Customer Reviews

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins. Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian.

... One oft-repeated story is that all challenges to Darwinism are merely religiously motivated and hopelessly unscientific. Science is about objective facts. Religion is about subjective values. Darwinism is scientific. Challenges to Darwinism are not scientific and so have no place in any public institution. This standard story is being upended by lawyers, scientists, and philosophers who claim that Darwinism fails the tests of good science. These thinkers, who are neither theologians nor preachers, make up the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, which is chronicled in this important book written by a professor at Trinity College in Florida.

Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward amply documents, the proponents of this movement-which include a biochemist (Michael Behe) as well as a philosopher of mathematics (William Dembski)-have "doubts about Darwin" based on their investigation of the empirical evidence. Proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. ...

The proponents of ID make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts. ..Rather, ID thinkers are a diverse group united primarily in their belief that Darwinism is not beyond the reach of scientific criticism. ... Chance and necessity alone, they argue, do not provide sufficient scientific categories for explaining the origin of complex living systems such as DNA and the bacterial flagellum (a microscopic rotary motor). The scientific and philosophical establishment is beginning to interact seriously with ID claims in academic journals and at conferences, although it is still often dismissed as "unscientific."

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade-or-so from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. If one admits the category of intelligent design back into science, the case for Darwinism crumbles-or so Johnson claims.

While Woodward is a friend of the Intelligent Design movement, he lets the thinkers speak for themselves and is neither partisan nor unfair. Rather, without getting too technical, he frames the debate in terms of rhetorical strategies employed. In this way, the reader can discover the larger intellectual, historical, emotional, and cultural contours of this growing debate-which, I wager, is not about to go away any time soon.

--Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of "On Pascal."

This book makes two important contributions to the contemporary Darwin vs. design controversy: 1) it chronicles the history of the growing acknowledgment of the scientific deficiencies of neo-Darwinian evolution and the rise of intelligent design theory, and 2) it also provides a unique, rhetorical analysis of the works of Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski.

Whereas Larry Witham's recent book "By Design" takes a more neutral tone and extends his narrative to include debates over cosmic design, Dr. Thomas Woodward is more sympathetic with the arguments and ideas of the proponents of the theory of intelligent design, and his book focuses more narrowly upon the issue of biological evolution. But this in no way detract from the book's credibility and effectiveness. Rather, Woodward's work has much to its credit and any serious reader should evaluate the history and analysis he provides on the merits.

One need not have read the works of Denton, Johnson, Behe and Dembski to be able to follow Woodward's analysis, but a familiarity with the primary design proponents' books and arguments will enhance one's appreciation for the analysis he provides. Woodward also points out the importance of Charles Thaxton and his ideas for the development of intelligent design theory, and likewise provides readers with a concise introduction to rhetoric of science as an important intellectual field.

If I had to be picky, I would say that this book is not entirely clear about the fact that there are critics of neo-Darwinian evolution, such as David Berlinski, whom one may not necessarily consider to be a proponent of intelligent design theory. Such a skeptic of Darwin might be more properly considered to be outside of the "Intelligent Design Movement."

The 1999 Kansas State Board of Education battle features so prominently in the early part of the book. It is true that this episode helped to give intelligent design theory and its main proponents much early publicity, but the main design proponents were not deeply involved in matters there. Leading proponents of design were much more active in the Ohio controversy of 2001-2002, which involved a more clear and careful approach to the teaching of Darwin's theory and a much more favorable result was ultimately obtained: while merely permitting local schools to include discussion of the theory of intelligent design, the State Board of Education adopted a benchmark requiring students to know why scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.

In any case, this book is quite enjoyable and is recommended to readers. I initially gave this book 4 stars, but after further contemplation of the books merits and after following all of the accounts about the debates surrounding these issues, I have concluded that Woodward brings far more clarity to the issues at stake. At this point, I can only hope that Woodward will write a sequel, analyzing the history and main arguments presented by the anti-design crowd.

