Most Helpful Customer Reviews
32 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Don't Bother Me With the Facts, I Just Won't Believe It, February 29, 2008
This review is from: The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues (Paperback)
A friend of mine has an overly strong commitment to things she learned when she was growing up. "Doctors say you need to drink eight glasses of water a day" is one. I ran across a story in which a leading researcher in his field told of his attempts to track down the source of that belief. He found no medical evidence for it; it just showed up one day in some magazine, and grew. He said there was no truth to it whatever. My friend's response: "I don't believe it." She wouldn't look at the source material; she already had her facts.
There's research out this week casting doubt on whether stretching before sports activities reduces injuries. I'm not going to bother telling my friend. She won't read the report, and she won't believe it. She knows we should all drink eight glasses of water a day and that stretching before exercise reduces injuries. She knows it because that's what she has always heard.
I expect similar reactions from evolutionists to Mike Gene's The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues. Everyone in the pro-evolution, anti-Intelligent Design crowd knows that
- ID is thinly disguised creationism
- ID is just negative science (nothing but picking points against evolution)
- ID has no positive research program
- ID makes no predictions
- ID relies on a "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge
- ID presents no testable hypotheses
- ID is dogmatically driven by people with a theological/philosophical agenda
Everybody knows these things. Mike Gene shows that none of them are true. The evolutionists, I fear, are not going to read it; they're just going to say, "I don't believe it." Like my friend, they will stick with what's always been "true" for them in the past.
The author says in the intro to the book that he remains anonymous so that his ideas can be evaluated for themselves, without prejudice concerning who is presenting them. It seems likely he's also carrying out some career protection, too. If he's working in a university biology department (and yes, he does know his science), it could obviously risky for him to "come out" as an ID supporter. (See his Design Matrix website for more.)
The way that he supports ID is refreshingly unique, however. He doesn't argue for a conclusion of Intelligent Design at all. He argues more modestly, for a suspicion of Intelligent Design. He would have a beef with dogmatists on either side of the issue. Quite helpfully he distinguishes between the strong evidence required for conviction by a court of law, and evidence required by an investigating detective. A detective arrives on the scene with nothing but questions. His first objective is to move toward reasonable suspicions. A little hint there, a vague clue there: these things can move him toward a theory of a crime; and from there he can begin to look for more definite signs. Eventually, much further down the road, proof may come. Mike Gene believes we should recognize ID is in the developing suspicion stage: there is no hard scientific proof of design, but there are hints and clues that raise a most reasonable suspicion, and which can lead to a search for more definite signs.
These hints and clues he summarizes into his "Design Matrix," four relatively independent factors to test for in nature:
- Analogy with known instances of design
- Discontinuity with observed or means by which evolution works
- Rationality apparent in the design of the natural feature
- Foresight apparent in the design of the natural feature
These are defined such that they can all lead to testable research hypotheses. We're not talking about black/white, unambiguous research results, however ("Evolution never could have done this!" or "Evolution absolutely could have done this, it's easy!"). Natural phenomena can be scored on a continuum, Mike Gene says; we're still in the detective stage, not the judge and jury stage. We're looking for suspicions of ID, so we should be open to gradations on the scales of the Design Matrix. Only one of them, by the way (Discontinuity), bears any relationship to the tired stereotype that ID is nothing but a negative science that resorts to god-of-the-gaps thinking.
Mike Gene wrote this book with a sense of humor. (Thank God for an evolution/ID-related book with a sense of humor!) The book wraps around a theme of the Rabbit and the Duck. It's a metaphor about our preconceptions, and the way they can color our perceptions. I won't try to replay it for you; I'll just quote the book's final paragraph, and leave it to you to read the book and chase down the metaphor for yourself:
"So as we begin our journey, these lessons, coupled with all the lessons in these chapters, must be kept in mind. We are not engaging in a Duck Hunt; we are going to chase the Rabbit. So, do you see that rabbit hole over your shoulder? Yeah, that one. Wanna have some fun? Well, grab your Design Matrix, and follow that Rabbit."
(There's much more Rabbit fun on the Telic Thoughts blog, where Mike Gene writes frequently.)
