Customer Reviews

By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The question in the title of the book is an important one well worth a serious philosophical and theological analysis in light of modern science. Unfortunately, the reader will have to look elsewhere for that discussion. Ms. O'Leary's book is a rehash of Intelligent Design (ID) propaganda which promotes shoddy science, shallow theology and incompetent journalistic research.

The basic problematic of the book begins in the preface where Ms. O'Leary states: "I began to see clearly that Darwinism is a theory of evolution that explicitly denies design in biology in order to leave God out to of the picture." Although, in the body of the text, she does make some effort to discriminate between the scientific theory of evolution and a philosophy which she, following the ID lead, calls Darwinism, this is so muted that the average reader must be forgiven if they equate the diatribes against Darwinism as an attack on the science of evolution.

The first example of shoddy science shows up in the introduction where a side-bar defines the Big Bang as an explosion. The next page labels a highly improbable event as "impossible" even though it is part of probability that improbable, even highly improbable events can happen. There is the usual ID/creationist confusion of the theory of evolution with theories about the origin of life leading to inappropriate commentary on the Urey-Miller experiments. There is the usual ID/creationist quote-mining of Gould's defence of Punctuated Equilibrium and misrepresentation of what that thesis entails. And this merely scratches the surface.

A shallow theology also runs right through the book. It begins by equating evolution with chance, chance with nature and nature with athiesm. No supporter of modern evolutionary theory would agree that evolution is a matter of chance. Indeed a side-bar on page 172 quotes "arch-villain" Richard Dawkin' statement from Climbing Mount Improbable to the effect that designoid objects are not accidental but the product of a non-random process.

But the more significant theological error is to assume that a deity cannot or will not use natural, random processes to achieve its goals. There is nothing inherently atheistic about chance processes or natural processes. But the ID and creationist movements have convinced millions of sincere believers that there is. The effect of this theological error is that Christian organizations spend millions on combatting the wrong target: setting their sights on the science of evolution itself, rather than on the philosophies of materialism, naturalism and scientism which mistakenly claim to be the logically necessary conclusions of evolution.

Finally, there is the matter of journalism. Here I can offer some kudoes. Ms. O'Leary does a fine job of recounting the social history of Darwin's theory--of how it came to be associated with materialism, and of the key role played by the evolution=atheism propagandists such as Huxley and Mencken, Dawkins and Sagan. Her analysis of the film Inherit the Wind in comparison to the actual event of the Scopes trial is superb. Her brief history of the rise of creationism is also excellent.

But in contrast to these virtues, her recounting of evolution and science is appallingly bad. For example, the only mention of dinosaur-bird transitional forms is Archeoraptor, the hoax which embarrassed National Geographic. There is not a single mention of the dozens of legitimate finds of feathered dinosaur fossils. In this context, such an omission amounts to the very suppression of evidence which she alleges against supporters of evolutionary theory. She has uncritically accepted a perversion of Gould's punctuated equilibrium thesis when correct information is readily available. Twice she quotes, and once alludes to, Gould's comment on lack of transitional fossils, when a simple reading of the primary literature would indicate that Gould was speaking of transitional fossils at the species level, not transitional fossils in general.

One of the most striking features of the book is that it nowhere deals with the actual science of evolution. The focus is rather on the conflicting philosophies that have gathered around the science. Unfortunately, the implication is that the philosophies establish the truth of the science. This is simply not the case, and, ironically, it is a creationist scientist, Kurt Wise, who points this out. Unfortunately, while Ms. O'Leary is willing to accept that a creationist can still do good science, she does not accept the corollary that "Darwinists" can also do good science, in spite of their belief system.

There are many important matters that do need to be discussed in scientific, philosophical and theological circles around design and chance. Now and again Ms. O'Leary touches on them. But the serious weaknesses of this book preclude it as a significant contributor to this important discussion.

I received this as a gift due to my interest in intelligent design as a response to the theoretical shortcomings of Darwinism. But I'm not looking at ID to confirm religious or philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, the author spends most of her time dealing with those issues.

