Most Helpful Customer Reviews
130 of 170 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
When actually read, this book answers questions., December 18, 2004
I am simply disheartened by the dearth of actual consideration displayed by many reviewers of this book. One cannot use this book review as a chance to rant about Dembski's past work and call it a book review. The reason of The Design Revolution is to handle the same criticisms that are cited in many of the Amazon reviews of this book. While I will give some of my opinions on the book, I first find it important to address some issues.
For instance, do not review this book if you have not read it. Just because one does not feel that intelligent design (ID) satisfies his/her a priori dogmatisms does not mean that he/she has the right to reject this book, or even intelligent design for that matter. Doing so would be a prime example of apriorism, a logical fallacy. It is surely ironic that virtually all of those here who pass off this book as drivel, without even considering the content of it, do so while practically proclaiming Charles Darwin -- who said that "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" -- is correct. Ah, but the critic may reply with some silly "objections."
The easiest way for the fundamentalist Darwinist to evade this attack is to say that there are no facts or arguments behind intelligent design. They use the fact that Dembski is a Christian to constitute their decision to impulsively reject the book as creationist propaganda. This action is not only illogical, it is also intrinsically unscientific, since the act refuses to weigh the evidence supporting their claim that it is creationist propaganda. Once again, this is quite ironic.
In fact, if the critic claiming that ID is biblical/scientific creationism in a tux, a theological enterprise, part of a political agenda, etc., would actually read the book (or even Part 1 of the book), then he/she might find answers quite easily. Of course, honest objections to the book are welcomed by Dembski, since he takes time to respond to many of the objections. However, saying that this book is written for the choir, calling Dembski a religious fundamentalist, declaring the book "thinly disguised Christian blather," and asserting that the book is invalid by saying that Charles Colson, the Watergate felon and the author of the Foreword, is not a scientist are not honest objections. They are logical fallacies (apriorism, argumentum ad lapidem, argumentum ad hominem, and the red herring, to name a few). They display no sign of willingness to search for an answer. Those ignorant objections simply show prior, dogmatic commitments to other ideas, and no amount of books could shake that critic's faith; this person has closed his/her mind.
With all of that said, I will focus on the book. I believe that The Design Revolution definitely achieved Dembski's goal to compile all of the common objections to ID and answer them as completely, yet as briefly, as possible. These answers needed to be somewhat brief in order for Dembski to address as many as possible. I've found that the more complicated questions did require more space, and that was important.
I honestly cannot think of any question about intelligent design that Dembski "evaded," as declared by an earlier reviewer. Perhaps Dembski didn't address every critic of his own work, but he was never under any obligation to answer every critic. Some of the critics here have used the subtitle of the book against Dembski by saying that it should have been "Evading the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design."
However, one particular person favoring such a title change followed his point by saying that Dembski hasn't published a response to many ID critics. Notice that the subtitle does not say, "Answering All of the Critics of William Dembski." Dembski wrote this book so he could publish objections to the theory, not so he could argue with his critics. If you are actually searching for Dembski's replies to specific objections made my specific people, go to his website (www.designinference.com/) to find some of them.
If you are a strict Bible fundamentalist, then this book might not be for you. While someone may say that this book is disguised biblical fundamentalism, Dembski does not even talk about his biblical beliefs. All I know is that he is a Christian. Therefore, for all I know, he could reject much of the Bible. It's not my place, nor is it this book's place, to elaborate on such a thing. However, I do know that Dembski rejects six-day creationism, so strict fundamentalists might reject this book, along with ID, as heresy. However, this act is not supported by logic, and it is very narrow-minded. Fundamentalists should only read this if they are willing to consider ID.
Furthermore, the statement above also applies to fundamentalist Darwinists. Such people cannot be expected to get anything from this book, since they will probably read it while doodling along the margins, merely looking at the pretty words, and cheerfully turning the pages just to say that they read the book. They can then triumphantly drop the book and say that they are still atheist Darwinists after reading the book. This, also, defies reason and is purely unscientific, by any definition.