Some of you reading this "know" that ID is nothing but negative science, it's just god-of-the-gaps, and it's a mere religious ploy. You won't read the book; you won't accept that ID-related thinking can lead to genuine research questions; you'll just say, "I don't believe it." I strongly urge you to get your hands on a copy of this uniquely creative approach to Intelligent Design, and find out where the Rabbit leads you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Intelligent Design: A Preliminary Study, February 11, 2008
This review is from: The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues (Paperback)
This is probably the first book on Intelligent Design, on either side, to which I've given five stars. I'm not sure it's a brilliant book, and it's certainly not a satisfying one: "Mike Gene" hardly even pretends to begin to answer the main question, whether there is good evidence for purposeful, conscious design in the biosphere. In fact, Design Matrix is best understood by analogy to C. S. Lewis' Miracles: A Preliminary Study, in which Lewis discusses the philosophy of miracles for most the book, then looks briefly at a few examples once he has explained why he thinks they're possible, in theory. There's a big chunk of philosophy here, too. (Though also enough science both to persuade me that Mike knows what he's talking about, and to illustrate basic concepts.) It is only at the end that he feeds a few critters into his "Design Matrix," for a taste test, nothing more.
The Design Matrix is a preliminary study to a full and fair-minded scientific study of the evidence for design in biology. Unlike Lewis, Mike does not so much interogate the theoretical rationality of "miracles," (or rather intelligent intervention) as prepare a methodology for finding it. He seeks to place the question of ID on a really scientific footing -- which of course makes this primarily an exercise in the philosophy of science.
This he does quite well. Mike cites a broad range of mostly primary literature. His discussion of Irreducible Complexity is open-minded and illuminating. Logically, in a step-by-step manner, he takes us down different evolutionary pathways, showing dead-ends, detours, and "go" signs. He should win fair-minded readers on both sides over with his even-handed discussion -- if (I am tempted to add) there are any.
There's lots of good stuff in the book, but two things I don't miss are hype and hysteria. Once the jihadists find this volume, they will no doubt find nits to pick (harder hunting than usual), and issue fatwas, anathamas, and excommunications. Don't buy it. Mike is competent, underspoken, careful, fair, informed, and very much worth reading. Some parts of the book are a bit technical, but he also adds a touch of whimsy from time to time. He shows what an open mind might look like, studying biological forms in the light of design. The question seems broader and more open when he is done. This book is a challenge to pat answers on both sides. Still, this is a preliminary, and it can be frustrating to talk methodology when the real question is substance. I look forward to more filling entrees in the future. But this is a thought-provoking and mouth-watering hors d'oevre.
Author, The Truth Behind the New Atheism
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
36 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Fresh New Look at An Old Debate, December 27, 2007
This review is from: The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues (Paperback)
The ID debate is one of the most polarized and ugly fights you'll ever come across, and Mike is well aware of the difficulty he faces even being heard. He makes it clear from the beginning that he does not believe Intelligent Design is science, does not think it should be taught in the public schools, and does not deny evolution. He simply has no interest in the political side of ID. Rather, he is interested in the insights that telic thinking may bring to looking at the origin of life. He is interested in the beginnings of an investigation.
Mike deftly reframes the debate away from the traditional template, which focuses on either disproving evolution (thus establishing design) or showing evolution to be possible (thus removing the need for design). The origin of life, after all, is not a matter of absolute certainty or mathematical law, but of history. We are not ultimately interested in what could have happened, but what we think actually did happen. Thus Mike suggests we eschew dogmatic absolutes for the attitude of a private investigator. It is certainly possible that life was designed, but what sort of clues might make us think it plausible? What sort of evidence and confirmation would convince us that it is not only plausible, but probable?
It's interesting how far meekness can go in a polarized debate - be it over science, politics, philosophy, or religion. There's no shortage of bombastic apologists for both sides, railing about how only a total fool could fail to see the rightness of their position. When one person confidently boasts that the evidence for design is overwhelming and another loudly screams that it is nonexistent, most folks are inclined to avoid the whole discussion. But when Mike says the idea is interesting and invites us to take a closer look, we want to join him.
Curiouser and Curiouser
Having established a tone of curiosity, Mike considers the clues. At the most basic level of the cell, life looks like sophisticated nanotechnology. Though we once considered it little more than a sac of chemicals, it turns out that biology at this scale has a great deal in common with engineering, to the point where biology journals sound more like engineering publications than those of other physical sciences. Calling multiple-protein complexes "molecular machines" is more than mere metaphor. To get a faint glimpse of what he's talking about, take a look at the computer animated journey into the cell created by the Harvard Biovisions group. The core architecture of life has the complexity and organization of a modern city, all easily resting on the point of a pin.