She does touch on whether ID is science and the evidentiary and theoretical problems with natural selection as the be-all and end-all explanation of life. But those subjects are not treated in any kind of depth. I was disappointed she didn't explore the mathematical models making it highly improbable that natural selection (chance) can explain the complexity of many life forms, particularly at the molecular level.

I'm a layman but I'm inclined to believe that ID does have scientific implications and that the scientific establishment is overly defensive. It will not do to dismiss all ID proponents as closet creationists.

Bottom line: I didn't come out of it more confident of my grasp of of the subject matter than I did going in.

I estimate that about 3 to 4 books about the creation-evolution controversy are published each week. Many are by non-scientists in favor of creationism of some type, and most repeat the same information. Many are not worth reading. This is a very different book on this topic.This book does not argue for one side, as most books on this topic do, but objectively discusses all sides of the controversy. For this reason all sides of the controversy, from young earth to old earth creationists, to theistic evolutionists to Intelligent Design theorists, to atheist evolutionists, will find this book very useful. It is written by an award winning journalist and has much new material of interest to all sides of this never ending controversy. In many ways it is an update of Ron Numbers classic book titled The Creationists. Numbers focused on the history from 1920 to about 1980 and this book covers 1980 to date, although some background before 1980 is covered. It covers the science issues but much of the focus is on the history and non science area. As such, it stands alone in the field and has no competition. If you want a book that covers the whole controversy, this book is for you. If you want a book that defends one side or the other side I would look elsewhere.

Reading Denyse O'Leary's By Design or by Chance was a particular treat for me because I myself have written on the same subject during the evolution/education debate in Kansas in 2000 and have met and interviewed many of the luminaries she quotes in her pages. Having followed some of the literature of the evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate since then, I was familiar with the context of her subject and the direction this controversy has taken. I must say, I've never seen a clearer and more comprehensive, yet accessible, discussion of the who, what, when, where, why and how of the topic offered in such an entertaining and palatable presentation than By Design or by Chance puts forward. It's both an excellent starting point for the novice as well as a handy resource for the professional seeking additional facts. It quite literally is a book with something for everyone.

O'Leary begins with an overview of the historical speculations on how the universe began and the origin of life in that universe. Was the universe always there, or did it have a finite beginning? What is the Big Bang theory and how was it initially received? What does science say about origins? What does religion say? How have both shaped the prevailing views over time within our culture?

The book next specifically addresses the question of life and how it came into being and changed. Did all life come from a common ancestor? What roles do natural law and chance play? Exactly who was Darwin, what did he believe and what were his major contributions? How did theists initially receive his views? When did creationism arrive on the scene and what precisely does it advocate? What are the different varieties of creationism? Along the way a number of historical misconceptions or inaccuracies are exposed and dispelled such as the "myths" surrounding the infamous Scopes Trial and the distortions promulgated by the film Inherit the Wind.

Finally, the focus turns to intelligent design theory. What is it and what does it say? How does it differ from the 18th-century views of the Anglican theologian William Paley? Who is Phillip Johnson, and how did he, in the late 1980s, launch the intelligent design movement? What are the contributions of its greatest advocates such as William Dembski, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells? What do the concepts of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" pertain to? Why is information theory a center piece and a quantum leap forward from Darwin's day? Having clearly established itself as a "third way," why does intelligent design incur the enmity of both Darwinists and creationists? Is intelligent design the wave of the future?

Throughout, O'Leary's great strengths are to make the complex understandable, the mountainous manageable, the presentation logical and the reading experience pleasurable. The format consists of well-placed internal headings, handy sidebars and charts. The reference notes, which are copious, are placed conveniently and unobtrusively at the end. The layout is pleasing to both the eye and the comprehension. If I were forced to offer some criticism, the best I could do would be to note the absence of illustrations and photos, but perhaps those additions would have been cost-prohibitive.

I thoroughly enjoyed every page of O'Leary's work. Although familiar with the subject, I came away with a number of new facts in my arsenal. At a time when a plethora of new books are appearing on this subject, By Design or by Chance may well turn out to be one of the cornerstones in broadening public understanding of what's at stake in the origins debate. I give it my highest recommendation.