Doubts about Darwin is the first objective full length book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). The book is a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida. The author is a college professor (as I am). Doubts about Darwinism answers questions about the movement such as why do so many people have doubts about Darwinism, who are they, and why is this movement growing so fast? The movement includes full-fledged senior faculty at such universities as Oxford University, Princeton, the University of Georgia, Ohio State University, Medical College of Ohio, Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, the State University of Applied Sciences in Frankfurt Germany, the University of New Brunswick, University of Sydney, University of Auckland and Hanyang University in Korea. The movement covers the gamut of disciplines, including the full range of the natural sciences. The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design is now the professional society of the intelligent design community. The society now lists over fifty research fellows including Fritz Schaefer, the inventor of computational quantum chemistry. With almost 1,000 peer-reviewed publications, he is the third most cited chemist in the world and has been considered for a Nobel five times. All the fellows are distinguished researchers in their own right and have published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature in their respective disciplines. Woodward's book has been peer reviewed by numerous faculty and this shows. So far, I have noticed only a few minor errors! It is the most complete and accurate history of the ID movement and is must reading for friend and foes of the movement alike. It is obvious that many people who write about ID do not have an accurate understanding of the movement. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. This work will be the standard work in this area for some time to come.

Are intelligent design proponents disinterested pursuers of the truth, honestly persuaded that the mainstream theory of evolution has serious problems? Or are they closet theocrats, trying to sneak a religious theory into the schools by covering it with a scientific veneer? Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross argue for the latter in Creationism's Trojan Horse, while Woodward presents the former view.

Woodward is very interested in the rhetoric of science and how this affects its pursuits. However we may see science as going after truth, in practice it is done by human beings in a social setting, and persuading one's fellow scientists can involve more than showing them the evidence.

And Woodward is not above using rhetoric for his own ends, with his word choices frequently betraying his pro-ID bias. Teaching Darwinian evolution in schools is always "dogmatic," intelligent design is treated as "heresy", and critics of ID "scoff" at it. On the other side, the criticism of evolution by ID proponents is frequently "withering". However, Forrest and Gross are similarly biased in the other direction, so we'll let this go.

Woodward presents the genesis and growth of a movement, starting with Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which inspires Philip Johnson and Michael Behe into skepticism about evolution. Then Johnson writes Darwin on Trial, which brings in people like Dembski, Meyer, and others. And of course Behe writes his own book, Darwin's Black Box, which brought in the key ID concept of irreducible complexity, to go with ID's only other key concept so far, Dembski's design inference. The second-hand coverage is less than satisfying, and I think my time might well have been better spent reading primary sources, like Denton or Johnson, rather than this retelling.

Of the two books, Woodward presents the better-written and better-organized story. That doesn't mean that it's true, though. What becomes interesting is what he leaves out. There's no mention of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," which clearly states that the goal of undermining evolution is to restore Christianity as an influential force in society and government. And Woodward vehemently denies that creationism and ID have anything in common, when it's now known that the very first ID book, Of Pandas and People, did a sloppy cut-and-paste to remove every mention of creationism and replace it with intelligent design - at exactly the same time that the Supreme Court decided that creationism could not be taught in schools. He also refers to the Kansas state standards of 1999 simply as "deemphasizing the teaching of macroevolution" without bothering to mention that they were co-authored by the president of the Creation Science Association, who believes in the six-day-creation story of the Bible.

What is important in the end, though, is not motivations but the truth. Mainstream evolutionary biologists must address any legitimate scientific issues that ID proponents bring forth, which they have done. (So far, at least in the mainstream view, none have held up to close scrutiny. Irreducible complexity was dealt satisfactorily with by mainstream biologists over 80 years ago, and the design inference is too context-dependent to be meaningful.) Meanwhile, it would be nice if the IDers would stick to the world of science until their hypotheses have greater support. As Eugenie Scott of the pro-evolution NCSE notes, the proper process for a theory to make its way into the schools is for the proponents of the theory to publish scientific works and argue them out with fellow scientists, not, as ID has done, make their very first publication (Of Pandas and People, as mentioned above) a high school textbook. That leads to a not unreasonable suspicion that the goals of the ID movement are not primarily scientific.

