Customer Reviews


45 Reviews
5 star:
 (27)
4 star:
 (2)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (14)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


231 of 281 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Primer on Intelligent Design
This book is a compliation of three essays (first 113 pages) which study the possibility of intelligent design from a physics, mathematical and philosophical aspect. The remainder of the book (approximately an additional 80 pages) make up the appendix which supplies three additional essays which speak about Intelligent Design and seek to address specific criticisms...
Published on January 10, 2001 by NYJ

versus
1 of 5 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Too much logic and too little evidences from the natural world.
There was too much reliance on logical and philosophical proofs and too few explanations of evidences from the natural world.
Published 6 months ago by Al Brunsting


‹ Previous | 1 25 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

231 of 281 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Primer on Intelligent Design, January 10, 2001
By 
NYJ (Atlantic Coast, USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
This book is a compliation of three essays (first 113 pages) which study the possibility of intelligent design from a physics, mathematical and philosophical aspect. The remainder of the book (approximately an additional 80 pages) make up the appendix which supplies three additional essays which speak about Intelligent Design and seek to address specific criticisms against this theory. The first appendix, entitled Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design, is written by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is possibly the best chapter of the entire book. For a primer on what "intelligent design" is considered to be by its proponents, this book would suffice. I would highly recommend this book to those who are interested in this subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


73 of 88 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The universal as witness; evidence and the universal probabilities, April 5, 2006
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
For those who are philosophically opposed to the notion that the universe may have been designed, the root of objection is not based on scientific evidence. It has become a mantra, a dogma, an article of faith to declare loudly that "evolution is a proven fact", but the statement needs to demonstrate that it asserts something true. If evolution is a proven fact, the scientific community that believes in evolution does not need to be shy. The evidence doesn't need to be hidden. Bring it out; let all seekers after truth and reality observe it. I may say that I have not come across any such evidence, and my fields are biochemistry and physics with a strong interest in mathematics. It's certainly possible there is information I haven't examined. I would love to know about it... but so far, evidence itself does not support a universe in which life came about by chance, necessity or a combination thereof.

This book explicates the problems that the Theory of Evolution has in its broadest sense as well as in a more explicit mechanistic sense. The articles comprising it are for the most part extremely well written. I should mention that the second article, the first of those written by Stephen Meyer, I found a little tedious but only because the author used therein a style that I consider rather heavy, repeating one concept and restating it in different words without adding anything in the restatement. I felt that the article could have been condensed by at least half without losing any sense. Yet WHAT Stephen Meyer was saying was interesting... and the second article written by him in the book had no such internal repetition and was highly readable. I have had to conclude that Stephen Meyer has experienced readers or audience who have failed to follow his philosophy-of-science and implications-of-probability-bounds arguments before... and he's taking no chances (pun intended) of the meaning of his writing being misunderstood. That he is a highly intelligent man with a great deal to impart on the very meaning of science and the implications of data is undeniable.

On the basis of his second article, I will be happy to read further writings of his.

Michael Behe is always a pleasure to read. His writing is clear, and his examples are apt. His article will be familiar in most aspects to readers of his ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box", but the follow-up article, in which he responds to criticisms of the examples and arguments used in that book, is interesting and unambiguous. What comes through clearly is that criticisms were either a) science-based or b) philosophy-based. The science-based criticisms are remarkable for their failure to challenge the biochemical irreducible complexity argument and to find real examples that contradict the evidence presented by Behe. In fact, every example presented with the intent to break down Behe's argument and specific examples not only fails to do so, but inadvertently supplies evidence that SUPPORTS Behe's argument. To go into detail here would be inappropriate and far too lengthy - but Behe's rebuttal is on the basis of biochemical evidence. Let those reading this review be challenged to read the book themselves and judge on the basis of what Michael Behe has written - not opinion, not selective examples, but real and soundly scientific examination of evidence. You need not purchase the book if you're opposed to its concepts - but why not borrow it from your local library? If you are not a biochemist, have next to you while you read it a biological science or biochemistry textbook. Make sure it's an advanced level textbook so that the incredible and complex reality of the systems Behe is discussing can be checked by you in terms of the details. Better still, those who are not biochemists might find enormous pleasure in studying this field just as laymen - the complexity of life is a rewarding and fascinating study, particularly (for me) on the chemical level where complexity is unmistakable.