Therefore, this book is for the honest questioner. If you wonder whether ID is disguised theology, if you think that the religious motivation of ID proponents might render ID unsubstantiated, if you think that the impossibility of optimal design is a true threat to ID, if you have questions about Dembski's acclaimed Explanatory Filter, if you find it strange that science heartily welcomes the search for extraterrestrial intelligence yet vehemently rejects the search for a designer of biological systems, if you ponder the problem of the origin of information (DNA), if you wonder how ID is compatible with naturalism, if you think that the design inference is an argument from ignorance (and are willing to listen to answers), if you think that David Hume concluded all logical talk of a possible designer, or if you just wonder what in the world all of this talk about intelligent design is for, then this is your book. If your mind is open, and if you will read, study, and reflect on the thoughts presented by Dembski -- without any silly, a priori commitments -- then read this book. You will enjoy it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
40 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Philosophical answers to scientific issues, February 26, 2006
I will try to consider this book both from the point of view of its importance to the active controversy of Intelligent Design (ID) and Darwinism, and of its success in presenting a convincing point of view.
Dembski is one of the most important leaders in the ID movement at this time. As such, his books need to be read by anyone wanting to be knowledgeable about the controversy. This is the fifth book on ID that I have read, and easily the most substantive. Compared to this, Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial is crude, although considerably more readable. Dembski's style is not excessively academic or jargon-laden; when reading philosophy, one must expect terms like "ontologically subjective." Dembski's style is still rather leaden: after struggling under the burden of it for 200 pages, I felt despair at realizing that there were still 125 pages of text to go.
Dembski presents an elaborate philosophic justification for ID, confronting the arguments of many critics and including the ideas of many supporters. He also lays out both stringent standards to which ID supporters should hold themselves if they are to be taken seriously, a program of projects and a promotional strategy. Many ID supporters discuss a demonized form of Darwinism that makes it a scapegoat for all the discontents of modernity and materialism as if these were the sole invention of Charles Darwin and will disappear if his theory does. Dembski is quite honest in recognizing that these ideas pervade modern thought. Although I think he exaggerates the importance of Darwinism as a linchpin, he argues that once it is destroyed, a project of purging materialism and naturalism from all sciences and humanities is needed.
The book consists of 44 questions about ID, organized into 6 parts. As such, there is a certain amount of repetition so that each discussion can mostly stand on its own; I did not find it excessive. Occasionally, for somewhat more complex issues, there are references to other chapters. Dembski is not always consistent: sometimes he recognizes the difference between an idea being not proven and proving that the idea is invalid. For example, he rightly argues that Darwinism cannot dismiss ID on the grounds that although they cannot explain something, they are confident that they can explain it in the future. On the other hand, he only intermittently concedes that this is not the same thing as proving that Darwinism will never be able to produce an explanation. At other points, he argues that he can positively prove that Darwinian explanations are impossible, without relying upon arguing from present failures. At some points, he concedes that ID must succeed on its positive merits, not merely by eliminating Darwinism, but in Chapter 36, "The only games in town", he seems to be asserting that it is one or the other, there are no other possibilities. In Chapter 29, he chides Howard Van Till for "playing the prophet" for predicting that materialism will be vindicated in the future, and then plays the prophet himself by predicting that it is ID that will triumph.
There is a bibliography, but no notes. Some citations are given within the text, but these are usually general references to another text. Statements of fact are not supported by much documentation. The index is disappointing in that it only includes proper names. The arrangement of chapters by questions is some help in relocating information, but I would have preferred a more detailed index.
ID makes its bid to be included in public school science curricula chiefly on two claims: first, that it is not tied to religious teachings, and secondly that it is in fact a science. I don't think that Dembski made good on either claim.
One might argue that the inclusion of an introduction by the Christian activist Charles W. Colson might be explained by a desire to appeal to all sides of the ID/Darwinism controversy, and even seen as conciliatory. That does not explain why text explaining ID contains discussions of Christian theology at several points. Most strikingly, in Chapter 22, "Varieties of Naturalism", Dembski devotes the most text to "antisupernaturalism naturalism" as expounded by David Ray Griffen, continuing with its relationship to process theology, and then rebukes it for "deeply unsatisfying theological implications". He then comments that "pragmatic naturalism" is compatible with Christianity. He apparently doesn't care how any form of naturalism may be compatible with any other religion. He is also less than fully frank about "the Wedge", mentioning only Phillip Johnson's book, but ignoring the Discovery Institute document known by that name that has been cited to argue that ID is in fact religiously motivated. He can disavow it if he likes, but it's an important question left unanswered.