Woodward sees a growing ID movement (more rhetoric: he refers to an "explosion" of interest in ID, by which he means that those interested grew from a handful of scientists to a couple dozen). That remains to be seen. As even the "Wedge Document" notes, the bedrock of ID must be scientific publications, and that is where ID has been seriously lacking so far, with only a handful of scientific papers to its name so far, and that's with a generous reckoning. Meanwhile, in the political arena, ID has seen numerous setbacks, from Judge Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that ID is not science (hailed by evolution supporters and derided by ID supporters, of course) to the loss of supporters in the Kansas state school board that led to the evolution-friendly standards recently being adopted. Meanwhile, the ID movement has retreated from wanting to be taught in schools (as indicated by the Pandas textbook) to wanting to "teach the controversy" to wanting to "discuss the problems."

Whatever one's opinion, though, it's clear that the controversy isn't going away any time soon. It remains to be seen, though, just what form the controversy will take. However, to best follow the controversy, read the relevant works themselves rather than books like these, which stand aside and observe the controversy.

I am tired of reading reviews that rate the book simply based upon the reviewers bias whether it be pro-evolution or against. For that reason, I have found it necessary to write a review that actually discusses the contents of the book.

Doubts was originally Thomas Woodward's doctoral thesis which was then turned into a book. He seeks to explain the origins of the ID movement. He makes it clear that one of his main goals is to show that ID is based on sound scientific data rather than an attempt to repackage creationism, as it is often accused. I picked up this book because I was hoping for a unbiased approach to ID. I was hoping to first read a book without any bias that could set the stage for future study. Unfortunately, that is not what I found in Doubts. It's quite possible that I may never find a book of this nature with such a polarizing topic as evolution.

I will first tell the things that I like about Doubts. Although I believe that evolution should be taught, I do have a number of doubts regarding it. There are a lot of issues that have not yet been settled in my mind regarding its truthfulness. I agree with the ID people in that there doesn't seem to be enough transitional fossils. I can understand how a wolf and a dog might be related, or even a dog and a cat, but I find it difficult to relate an animal with a fully-functioning digestive system with an animal like an earthworm. Doubts succeeded in presenting even more such issues. In truth, Doubts did not present any issues, but rather it spoke of the issues brought forth by others such as Behe, Johnson, and Denton (to name but a few). I definitely have a lot of questions that beg to be answered by the Darwinists.

Doubts also succeeded in bringing to light the dogmatic nature displayed by some of the Darwinists. It is unfortunate, but clearly evident, that some scientists use Darwinism as a method of justifying their atheism. If scientists forward a view/theory based not on empirical evidence but rather upon philosophical predilection, then they are guilty of the same dogmatism they decry in the creationists. When scientists start pushing atheism, they have left the realm of science and entered into the realm of religion. Science is ill-equipped at dealing with the existence or non-existence of deity. Previously, I was under the impression that scientists generally observed this delineation, but Doubts has caused me to question whether science is doing a good enough job of minding its own business.

Lastly, Doubts succeeds in pointing out the key issue of this whole debate. Ultimately, the question is the axiom of naturalism held by science. Naturalism requires that science only investigate natural cause and effect. Naturalism precludes science from making theories that involve deity, for deity lies outside of this natural sphere. The ID movement claims that naturalism impedes science and that non-naturalist theories should be allowed. Evolution finds this to be ridiculous. But ultimately, that is the issue at stake.

Having given my positive views of Doubts, I ultimately feel that it is a poor book. Since it was adapted from a doctoral dissertation, it suffers from the thick over-inflated writing style that is so common in the scientific community. Things that could have been stated in a few simple words are expressed in a long string of obfuscated gibberish. The author finds it necessary to constantly explain the value of analogy and various other methods of rhetoric ad nauseum.

Poor writing is excusable, especially in a scholarly work, but blatant bias is not excusable. Woodward claims to be writing an unbiased history of ID, but one needs not dig too deep to find his strong pro-ID bias. Again and again I was approached with examples of Woodward presenting rebuttals by the ID movement while failing to give the Darwinists the same opportunity. Successes of ID were inflated with superlatives while their failures were glazed over as quickly as possible as if one of his doctoral had required he include their mention. I can never trust a work that claims to be unbiased when they can admit no fault with one side, yet that is what is presented in Doubts.