William Dembski's writing concerning specified complexity is highly informative, and I was drawn to his style of writing, which is clear and has a nice quality that combines information with accessibility. This was the first piece of writing I'd read by Dembski, and it led me to read with great pleasure his other books - books which impress by the scope and detail that he includes. Do not mistake - readers may disagree with William Dembski's viewpoint, but if they are intellectually honest, they have no business stating that his writing is scientifically flawed, intellectually incapable, or riddled with unproven assumptions. Au contraire. His work, on the basis of his published writings, is honest and demonstrative of a high degree of original and intelligent thought with a strong commitment to the evidence.

I should mention several things that might worry potential readers: all three writers are convinced by the raw data of the universe that the universe exhibits unmistakable evidence of design. Intelligent Design is a theory that states design can be detected, not by waving around a Bible, but by the evidence of the universe - the universal bound, probability theory, biochemistry, biology, these are the fields which yield information on this. Intelligent Design makes no claim about who this designer might be, what the purpose of this designer might be, etc. Critics of Intelligent Design who believe they are inflicting a killing blow by saying, "But there's no redundant pathway for this or that, so how intelligent is that?" are, I'm afraid, revealing that they have not read this book. Intelligent Design is so clearly delineated that a reader could scarcely miss it without wilfully deciding to close their eyes - and if a reader still remains confused, he is referred to Dembski's "The Design Revolution" where questions and answers are presented with the purpose of enlightening those who have become confused because they've assumed a meaning for Intelligent Design that comes from their own opinion or what has been said OF the Intelligent Design theory.

Secondly, I note that some reviewers have explicitly rejected Intelligent Design because they say it has philosophical or religious implications. That's irrelevant in assessing a theory and evidence, though. Neo-Darwinism has philosophical or religious implications, and that doesn't affect whether or not it is TRUE. The EVIDENCE ALONE ought to be that which is examined, and explicitly Darwinism has redefined the meaning of science since the propagation of the theory, upon the assumption that common descent is a fact. I contend that it's not up to scientists to redefine words - it's up to those who are experts in semantics. And particularly it is highly suspect to redefine a word so as to exclude competing theories a priori from examination of evidence. To force a particular filter for examination of data, and to force fields of research, based upon a faulty definition of science (by assuming natural mechanics are sufficient to describe the origin of life and those systems in nature exhibiting specified complexity) is a logical error of such magnitude that it creates a blinding supernova of unthinking assumption, and is already creating frustration and dead ends in scientific research.

To make it clear: whether a scientist believes in God or not is irrelevant to an examination of data. Examination of data is the first responsibility of that type of science which seeks to establish observable laws and phenomena, because without data confirming predictions, the various fields of science become nothing more than an enjoyable free-wheeling exercise in imagination. Theories are NECESSARY, though, in order to create predictions (often based on conditional arguments arising from a particular theory) which can then be tested. Historical science is, however, a different kettle of fossil fish. It is non-verifiable in the sense that the past cannot be recreated. But studies of origins are either equally unfalsifiable or equally falsifiable.

It is almost ludicrous that this book has garnered so many reviewers, in the sense that many excellent titles on Amazon have not even a tenth of the number of reviews. Are so many people reading this book? Having read through the reviews here, I cannot conclude that. At least half of the reviews are scathingly attacking the idea, not the book. I venture to say that the majority of the reviewers who have given low ratings for this book have done so without reading it. Perhaps some have read reviews of it. Perhaps some have read a carefully chosen extract from it on a website, together with anti-extract rhetoric designed to show the many "errors" the book has. But to have actually read the book would reveal a common dishonesty with out-of-context quotations when quoted by someone whose philosophical stance is diametrically opposed to that espoused by his opponent.

That is why I say simply... read the book. Judge its scientific credibility on the basis of what it says, not on the basis of what someone says it says. Do not be like those who read books such as "How to Learn Kafka In Ten Minutes" or "Easy Plato For Busy People" or "Einstein Made Simple!" or "Feynman for Dummies". If you want to know what Plato wrote, you read Plato, not someone's hashed-up interpretation of his writing. If you want to understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, read his published papers - they're not out of print, and the man was a genius. If you want to read about the oft-quoted (tediously over-quoted) idea that the world believed in a flat earth at certain points in history and in certain cultures, it might just be a good idea for you to read the published primary sources rather than quote a frankly ludicrous modern retelling of history. You are guaranteed to be astonished by the cartographic and underlying geographical knowledge and assumptions of the ancient world, and the astonishing misinformation disseminated by people who have taken on board as fact modern myths that have no supporting data.