Dembski argues that ID can defeat Darwinism on scientific grounds, playing by the empirical rules of science. He argues that certain items in the universe possess an empirically detectable quality called "specified complexity". So where is the protocol for detecting it? He argues that the possession of specified complexity is a strong, even definitive argument for intelligent design. So who did this study, and where is its methodology published? Dembski seems to be claiming that these are currently available: does he mean that they are part of his program of aspirations?
Specified complexity depends in part upon probability and I am somewhat skeptical of our ability to produce meaningful numbers for many cases. One cannot simply assume that the number of possibilities that occur if every quality could vary independent is the correct number: qualities may be interdependent. Then one must know how many potential values there are for each quality. If/then speculations are fine, but I am very skeptical of anyone who attempts to argue definitively, for example, that there is/is not life on other planets based on the single example of our world and our limited knowledge of other stellar systems.
In sum, if one is interested in ID or the controversy, this is a significant book and should be considered. Personally, I'm impressed by his thoroughness and breadth of vision, but I'm not convinced either of ID's validity or its appropriateness to a public school SCIENCE classroom.
For readers wanting critiques of Dembski, his prominence in the ID movement guarantees that most recent books will discuss him. I call the reader's attention to Mark Perakh's somewhat vituperous Unintelligent Design, the first section of which considers Dembski from the perspective of mathematics and information theory, rather than the usual perspectives of biology and general science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
104 of 141 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Someone/thing has chosen wisely: Uncanny Selection, September 3, 2004
As a professional in the scientific research field, I find this book challenging intellectually and stimulating to myself and my colleagues. The main question for those rejecting ID and embracing its alternative DD (Dumb Determinism, or Deterministic Developmentalism) is: which postulation administers the most satisfactory answer to why of necessity there has been an unbroken, uninterrupted sequential, cumulative increase (Quality and Quality) in useful information in our universe? We deride the notion of Spontaneous Generation (in no-time or like time-lapse photography or fast-forwarding an accelerated video), but have no problem with the identical concept in magnified astronomical time-delay or decelerated super-slo-mo trillions of frames over billions of years? Instantaneous or Spontaneous or Extemporaneous or 'spur of the moment',nope. Extenuaneous, Superannuated, 'spur of the megatemporal', yep.
Both ID and DD deal with information creation, identification, evaluation and decisioned opting in or out as functional or non-functional. Both deal with sorting. Both deal with selectivity of data. The other question for DD (that ID answers) is: how does the universe get from a-Necessity to Necessity? How does it get from No-Chance to Chance? Needlessness to Need? Neither Random nor non-Random to either or both??
ID deals with Big Beginning; DD deals with Big Banging. Question for DD: at Absolute Zero pre matter/energy/space-time, what triggered a non-existent 'Bigness' to 'Bangness' status? Before anything was, theoretically there was no chance, no need, no will, no intent, no necessity, no random, no concept of anything, no choices, no options for natural selection to operate from, no nature, no selectionability. All of a sudden DD has us take on faith that all this and more came to be 'just because'?
DD is all about Progressive Process from nothing to everything, Advantageous Adaptation from simple to complex; extemporaneous evolving from Lesser to Greater; from 'no end in mind' to 'mind in the end'. Is this what we observe in 1st Law of Thermodynamics (nothing of itself can be created or destroyed) and 2nd Law (nothing of itself upgrades its complexity or functionality, but greater degradation the longer the time-devolution- is the fixed rule) as well as the law of diminishing returns (xerox of a xerox of a xerox ad seq.)?
If there could be no 'Artificial Intelligence' without superior Human ID, how could there be Human Intelligence without a higher Superiority Order of Intelligization? Can the universe really get the Greater from the Lesser? If AI can't create itself through DD (Natural Selection), how can we hold the creed that DD created itself and its own I.Q. equal or superior who in turn creates AI?
Ultimately it all comes down to faith in presented data as personal Control Beliefs dictate should be admitted into one's court: experimentation, observation, experience, intuition, historical inquiry, firsthand eyewitness Exhibit A,B,C,etc. Both ID and DD present their cases. After a preponderance of the evidence, which is the most compelling?
This book settles with: ID - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The other side makes their Intellectual Selection: DD - Doubt a Reasonable Beyond.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