Mark Scheel
prose editor Kansas City Voices magazine
author of A Backward View: Stories and Poems

In the introduction of her exceptionally researched book, Denyse O'Leary asks this bold question about the fate of Darwin's legacy (see review title). Though the presumption might seem unlikely given that Darwinism is the established theory in both mainstream science and the public school system, she reminds the reader that Darwinism would not be the first casuality of changing paradigms in history (Newton --> Einstein). Given the reaction from the Darwinist camp, I'm not so sure this is going to happen any time soon, but the fierce reactions they have given are perhaps an indication that things aren't so solid in evolutionary theory as most of us were taught!

The journalistic style that Denyse uses is appropriate and useful. I found the numerous side-bars extremely relevant, and the notes at the back of the book contain a wealth of information for additional research. Denyse has no problem laying out the controversy from various points of view - clearly demonstrating the implications of Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. The book is both historical and contemporary in nature, which makes it a good introduction for those who want a well-balanced introduction. However, it's clearly thoroughly researched and plenty thought-provoking for those who are already familiar with the concepts.

I was personally a bit confused on the ultimate difference between the "post-Darwinist" and the "theistic evolutionist" positions. Surely in this debate, we have to fully clarify our terms. To me, a theistic evolutionist is someone who believes God set evolution in motion and since then, it has happened naturally. This seems to reduce God's role to that of a "first cause", but no longer active in the universe after the creation event. Denyse seems to call herself a "post-Darwinist", which apparently is someone who believes evolution has occurred, but does not believe Darwinism (natural selection) has explained it. However, she does not elaborate on exactly what alternative would explain it then? Even the Intelligent Design camp seems to have varying viewpoints on what the implication of design really means? Some believe that if there's design, there must be a Designer. Others perhaps believe that design may be more like a law or force which seems to be to be about the same as natural selection? After reading several books on Intelligent Design, I thought I understood the debate fairly well, but after reading this book, I admit I'm a bit muddy on certain viewpoints.

At any rate, I recommend the book to anyone who is interested in Darwinism, Creationism, or Intelligent Design. It will give you a decent history on the issues as well as some contemporary thought on where it is all going...

I would urge anyone who is interested in the evolution - Intelligent Design (ID) controversy to pick this up, if only for the enormous number of sources that it points to, many of them on the Internet.

I have a few problems with the book as a whole. Despite O'Leary's insistence that this is not an issue of religion versus science, religion, almost always Christianity, keeps coming through her arguments like a mark on a wall that can't be painted over. If her issues are scientific, why does she constantly berate Neo-Darwinists for being atheists, not just for making non-theistic assumptions? This is especially dubious since, as she occasionally states, at least a sizable number of them do believe in deity(s). She doesn't seem to be able to decide whether to welcome these beliefs or deny them since they contradict her view of Darwinism. Her remarks about Kenneth Miller's religious convictions and theistic evolution in general (p.240) seem out of place if science is really the issue.

When she quotes, with apparent approval (p.200) Phillip Johnson's complaint that Darwinian theory is adjusted every time it is presented with new facts, one has to think that there is some basic flaw in her understanding of science.

This is purely a matter of taste, but I find many of her subheadings a bit twee, although they are helpful in locating material, especially since the index leaves a bit to be desired.

I think that she has also created considerable ambiguity on certain points and she ought to try to be clearer in future editions. She says that "For practical purposes, in this book, "God" and "design" are generic terms, except where qualified in context". In the former case, I don't think that this has been too practical, especially when she is quoting other people, and I think she should find a real generic, "deity(s)" for example. The reader should also be aware that at one point she equates "creationism" solely with Young Earth Creationism (YEC). I would use the term to refer to any system involving a supernatural creator, and I think that, again, especially when she is quoting other people, it can lead to confusion.