I have read most of the neo-Darwin literature - much of it was required reading. During my university studies, my questions and requests for data were shunted aside as irrelevant, and I was expected to "believe" in neo-Darwinism as an article of faith, on pains of being considered unscientific if I did not. I still preferred to make up my own mind on the basis of evidence... and to this day, I have the same approach. It is important to read Dawkins, Gould, etc., plus the published literature and published experiments in the journals - or at least, I found it important, because I wished to see (and continue to wish to see) what real evidence such an important theory has. I liked Dawkins' clear style, but his lack of substance and substitution of assumption for fact often frustrated me. Gould's ideas were always interesting, even though I felt they belonged more in science fiction than hard science. I would be fascinated and surprised to learn that those who believe tooth-and-nail in the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth have actually read all the books on the subject of Intelligent Design which they certainly imply they have. Why? Because Intelligent Design makes sense ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, and ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. This book, to be specific, has certain arguments and a clear, unambiguous presentation of why neo-Darwinism, relying on naturalistic mechanisms of chance and necessity, actually does not provide a plausible explanation for the evidence. I would be bemused and pleased were my review to be instrumental in convincing anyone who thinks they know about Intelligent Design but haven't actually investigated it other than as a theory to shoot down by reading counter-arguments against it... to actually... read this book. I would that all human beings would think clearly and examine information without allowing bias to prevent an honest assessment. That's my hope. Honest assessment. Not brainwashing, not fine but empty rhetoric. Just honest assessment. By ALL MEANS read the counter-arguments. But don't do that without reading the arguments countered first... and not out of context. Read the book, then criticise. That's fair. If readers end up disagreeing, at least they would then do so on the basis of awareness and knowledge of what they criticise.

To the three authors of this book: thank you. Ultimately I enjoyed your writing, and I have found my interest in probability theory rekindled. I will continue to enjoy researching the complex systems in biological organisms, and I will always look for the universe to provide evidence, not my own wishes.

To sum up: it's no crime to have a philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief amounting to certainty. But that philosophical, religious or metaphysical belief MUST NOT filter out theories arising from the evidence. In other words, an intelligent appraisal of data should not include straitjacketing the data. One can PREFER a particular interpretation. One can BELIEVE in a particular interpretation. One can allow other factors (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc.) to impact upon one's belief of which interpretation or theory is correct. But that's got nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with real assessment of raw data. True science is not about commitment to a particular belief. It is about the great search for what is, because what is leaves unmistakable signs in the very complexity that specifies it - this we know without doubt. The human race did not know that a hundred years ago, before the strides in knowledge that encompass biochemistry and physics. A genuine search for truth in the universe's physical nature ought to be bounded by NO presuppositions. If the universe arose by chance, it won't be "proved" by disqualifying any other theory before the evidence is examined. If the universe arose by design, it won't be "proved" by assuming it is so. Assumption is a hindrance to honest assessment of the physical data - and a scientist ought not to put his assumptions in place BEFORE his assessment of data.

Let the evidence itself speak for itself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


240 of 309 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Forget the critics, October 9, 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
I have to give this book 5 stars to counter-balance the two reviews that slam this book. It is obvious that neither reviewer has read this book, in part or in total.
Intelligent Design is not creation science. It accepts evolution (i.e., common descent), gradual change over time, and natural selection as a fine-tuning mechanicism of life. It merely suggests that the formation of life is guided by intelligence - the exact question of how that intelligence performed its work, or who that intelligence is, is left open. (It could be anything from aliens to Zeus.)
Intelligent Design has caused Darwinian Fundamentalists to react with alarm because Darwinism is the central facet of their world view. Their objections are more philosophical than scientific (I've yet to read ONE negative review of an ID book that contains any science whatsoever). Darwinists have been the Grand Inquisitors of academia and are crushing real science. While Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, and other fields are literally taking quantum leaps into the future, evolutionary Biology has barely advanced past the early 1900s thanks to the the Fundamentalists' insistence that all evidence be construed, however obliquely, to support the notion that natural selection and random mutation can account for all life on earth.
Read about ID and make up your mind. Don't listen to Fundamentalists like Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins who are long on rhetoric and short on science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


56 of 73 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Thorough Examination of Supporting Points for ID, December 22, 2004
By 
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
This book, _Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe_, is a collection of six essays by three of the biggest names in intelligent design (ID): William Dembski (Ph.D. in mathematics and Ph.D. in philosophy), Stephen Meyer (Ph.D. in philosophy of science), and Michael Behe (Ph.D. in biochemistry). These three characters have been widely criticized by Darwinists, but very few of these critics have actually read their material, and virtually none of them have considered it.