He also fails to effectively defend his primary thesis, that ID is a scientific movement rather than a theistic movement. Woodward goes out of his way to point out ways in which ID uses empirical evidence for their anti-evolutionary stance. Nevertheless, he fails to point out the dichotomy induced by such things as the wedge theory. The wedge theory is where Stephen Johnson (one of the founders of ID) states out-right that the long-term goal of ID is to get theistic principles taught in schools and universities. Again and again, through Woodward's own representation of the facts it feels that the ID movement is simply trying to conceal a strong theistic motive under the shroud of empirical validity. I agree with the judge of the Dover case, when he ruled that ID is simply a thin-veiled attempt at bringing God back into science.

Once again, I should note that I believe in Intelligent Design in a theistic sense. I believe that God created the universe and that God's hand is in the evolution and continued existence of this world. Nevertheless, I believe that science has no business dabbling in non-naturalistic explanations to natural phenomenon. Such explorations provide us with nothing.

Therefore, I do not recommend this book. If you want to get the ID view, read a book by the founders of ID. Read one of the books that are unabashedly biased, rather than a book that tries to hide its bias. I have no problem with a book being biased. Any book trying to put forth a particular argument is going to be, by necessity, heavily laden with bias. Rather than read this book, read Darwin on Trial or Of Pandas and People. Doubts does little more than explain the contents of those books.

Having closely followed Intelligent Design for the past eleven years, I expect any new books in this genre to simply add to my ID knowledge base. THATS NOT WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT!

The "big picture" is critical to an in-depth understanding of any complex endeavor. Since I am by nature a detail person, I must work extra hard to "see" it. However, even hard work won't help you if you lack the analytical tools needed to "step back". This book has provided me a framework with which to understand the ID movement. I'm actually going to re-read some of the key works that were highlighted with the new vantage point that I have.

"Doubts about Darwin" practically turned its own pages! I could not set it down. Not only is the author good at rhetorical analysis, he is an excellent rhetor. (I didn't know the word 'rhetor' before I read Doubts). I especially enjoyed the book within a book. I felt that I was learning on two levels. As he provided rhetorical analysis, he was explaining the process to us. And the footnotes were quite informative. I had to stop and read most of them as I was zipping along. That probably kept me from getting literary indigestion, I was reading so fast!

This is a good read and I heartily recommend it.

I was fully prepared to be underwhelmed by this book, after seeing that it was primarily a re-work of the author's Ph.D. work. I've seen how such books tend to be informative but often not a very compelling read. I was happily surprised to find that Doubts about Darwin has that unique combination of intrigue and education that made it hard to put down.

I see this as (at least) a 4-in-1 book: (1) A thorough history of the Intelligent Design movement, (2) a broad review of much of the key literature in the field - you'll figure out which authors or books you'll want to read next, (3) a light and interesting on-going lesson in rhetoric and how it plays a key role in this issue, (4) a good introductory education on the ID topic itself that gives enough understanding to appreciate the debate.

The description of the initial encounter between Phillip Johnson and SJ Gould may be worth the price of the book, and is a microcosm of the larger ID debate. Woodward gives unique, up-close views like that as he tracks the goings-on over the years.

If I had to make a criticism, I'd say that Woodward spent quite a bit of time on Johnson's Darwin on Trial book. I could have been satisfied with a bit quicker pace in that section, but he obviously felt it was a cornerstone work in this engagement and worth a closer look, which I can understand. Generally he strikes a good balance, with 40 pages of small print notes in the back to keep the main story flowing. (But I found myself frequently drawn to the notes for more details anyway.)

If you have any interest in getting a handle on this debate, or just like seeing what happens when the ideas of one group of smart people collides with the ideas of another, I don't expect you'll be at all disappointed with the Doubts book.