O'Leary appears to be an advocate of Intelligent Design, and this book explains it much better than many that I have read, e.g. Phillip Johnson. I am still left with the feeling that ID isn't quite ready for prime time or science classes. While I am glad to read that ID leaders like William Dembski and Michael Behe recognize the need for rigorous research, this appears to be something that they intend to do in the future. I am all for people following their ideas, and maybe eventually there will be a fruitful dialogue with other scientists but O'Leary doesn't give any evidence that they have much to show so far.

She says that the originators : "... decided to assume that the information was not organized by chance, but by a designing intelligence." That is far too big and basic an assumption for this to qualify as a science. It is using the desired conclusion as the premise. Dembski, et al., can certainly believe that some things cannot be explained except by an intelligent designer, but Darwinists can simply argue back that they can, and we are nowhere until someone comes up with some proof. O'Leary argues (p. 175) that it can be demonstrated statistically in forensics, archeology and SETI when something is design and when it is chance. O.K., but where are the figures for ID? I don't accept Stephen C. Meyer's argument that information requires an intelligent source: that dripping sound outside my window informs me that the snow is melting, but water doesn't have much intellectual capacity. As for more complex sets of information, animals can perform feats of navigation and homing that would require considerable intellect on our part, but they are not generally thought to do this by conscious calculation. (Deva Sobel's Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time shows just how difficult it was for us to develop reliable navigation.) If the reference is to "information" as in Information Theory, Mark Perakh, in his somewhat vituperous work Unintelligent Design critiques William Dembski's analyses in his books Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.

I find her arguments that ID does not require a deity(s) unconvincing: what are the alternatives? She quotes Michael J. Denton, in a magnificently ambiguous statement (p. 212-213), as suggesting that perhaps living things or the biosphere are intelligent. If we are discussing the origin of life, neither of those can be the source: by definition they wouldn't be pre-existing. If we are discussing the development of life once it was established, is he suggesting that bacteria might have designed the cilia of paramecia? The idea that she develops at length is panspermia, or the seeding of the earth with life from outer space, but even she concedes that that doesn't really resolve the issue. I don't want to make too much of this point - an observation can be accurate even if the underlying mechanism cannot be explained, e.g., I could confidently declare that airplanes don't fly by flapping their wings like a bird, even if I couldn't explain how they do fly. Throughout history, observations which later proved to be significant and accurate have been ridiculed because the scientist couldn't initially produce an explanation. If ID advocates could convincingly demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer, it would not be immediately necessary to identify the designer, but thus far they haven't done even that, as noted above.

O'Leary complains that opponents of ID encourage a false perception of their underlying philosophy by failing to interview non-Christian advocates, but oddly enough, she fails to redress this lamentable oversight. Since she claims that Berlinski, at least, has no religious convictions, surely this would have been one of the best strategies for convincing us that the science is the real issue. Readers regretting her omission can find writings by Berlinski on [...] and a (self?) interview on[...]. O'Leary declares that some ID advocates believe in evolution, and it would have been helpful if she had been more forthcoming on this topic.

Her discussion of the relationship between ID and other opponents of Darwinism, chiefly YECs, is quite interesting, as is her discussion of the social and political history of creationism.

As for her discussion of Darwinism, less would have been more. O'Leary's "any weapon that comes to hand" approach seriously undermines her credibility with me, as do her self-contradictions. These include those classic clashing cliches of anti-Darwinism rhetoric, the claim that biologists are simultaneously an oppressive monolith crushing dissent under the Darwinian juggernaut AND that they are deserting Darwinism in droves. The juggernaut image also seems contradicted by the Phillip Johnson quote mentioned above.

O'Leary starts off with a lengthy section on cosmology which doesn't seem to be terribly relevant. The main temporal concern for Darwinists is the age of the earth, and only indirectly the age of the universe. Whether or not it is eternal strikes me as utterly irrelevant. I cannot imagine how the theory would be affected one way or the other by whether the universe is Big Bang, or Steady State, etc. If the universe were eternal, but the earth was only 6,000 years old, Darwinism would be in trouble. She asserts, without documentation, that in Darwin's time, the dominant view was that the universe is eternal, which she associates with godlessness. This is a new one on me, and seems to be contradicted by the historians that she quotes: Del Ratzch (p.73), Ronald Numbers (p.75) and Edward J. Larsen (p.118)who argue that in Darwin's time, most western scientists were committed Christians, and most Christians had no problem with evolution. She presents no evidence that these people had abandoned the traditional Christian belief that the universe had a beginning and that history has an end. (Arguably, if souls continue with God for all eternity, the universe doesn't have an end, but the metaphysics of whether or not God and Heaven are outside of the universe are beyond me.) For a better understanding of Darwin's thought and its relationship to Christianity, I recommend William E. Phipps Darwin's Religious Odyssey. The book does not focus solely on Darwin, but discusses the history of the relationship between Christianity and science.