The first essay, by William Dembski, is introductory, yet essential. This essay, "The Third Mode of Explanation," can be found in almost all of Dembski's work in some way, and for good reason: his explanatory filter, along with his stipulation of complex specified information (CSI), is needed to prevent ID from looking like William Paley's argument.

I've seen a hefty amount of criticism with regard to Dembski's explanatory filter and CSI, but the critiques have been hollow. Typically, critics simply fail to understand CSI. Of course, there may be an honest few who really don't understand it, but it looks to me as if the Darwinists simply reject CSI because they know it will sting them in the long run. Essentially, Paley's failure at using some standard for detecting design brought about his eventual downfall. In my opinion, however, Dembski's work succeeds precisely where Paley fell. Even so, I would recommend whomever is introduced to Dembski's work with the explanatory filter and CSI in this book to research his other works, mainly, _The Design Inference_ and _No Free Lunch_.

Next up is Stephen Meyer's "Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology." After finding how intelligence can be inferred, Dembski hands the book off to Meyer and Behe for a while in order to see if we can, in fact, find signs of intelligence.

On a side note, this is a main point where ID differs from things like scientific creationism (SC) and natural theology (NT); from what I can tell, both SC and NT presume that a designer does exist. However, ID searches for *signs* of intelligence to see if there is a creator. While SC may seek to affirm the biblical creation account, ID doesn't care most about how we were created; ID only seeks to find out if certain things in nature are designed. Likewise, while NT desires to determine the attributes of a designer, ID leaves that up to theology, not science. No matter what ID critics tell you, these proponents are NOT six-day (young-earth) creationists.

Back to Meyer. This lengthy (60-page) essay is very in-depth and is extremely informative. He focuses one part on the anthropic fine-tuning principle, which tries to show that since "the constants in physics, the initial conditions of the universe, and many other of its features appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life" (56-57), then the universe must have been designed, since the probability of life is outrageously low. I've found this argument quite convincing, but the reader should determine this on his/her own, not from the words of myself or of any other reviewer -- especially not from the critics who refuse to consider evidence that goes against their a priori ideologies.

Meyer spends more time, however, on the mystery of the origin of DNA. In my opinion, this is stronger than the anthropic fine-tuning principle, since Meyer analyzes many of the objections to the design of DNA and systematically dismantles them. Again, the reader should form his/her own opinion on this. Note: this origin of DNA problem is precisely what convinced renowned atheist philosopher Antony Flew to believe in some supernatural designer.

Next comes one of Behe's essays, namely, "Evidence for Design at the Foundation of Life." While this is short, it outlines much of what Behe has been known for: the presence of irreducible complexity (IC) in biochemistry. Again, Behe's ability to rely on a standard for determining design has kept the argument from dying Paley's death. Critics, like Mark Perakh who reviewed here, might dismiss Behe quickly, but notice how quick they are to flock to Ken Miller's or Richard Dawkins' side. It seems as if Darwinists have been guilty of apriorism much more than Charles Darwin would have preferred.

Behe follows this brief, but thorough, examination of a couple biochemical structures, namely, the cilium and the bacterial flagellum, with a chapter dedicated to dealing with criticism of his work. He deals with a technical objection brought about by Ken Miller, while also speaking of the issues of blood clotting and falsifiability. This is brief again, and may require further study elsewhere. I would recommend _Darwin's Black Box_ by Behe to find an elaboration of much of his work on IC.

One last note on Behe: the most common objection to his work is the claim that he is arguing from ignorance. Essentially, the critics say that Behe can't say that something is designed because he hasn't found an alternative. However, this is not what Behe has claimed.