The grandeur and majesty of life on this scale never ceases to amaze me. To think of it as a bunch of chemical reactions is as misleading as considering Mont St. Michel a stack of stones, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a series of brush strokes, or Google's search database a series of ones and zeroes. When biologists fail to develop the discipline and intuition of engineers who actually build things, I suspect they risk giving hostages to fortune. The stuff has to work, after all, and that's a pretty harsh requirement for any system - be it constructed out of molecules or metal.
Mike, of course, finds this all very suggestive. William Paley once argued that one may reasonably infer life to be designed in the same way you assume a watch on the beach is not a natural phenomenon. David Hume countered that, though life might appear to be in the same category as the watch, the similarities are superficial and the analogy weak. But, while Hume may have been right about human organs like the eye, the recently discovered and unexpected echoes of technology in the most basic unit of life are another matter entirely. Mike then turns to Darwin's theory of Evolution - which has some much more challenging observations for any design inference.
Front Loading Evolution
Darwin showed how systems which may appear designed from the outset may nevertheless have evolved over time through purely natural processes. Natural selection is a fact of life. It is what happens to any flexible self-replicating system over time or in a changing environment. Mike recognizes the power of natural selection to act as a designer-mimic, but he doesn't abandon his suspicion of design in the face of evolution. Instead, he suggests a way where Darwinian evolution might actually be employed in the service of intelligent design.
And so he offers his front-loading hypothesis. Since the basic architecture of life seems to be the most difficult thing to explain by modern origin of life theories - the characteristics of the genetic code, the modularity of proteins, and the interdependency of DNA, RNA, and molecular machines - he suggests we envision a human-like intelligence designing a single cell as a seed for life on Earth. Would it be possible to employ Darwinian evolution to unfold a carefully-packaged design?
Mike looks at the clues that make such an idea seem plausible. Every life form on earth shares a huge proportion of the same DNA. Evolution, on the genetic level, seems to operate mostly by tinkering with copies of genes. Mike goes into great technical detail to show how key templates for advanced organisms could be encoded into the core functions of the cell, ready to pop into use as soon as there is a need. It is the very blindness and short-sightedness of Natural Selection that would make it exploitable by careful foresight. According to Mike's hypothesis, if we were to obliterate all life on Earth and replace it with the same seed cell it started with, we would see it unfold in much the same way as it did billions of years ago, and eventually find creatures not all that different from the ones we have today.
Those who create computer programs, which eventually crash due to unforeseen bugs, will appreciate front-loading as a huge challenge, one which is solvable only by the most brilliant of minds. For those who believe on different grounds that there is a mind ultimately responsible for the creation of the world, the picture Mike paints evokes wonder and awe at the glory and wisdom of God. If this is the mode of creation, it also raises some fascinating philosophical and theological questions, which I may explore elsewhere.
The Matrix
The presence of a front-loaded current running through evolution poses a unique problem for detecting design. How do you distinguish between the core design and the jerry rigged solutions of natural selection? True to his modest methodology, Mike eschews black-and-white certainty for his design matrix: a subjective (but useful) scoring system to gauge our confidence in a design inference.
The matrix score is based on four parameters: analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight. Analogy looks at how closely the solution matches something we ourselves have designed. Discontinuity looks at irreducible complexity, and how difficult it would be for natural selection alone to arrive at the solution by cooption. Rationality looks at the elegance and quality of the design based on its assumed purpose. Finally, foresight judges the design based on any long-term planning present. If a solution only scores high in one area, we wouldn't have conclusive evidence for design, but if it gets high marks in all four, we may conclude that intelligent design is indeed a probable explanation.
Mike ends the book with an invitation to join him on his quest. Having established his theory and methodology, the next step will be to explore the living world in more detail - and see just how well his hypothesis holds up. If he's right, this approach may turn out to be a fantastic research guide, yielding bold new insights and discoveries about the living world.
I, for one, am intrigued by the possibilities, and I hope you are as well. My recommendation is that everyone go and buy all their friends a copy of his book so that he'll have the money to publish volume II!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|