwin's theory that have not been filled in yet, then the entire theory of evolution is somehow wrong. This is again, a case of lack of logical thinking. Perhaps it's based on the Biblical idea that "if one sentence is wrong, then the entire Bible must be wrong". Science doesn't work that way! If there's are some parts of ANY theory which cannot currently be proven it does not invalidate the theory as a whole. This is a very big flaw in the books' reasoning.
3) Scientifc theories must be able to predict future experiments. This is done ALL the time using Darwin's ideas, as fields such as Biology rely on frequently to accurately make predictions about what will happen in some given experiment. For example: You can see evolution at work in 15 seconds under the microscope when looking at the mutations of the HIV virus. And if you have a good theory, like evolution, you can make specific predictions as to the outcome of this experiment before the experiment starts, and be right! What scientific experiments' outcomes can the author's theory predict? Of course, the answer is none. You can't use ID for any kind of predictions. What science is this?? In general, I'm not sure the authors truly understand what science is, as a concept.
4) Lack of any scientific reserach in peer reviewed journals. Any particular reasons why none of the research has been published in scientific journals? Assuming, of course, that ID is a scientific theory, as the authors claim. All theories before they receive credence from other serious scientists, need to go through a peer-review process to test the claims of the theory. Other than religious publications or internal literature, what scientific journals reviewed the ID evidence and theory? The answer, of course, is NONE. This is not an accident, the authors know full well that they "evidence" and theory they have would NOT be able to ever withstand ANY kind of a peer-review process and so the theory will be totally debunked. Thus avoiding this process allows the authors and other ID proponents to "stay alive" and continue to promote this wholy unscientific theory.
No one is telling the authors that they can't believe in their theory and call it anything they want. They can even teach it in their private schools (as long as students realize that their knowledge in this field has no application in real life sciences) but don't call it science and try to teach it in public schools. All I'm saying please avoid using words which clearly don't apply to ID such as: science, scientific, proven, prevaling evidence, etc. those are words reserved for real scientific theories, which go through a peer-review process, and are as a result either forgotten because they're not able to survive the peer-review process or celebrated as the new gold standard.
These are not the only problems with the book, just the main ones in my view.
Warning: This book isn't what it says........2007-07-12
If you're buying this book based on the Editorial Reviews on the Amazon site, buyer beware. The Editorial Review makes it appear as if this book is a scholarly analysis of the history of Intelligent Design, something akin to Pennock's Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. It is not. Upon receiving it I discovered that it is an extremely pro-ID account of what is now occuring in the intelligent design-literal creationism-evolution debate. Perhaps that's what you want. But if you're buying based on what the site here says, you'll be sorely disappointed. Don't be made a fool of like I was.
Where have you gone, Jacques Benveniste?.......2007-07-07
Back in 1988 the immunologist Jacques Benveniste published an article in the journal Nature demonstrating that water had a memory. Nature is arguably the top scientific journal in the world, and Benveniste's findings contradicted several fundamental laws of chemistry. Moreover, they seemed to provide the first scientific support for the new-age concept of homeopathy. Not surprisingly, the paper touched off a world-wide controversy that lasted several years.
Benveniste was active in helping researchers in other labs replicate his results, and even allowed a team of scientists to come to his lab to observe his techniques. Unfortunately for him, as the experiments became more tightly controlled, Benveniste's effect became harder to replicate. In the end the team concluded that the original experiment had been flawed and that Benveniste's claims were not substantiated.
Benveniste was wrong about homeopathy (a later article in Lancet showed it to be useless medically as well), but he was by all accounts a decent scientist and sincere in his convictions. (He became somewhat bitter following the homeopathy incident, and eventually won two Ig Nobel Prizes, the first for demonstrating that water is an "Intelligent Liquid".) The incident that came to be known as L'Affaire Benveniste was perhaps more dramatic than it had to be, but it was also completely illustrative of the scientific process: Beneveniste came up with a (wacky) hypothesis, did some experiments, analyzed his data, submitted his results to peer review, and worked with other scientists to develop his research further. Every new finding in science goes through the same process, no matter how minor the result.
So, the question is: What's stopping the Intelligent Design gang? They've been at it for over a decade, and all they have to show for it are a few pop-science books that use numerology to attack evolution. Where's the positive experimental evidence for ID? Why can't ID reach the level of scientific maturity attained by homeopathy? It's not much to ask. (Actually it's setting the bar pretty low. Whereas homeopathy is about 200 years old, the fundamental tenet of ID -- that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner is pulling the strings here on Earth -- is thousands of years old. It must be the most thoroughly examined idea in human history. The fact that it persists despite being completely and utterly useless is a testament to the stubbornness of our simian species).