Behe has three points with irreducible complexity. Firstly, the logical point is that direct Darwinian pathways cannot be relied upon for the genesis of IC; something that relies on random mutations is not a reasonable explanation for IC. For instance, it is possible that wind and erosion created Mount Rushmore, but it's extremely far from probable. Secondly, the empirical point is that indirect Darwinian pathways cannot be relied upon for the IC, since we have not found even one example of an indirect Darwinian pathway. It is simply wishful speculation. Thirdly, the explanatory point is that since we know that design is what creates IC, then some designer had something to do with irreducibly complex systems found in biochemistry. In other words, Behe relies on the causal adequacy of inferring design. This is not an argument from ignorance; this is eliminative induction, as Dembski shows in much of his work. Note: For an easy way to find answers to many questions posed on ID, see _The Design Revolution_ by Dembski.

Moving on, Meyer has another amazingly important article based on establishing the "Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories." This essay is just as long as the first Meyer essay, and just as thorough. What's more, this is important to show that ID cannot be thrown out of science if Darwinism is expected to remain in science. It's either none or both, as Meyer argues, and the day Darwinists agree to throw out their theory will be the day Los Angeles votes Republican.

Finally, the book finishes with short essay by both Meyer and Dembski. As opposed to what Mark Perakh has declared, this essay simply shows that the Christian doctrine of divine Creation may be the most causally adequate explanation of the Big Bang. It is not proving that the Big Bang implies a supernatural creator, as Perakh suggests; the authors merely assert that it is the best explanation given the knowledge we have and the opposing, naturalist possibilities.

Overall, this book is a must-read for those who are seriously curious about some of the arguments presented by Dembski, Meyer, and Behe. Also, if you are interested in an elaboration on the DNA issue and the methodological equivalence of ID and Darwinism, then this a great place to find it. (Meyer's work amounts to about half of the book). Additionally, if one is looking for introductory material for Dembski's and/or Behe's arguments, then this is also a wonderful starting point. This book may not have the subject diversity of anthologies like _Signs of Intelligence_ or _Mere Creation_, but it still powerfully and cogently explains a couple of ID's supporting points.

Note: Only read this if you are willing to say that you are wrong if you find enough evidence that refutes your current positions.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


75 of 104 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Smells Like Sour Grapes, April 5, 2005
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
It must be difficult for those who have spent their entire careers and invested all of their intellect preaching a worldview that excludes any possibility whatsoever outside of purely naturalistic processes for explaining that which exists to see today's emerging understanding of science and growing body of scientific evidences slowly but methodologically challenge and begin to dismantle their carefully constructed general evolutionary models, resulting assertions and hypothesis.

The chauvinism some general evolutionary scientists and their followers display is as frightening to many of us scientific real truthseekers as some of the ancient political unions of church and state must have been to those that came before us.

As I prepare for my PhD studies in science, I repeatedly find that the "supporting science" and/or "scientific conclusions" of general evolutionary theory promise far more than they actually deliver.

Now combine this with the media's dogmatic continuing support in their assertions that the material universe arose from purely naturalistic processes, despite the large growing body of scientific evidences to the contrary (and yes I'm speaking about real science across disciplines as one of the less enlightened and more chauvinistic posters failed to recognize), and the role of the judicial branch in "rubberstamping" this position points us to a bias that, again given the growing body of real scientific evidence, is undeserved and I can certainly competently argue is unnecessary when the need arises.

Therefore, for this future scientist and many in my generation, the door is wide open for intelligent, scientific discussions regarding intelligent design.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


62 of 86 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Core of Design, February 11, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
If you want to know what is at the core of intelligent design, this is the book. With essays by Behe, Meyer & Dembski, this offers a rare multi-author volume that still fits in a cargo-pocket.
Want to know why ID critics never talk about this volume? It is too solid--they can't touch it. Plus Behe successfully responds to his critics. Instead, they have to resort to name calling and warnings of danger lest someone read this. But don't let them tell you what to think. Evaluate ID for youself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Several good essays, May 23, 2008
By 
Amazon Customer (Nashville, TN USA) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
There are getting to be a pretty good pile of well written books out there about ID. Even if you arrive at different conclusions it is difficult to argue that the authors are very bright (as are their opponents), and that they make some very cogent points. Since there are a lot of these books out there it is probably helpful to have a guide to determine their relative merits. While this won't be a comprehensive guide by any stretch, I think I've read enough of the key ID books of late to at least give you something to compare with.