I have in my library a copy of William Paley's "Natural Theology" published in 1837 (one of many editions.) Paley was the originator of the "watchmaker" analogy, which was a basis of the argument from design for the existence of a creator. If you find a watch on the ground you do not believe that it arose by chance; its complexity proves the existence of a watchmaker. Similarly the universe, in its complexity, beauty, and perfection, could only have been designed by a conscious and creative will-a Creator. To Paley this of course meant God.

"Natural Theology" and a similar book on the evidences for Christianity (also written by Paley) were very popular in their day. They were used as texts in many universities including Cambridge where Charles Darwin was a divinity student. He read them with much interest and was impressed by their tight arguments. Until his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle he was in fact a follower of Paley. But his observations on the voyage, and the conclusions he found he had to draw from them, destroyed his faith in the argument from design, and after the publication of the Origin of Species, Paley's ideas fell in to disrepute.

When Darwin found that the evidence forced him to reject Paley's arguments, he was acting as a scientist. Scientific ethics, indeed the whole idea behind science, demands that you follow the evidence rather than your personal beliefs and preferences.

The subjects of the book under review, proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), take a different view. It is less important, they think, to follow the evidence, than to make sure that people believe the right things. If the evidence does not fit their preferences, they discount the evidence. Their chosen weapon in this war (for they see it as a war,) is rhetoric-the art of persuasion by any means possible. It is the method of the lawyer or politician, not the seeker of truth that all scientists (despite their very human flaws) are supposed to be. It is a struggle, not for truth, but for power.

I find myself here, as a scientist, in an interesting position. I cannot and do not wish to refute the whole idea of a creator. For all I know there might have been one (I was not there when the universe was formed, but then neither were the ID people.) In truth the belief in a creator does not have the rigor of a scientific theory, as it cannot be really tested at all (despite what the ID people say, evolution can be tested - at least indirectly.) The existence of God or any other primordial creator simply cannot be proven or disproven. How would you test for existence of God? What experiments could you devise for that purpose? A concept that cannot be proven or disproven belongs not in the realm of science, but of faith, despite the current attempt to make it sound scientific.

This brings me to an irritating point. ID people often claim that they are not arguing for the existence of the Christian God, but only of a creator. This is to me a disingenuous statement. Who is this creator that they have postulated but God? If not God, are they arguing for an extraterrestrial intelligence? I am inclined to conclude that in essence they are trying to interject theism into science, despite claims to the contrary. It is true that not all scientists are fair in their treatment of religious belief - they would inject atheism into science, which should remain as free as possible from any preconceived notions. However, I tend agree with Gould that science and the humanities (including religion) are essentially separate magisteria and as such can sometimes interact, but one can never supercede the other. If that happened, in my view both would be corrupted.

This book is a reasonably good history of the ID movement, told from the view of someone who is convinced that they are on the right track. It should be read with this in mind. However, advocacy is never a substitute for critical thinking. Evolutionary theory has flaws and there is a ways to go before we understand either the universe or life on earth (if indeed we ever do!) but the principle that scientific debates should involve hard data must stand.

To get a more accurate and critical view of this debate I recommend the works of Robert Pennock.

From my goodreads.com review:

Thomas Woodward wrote a most excellent book
about the history of the ID movement and to a
certain extent the Darwinian movement as well.

The book looks not only at the history of ID
and Darwinism but also the rhetoric of both
sides as well.

Woodward is very fair to both sides even though he
himself is a Christian design advocate.

Lot's of info and scientific facts abound
in this book and at times it can get a bit
technical and boring as well as over intellectual.

I do like however how Woodward uses clever war
analogies such as comparing the battle between
ID and Darwinian evolution advocates and their
debates to battles in World War II such as The
Normandy Invasion.

Woodward talks a lot about Philip E. Johnson
and his book Darwin on Trial as well as Michael
Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crises and
Michael Behe and William Dembski as well not to
mention many evolutionists such as Gould and Futuyma.

Nonetheless, I give Woodward's book 5/5 stars
for his excellent writing and research into both
sides of the evolution, design and origin of life
debate as well as being fair and honest.

Note: This book was written in 2003 pre-Dover trial.