Remember: People like Behe and Dembski are claiming to have made one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last two centuries, perhaps of all time. They claim that their discovery is apparent from a straightforward statistical analysis of existing data and that it's testable by existing methods. Any honest scientist in such a situation would do what Benveniste did -- write it up, send it to Nature, and be prepared to defend his results. But these guys never do that. They never do anything other than complain about how evolution is wrong and how real scientists are mean to them. Why?
Let's pretend for a moment that we don't know the painfully obvious answer to that last question. Let's pretend that Dover never happened and that the various arguments for ID hadn't already been thoroughly demolished. Let's imagine that Dembski et al. actually believe that they are upstart scientists, radical thinkers with a new way of understanding biology. The question then becomes: Why should anyone believe them? Radical new thinkers really aren't particularly rare in science, and they contribute to healthy scientific debate, but they're almost always wrong. (Carl Sagan's response to "They laughed at Galileo"-type objections: "They laughed at Bozo too." I have calculated the ratio of Bozos to Galileos to be 2733:1, using Behesian analysis (i.e. I made up a big number)).
ID people: There's only one way to get scientists to believe you, and it doesn't involve writing silly books or teaching fake controversies to 12-year-olds. Here it is: stop yammering and do some experiments. Get some data. Publish your results in peer-reviewed journals, not pop-science books. This last part is particularly important. (Creationists will object that there are a few results about ID in peer-reviewed journals, for certain idiosyncratic definitions of "results" and "peer-reviewed journals". Again, more yammering. Hie thee to the lab!). You will have to do this for years, maybe decades, so get used to it.
Otherwise don't expect people to take you seriously. Expect scientists to ignore you, not because they're part of a cult of sneering elitists, but because you are a buffoon. Try calling your plumber and telling him that you have performed calculations demonstrating that your leaky sink is caused by elves. See what he says, then ask yourself whether plumbers are as dogmatic as medieval bishops, or if you are being a doofus. Be honest.
Understand that no one is objecting a priori to the content of the ID research program. There is no atheist conspiracy, and scientists are not trying to con anyone. We're too busy for that. Science is not, and has never been, a religion. Yes, the concept that an intelligent designer had a hand in evolution is weird, but no weirder than the idea that water has a memory. But unlike Intelligent Water, Intelligent Design has given scientists nothing to evaluate. All of its arguments have been sold directly to the general public, an approach that has a long history of generating extreme bogosity, even when the sellers are capable scientists (look up "cold fusion"). In the case of ID the sales pitch is a particularly shady kind of shell game, wherein ID advocates tell religious fundamentalists that they're researching Jesus and the rest of the public (and the courts) that they're doing science. This is not helpful, nor is it the approach of someone who honestly believes he's got something to contribute. If the ID crowd wants to submit their evidence to normal scientific scrutiny, they are free do so, and L'Affaire Benveniste shows that they will be heard.
But they'll never do it. The Discovery Institute is almost entirely about marketing, and following the Dover fiasco they have their hands full with rebranding. In all likelihood Intelligent Design will morph into something else, just like the failed "Scientific Creationism" movement morphed into Intelligent Design. More elaborate tornado-in-a-junkyard arguments will surface. Donations will be solicited from well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning religious types. Books will be written. And who knows? Maybe someone from the next generation will be the Isaac Newton of creationism. But don't count on it. Until the movement finds its Jacques Benveniste, no honest person can take it seriously.
Charts a battle over the origins of life.......2007-06-04
Thomas Woodward's DARWIN STRIKES BACK charts a battle over the origins of life and provides a sequel to the author's award-winner DOUBTS ABOUT DARWIN, examining the struggle between science and spirituality over the origin of life. The Darwinian establishment used power to try to crush the Intelligent design Movement: chapters consider the controversies behind the popular headlines and come from an advocate of Intelligent Design.
Books:
- The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution (Great Discoveries)
- The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution (Great Discoveries)
- The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
- The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
- The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
- The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself
- The Voyage of the Beagle: Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches (Penguin Classics)
- Water and the Search for Life on Mars (Springer Praxis Books / Space Exploration)
- Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Science Masters)
- Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Science Masters)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Rose of Martinique: A Life of Napoleon's Josephine
- The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented
- Nights in White Satin: A Laura Principal Novel
- Parenthood Lost: Healing the Pain after Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Infant Death
- Praying God's Word: Breaking Free From Spiritual Strongholds
- Moduli Spaces of Curves, Mapping Class Groups and Field Theory
- Simpleology: The Simple Science of Getting What You Want
- Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet
- LA Velocidad Marca LA Diferencia
- Luiz Alves De Lima: Brazil's Iron Duke of Caxias
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Science (Politically Incorrect Guides)
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to English and American Literature (Politically Incorrect Guides)
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) (Politically Incorrect Guides)
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides)