To begin with, this book is a compilation of several essays written by what most would say represent some of the key voices in ID. If you want a synopsis of Behe's Black Box (in my opinion the most significant ID book) this is a good place to get it. You can get a good explanation of his notion of irreducible complexity with the added benefit of him having time to respond to some of the arguments from the Darwin faction.
The other essays are worth the read as well, and one you may find unusual concerns the potential for theology and science to learn from each other. This is a grossly oversimplified synopsis, by the way, but he takes a potentially uncomfortable and awkward theory and manages to illuminate with some potential examples that don't seem contrived at all.

In summation, five stars may be a bit high, but with all the one star reviews from non-readers I feel justified in adding an extra half star here. I'd probably read some of Meyer's and Dembski's and Behe's other books (especially Black Box), but if you want sort of a survey that is still detailed, this isn't a bad place to go.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


93 of 134 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Set Aside the Politics, March 1, 2002
By A Customer
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
...P>It's about S-C-I-E-N-C-E. It's about following the scientific evidence wherever it leads, even if it knocks over your favorite sacred cow. Seems to me that the scientists doing objective science these days, at least in the area of microbiology, are all on Behe's side. The rest are stuck back in the paradigm of the 1850's, and can do nothing constructive, only try to suppress his ideas.
Galileo would recognize these tactics in a heartbeat.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great introduction to Design Theory, March 24, 2011
By 
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
As i begin to write, i think it so funny that all the previous reviews are either 5 star =fans, or 1 star, =enemies.

I found this book to be a good introduction to the possibility that there might be an intelligent designer behind, say, DNA and the human eye. Every person who vehemently disagrees with this, has a previous dogmatic stance of naturalism/materialism, so they cannot logically berate those who have a dogmatic stance that there is a God, He is the Creator, the Intelligent Designer, etc.

p. 119 Even Darwin admitted that if any complex organ could be found that had not 'descended,' his theory would "absolutely break down." Darwin successfully threw the burden of proof on the non-scientists, non-materialists; it is time to throw the burden back on him, since the vast majority of people before him, and after him, are religious and believe in a Creator/Designer. Ruling out Design arguments a priori is not scientific, it is an act of dogmatic faith. Even Darwin p. 171 admits that he has no direct evidence for the many gaps in his theory, and in his theory of natural selection and evolution. It is a good hypothesis, but only that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars THE LEADING ADVOCATES OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN MAKE A CASE, April 30, 2013
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) (Paperback)
This book contains three essays (as well as Appendices) by William Dembski [author of Intelligent Design, etc.], Stephen C. Meyer [author of Darwin's Doubt], and Michael Behe [author of Darwin's Black Box]. The Foreword to this 2000 book explains, "In September of 1999, the Wethersfield Institute invited three leading proponents... of the contemporary theory of intelligent design to Manhattan to present their case before a conference... This volume makes public the essays upon which their presentations were based... These essays explore other aspects of the debate about intelligent design and respond to various scientific and philosophical criticisms of their theory." (Pg. 12)

Dembski states, "I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives." (Pg. 35) Meyer adds, "Yet it is not correct to say that we do not know how specified complexity or information content arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can and do create specified information-rich sequences and systems." (Pg. 95)

Discussing Darwin's suggestions about the evolution of the eye, Behe says, "But there was a question left unaddressed by Darwin's scheme---where did the light-sensitive spot come from? It seems an odd starting point, since most objects are not light-sensitive. Nonetheless, Darwin decided not even to attempt to address the question. He wrote that: 'How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.'" (Pg. 116)

Behe argues, "The picture [Kenneth] Miller [in Finding Darwin's God] paints is grossly and misleadingly exaggerated. In fact, far from being a difficulty for design, the same work that Miller points to as an example of Darwinian prowess I would cite as showing the limits of Darwinism and the need for design." (Pg. 138) Meyer admits, "Because intelligent agents, and presumably the Divine Agent, have causal power that nature does not have, intelligent design may always be a possible explanation. Nevertheless, possible explanations are not necessarily the best explanations. Intelligent design is not always the best explanation for a variety of reasons... natural objects and processes have real causal powers... that may be clearly evident in a given phenomenon." (Pg. 189)

This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the Intelligent Design movement.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 25 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9)
$14.95 $10.18
Temporarily out of stock. Order now and we'll deliver when available.
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.