She also blames Darwinian theory for Social Darwinism and other undesirable philosophical positions, although she states(p.72) "Darwin's theory of natural selection does not provide a basis for the Social Darwinists' eugenic beliefs." Darwinism is likewise blamed for World War I, the historical flaws of the movie "Inherit the Wind" and various other things that O'Leary doesn't care for. I suspect that she doesn't like it when people argue that religious violence and corruption invalidate the idea of a creator.

A good book to read if one is interested in the controversy, but I will take a wait-and-see attitude towards the future of ID and science.

Added 12/19/2009: Having just recently seen Inherit the Wind, I am even more irritated by O'Leary. In a book which purports to be focusing on scientific issues, it seems fairly irrelevant whether or not the movie was historically accurate, and blaming Darwin and his theory for the errors is a real stretch. O'Leary could certainly find people to argue about the obligations of movie makers to be accurate. But this movie has no historical errors since it does not purport to be historical! One can find old movie posters claiming that it is the story of the Scopes trial, but the actual creators changed all the names and thus gave themselves freedom to construct their own story. It is generally understood to be an allegory about the McCarthy era. For readers who want a detailed, readable account of the actual trial, I recommend L. Sprague De Camp's The Great Monkey Trial.

I have come to feel that I was too generous to O'Leary, and I would remove a star from my rating if I could.

Veteran science writer O'Leary investigates the age-old question that has recently gained resurgence: "How did we get here?"

Using scientific fact as both starting and guiding points O'Leary looks at two basic answers. Either we are here by design - an analysis of scientific evidence that points to Intelligent Design where someone or something is responsible for the creation of the Universe. Or we are here by chance - whereby an analysis of science proves evolution (most notably Darwinism) and disproves Intelligent Design. So who's right?

O'Leary is not interested in confirming or denying a particular religious point of view and is not laying out an explicit case for or against God. And here, among many other places, she succeeds. To use science as a bat to slug over the head of theists or atheists or others is to set in motion a reverse analysis of data such that everything then is defended for religion's (or lack thereof) sake as opposed to being examined critically for science's sake. While she lays the foundation for an Intelligent Design (ID) verdict she is careful not to assume that this forces someone into (or out of) a particular religious conviction.

Is Darwinism really based on science or is it propagated by the now fading modernist views of society? Is Intelligent Design (ID) the creation of theists or does it actually stand up to the test of science? Is science the all-mighty measuring stick? Does science interpret beliefs or is it the other way around, or do they both point to the same thing?

In all of these questions O'Leary shows that an honest investigation of the facts proves Intelligent Design is a more reasonable conclusion than evolution. She explains how Intelligent Design `out-evidences' other ideas on the origin of the universe.

This then paves the way for a further study as to what or who is behind the origin of the universe. In other words - exactly who or what is this Intelligent Design?

If there really is Intelligent Design, and if that Intelligent Designer is, in fact, God, and if that means God created us, then maybe God might have something to say about how we live our lives. That can be a scary proposition for some, and preposterous for others. Yet, in light of the increasing evidence O'Leary lays out for Intelligent Design it appears it's the question more of us will be asking in the not too distant future.

This is a well done entry point into the question of origins of life in the universe.

O'Leary as journalist provides welcome toned down insights into the many camps which slug this issue out in the public: the young earth creationists, the old earth creationists, the ID, the evolutionists, the Christian evolutionists, etc.

I like these words from her beginning: "We peer into space, fire off spacecraft in every direction, land on the moon and on Mars, always looking for signs of life. We peer thkrough electron microscopes, below the wavelength of visible light, trying to understand life. Life ... what is it? How does it come about? What does it mean? Where did the universe come from?"

These were supposedly answered (and continue to be answered with constant shifting modification by some) by Darwinism. This is now being challenged by scientists of all religious positions (including atheism, which is a religious position) by Intelligent Design among other models of origins.

O'Leary explores this increasingly debated topic with great clarity and charity. Especially useful are her sidebar discussions which include helpful definitions and background examples of the points expressed.

What this reviewer found has best of this work were the two chapters respectively on "Is ID Good Science? Is ID Good Theology?" The former I think is yes, while the latter is debatable. Clearly, ID can be thought of as an apologetic to begin the dialogue with those who are opposed in everyway to any discussion with theology over science. However, the stated opposition to ID by some creationists are withstanding in their merit. Theology correctly done proclaims that God has given conclusive, judicial type evidence to every human that He alone is the Creator by evidence of His creation, even though it too has been corrupted by the fall into sin. This natural knowledge of God however does not deliver the answers to where this creation is going, nor what this Creator God thinks of us. To that, He has given supernatural revelation in His Word.

What impresses this reviewer is the lack of integrity by many of the Darwinist persuasion who continue to resist their persistent spewing forth of the five evolutionist proofs exposed by such as Jonathan Wells in his Icons of Evolution materials. Scientists need to be more open and honest.

This permits many who have not heard the sides and wish to, or to have a nice compendium summary to use and recommend to others. Most worthwhile volume.

Some will want to check out Henry Schaefer III's salient essay "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence" in the book "Reading God's World: The Scientific Vocation" and Alister McGrath's fine volume "Nature".

I have usually avoided discussions about evolution and origins on the grounds that as an arts major I wasn't informed enough to hold an educated opinion on the subject. Science journalist Denyse O'Leary has removed that excuse with her latest book, "By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe." In this comprehensive and highly readable overview of the debate over origins, O'Leary outlines the social and historical context of Darwin's "Origins of Species," its impact on twentieth century thinking, and the rising challenge to its assumptions by Intelligent Design theorists.
The book is interesting, not only from a scientific perspective, but also from a social/historical one. The history of how ferociously Darwinian scientists have fought to defend the doctrine of Darwinism and silence all dissenting voices is as compelling as it is disturbing. O'Leary credits the Internet as the "information democracy" that allows access to nonestablishment scientific views such as intelligent design theory or creation science, both of which are commonly censored by the scientific establishment.
O'Leary has made a heavy and controversial topic accessible and entertaining with the use of humour, focus boxes, timelines, definitions, and a clear, readable style.
"By Design or by Chance?" is a fascinating read for anyone with an interest in the question of origins, and an open mind.

Ever since man first roamed the planet he's asked the question: "From whence did I come?" One might think the suppositions would be endless, but after centuries of investigation, we're really left with only two possibilities: we're either here by chance, or by design. The subject of origins is one of the most hotly debated issues of all time. For those in one camp or the other, the answer is settled. Darwinists assure us we're here strictly by chance. Creationists use the same information to support a completely different conclusion. Even with all science and history at our disposal, there is still no definitive answer to the question of how we got here. And so the debate goes on.

Science writer, Denyse O'Leary, in her carefully researched, well-documented, and expertly crafted book, "By Design or By Chance," traces the history of man's thinking. Using her gift for making the inordinately complex seem simple, Denyse takes the reader inside the minds of some of the most renowned men of science to try and understand their motivations and the predispositions that lead them to engender certain conclusions. Though replete with examples of solid scientific evidence, the purpose of this book is not to explain the data supporting one side or the other; rather, it is a comprehensive look at where various ideas originate, and the psychology behind current streams of thought. It is the perfect book for anyone who wants to form an enlightened opinion, or gain better understanding of the issue, which otherwise might be difficult in a society where the educational system emphasizes only one side, to the exclusion all others. Quoting Richard Halvorson, Harvard Crimson, 2003, Denyse declares, "The most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden."