Customer Reviews

Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

It is a tragic demonstration of what Cremo, in "Forbidden Archeology," politely calls the "knowledge filter" of science, that evolutionists can take the time to read the 428 pages of this book and completely miss the whole point. To claim that Denton has been "converted" to evolutionism is either a serious misreading or deliberate misrepresentation. Perhaps the following, from the conclusion of "Nature's Destiny," will suffice to demonstrate:

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

Can Denton's stance be any more clearer than this? Perhaps. He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."

He goes on to mention the various theories currently offered, unfortunately with a less critical eye than he should. Even the poor example of snowflakes as a highly ordered state analogous to the molecules of life is thrown a bone. This seems strange in light of the still unanswered challenges presented in his previous book, but it is an example of why evolutionism has survived-- the compartmentalization of science, whereby each scientist, assuming evolution to be proven outside his own field of expertise, discards or explains away his own contradictory findings (the "knowledge filter" again). We will have to be content with such excellent volumes on the subject as "Forbidden Archeology","The Origin of Species Revisited", and Lubenow's "Bones of Contention". However, this does not detract from the main thrust: the overwhelming evidence of design, inexplicable by "natural" evolution.

Another flaw is his requiring that "evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life" must somehow contradict his own notion of "special creation." Even supposing this were true, he errs in forgetting that the creation of the first cell (to use his evolutionary view) or DNA, or indeed the left-handedness of life's proteins, are in themselves worthy of being considered supernatural acts, in that they do not naturally follow from the (strangely fortituous) laws of nature in the same way as the origin of the heavier elements. He neglects to address the still unresolved (and fatal) problems regarding the early atmosphere, crucial to the origins question. In distancing himself from his perception of "creationism," he exhibits similar forgetfulness when he claims that his argument is consistent with naturalistic science--"that the cosmos ... can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason." But surely he does not mean to include abiogenesis and the fitness of the universe for life. Instead, one gets the impression that he is trying to be charitable to his fundamentalist Darwinian colleagues.

What Denton does do well is take us on a marvelous tour of how finely-tuned the universe is to allow us to exist. He does this in far greater detail than most other books of this kind. He covers such "coincidences" as the many fortituous (and anomolous) properties of water, independent yet working together to support life; the fine-tuning of physical constants; suspicious dovetailing of nuclear resonances; the fitness of carbon and other elements for life; the complexity and inexplicability of DNA and proteins; etc. As we read about the ingenuity employed at the molecular level for the sending of nerve signals, manipulation of electrons, conveyance of oxygen, and so on, and the many such contrivances that are essential for life, we are struck by the overwhelming, mind-boggling complexity of it all, and the sneaking suspicion that much is taken on faith in evolutionistic circles. And we see immediately that it cannot be an informed faith based on any scientific evidence, but rather a wishful, forced belief that such nanomachines could have arisen by chance. By the time we have recovered from our revelations about water and carbon, how wonderfully fit they are for our existence, by the time we are finished reading about proteins and the cell, it seems an impossibility that life, being so complex as it is, could have arisen at all, even if it were created by some supernatural being; for this being would have to be possessed of an intellect that beggars our minds. We are used to thinking of cells as simple blobs of protoplasmic jelly, as did Darwin; not so. Now we can understand wny the intricate requirements of life are usually glossed over in popularized treatments on evolution: either the knowledge was not available then, or the inclusion of it would have made evolution impossible, even ridiculous, to defend.

However, details even creationists take for granted are scrutinized, leaving us with a sense of awe (or gnashing of teeth): the fitness of the visual spectrum for vision; the design of the hand; our body dimensions and bipedal gait, allowing us to use fire and thus develop technology; our capacity for language; and so on. In doing so he shows us that the "chance" so casually spoken of in evolutionism quickly diminishes to absurdity upon open-minded examination of our cosmos; and that, indeed, we were meant to discover this fact.

This compilation of smoking guns makes for an always fascinating, always interesting read, bound to raise much ire in evolutionistic circles. Perhaps a better title would have been "Denton's Dangerous Idea." Apologies to many sci-fi writers should be forthcoming, as he demonstrates that many concepts of otherworldly life can be entertained only in our naivete.

This book could almost be seen as a sequel to Denton's first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed atheist (or agnostic). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What makes this book so peculiar is that the remarkable array of evidence he presents in the first 11 chapters is undeniably damaging to the Neo-Darwinian theories, a fact for which creationists and intelligent design advocates alike will applaud his book. Denton clearly shows how hundreds of discoveries in science have repeatedly bolstered rather than weakened the teleological view. Quite predictably, this evidence has made the evolutionists uncomfortable(see other reviews). Yet the conclusions that he draws from this evidence will undoubtedly spawn much more diverse reactions. He basically rejects the existence of God (and therefore cannot rightly be considered a true friend to creation or intelligent design), and retains evolution, albeit in a drastically altered form. His speculations are much more in line with the punctuated equilibrium theorists in this regard, but without relying on the randomness of mutations for the supposed upward drive of evolution. His rejection of God and retaining of evolution will no doubt please the hardened atheistic evolutionists on some level, but it will be interesting to see how the scientific community at large will react to this book. For the reasons I state above, almost all readers will pick and choose from this book, rather than falling directly in line with Denton's beliefs.

Thus where I found the true "meat" of the book to be was in the first 11 chapters, where he deals with scientific evidence pointing to design and purpose, and this is where the book excels. Denton's discussion of water's unique fitness for life, carbon as the standout element for organic chemistry, DNA as unsurpassed among any conceivable information-storing chemical, the rejection of alternate organic chemistries or any arbitrariness in the constituents of life, and much more, presents an astounding glimpse at how delicate and finely-tuned life really is. I found the chapter "Homo Sapiens: Fire Maker" to be one of the most fascinating in the book. Granted, he does enter into several "hypotheticals" in this chapter, but he does present a remarkable analysis of why humans are uniquely suited to possess intelligence and technology. Thus he even acknowledges humankind as the crown of creation. Denton, unlike so many evolutionists today, clearly sees the fingerprint of God in creation. What is so amazing about the book is that an atheist (or agnostic?) scientist presents the objectivity of design arguments. But he emphatically turns away when it comes to identifying God as the Designer. The second half of the book, with his conclusions, is a speculative mix of philosophical and negative theological reasoning, that leads him to the false god of a mystical materialistic purpose in nature. Based on his concluding arguments these book does not deserve 4 stars, but the overwhelming detail of evidence presented that objectively reveals design in nature, makes this book a very worthwhile read (and outweighs the latter portion of the book).

In this sequel to the seminal Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton provides various arguments that the laws of the universe appear to be designed to permit the existence of carbon-based life.

Denton initially explains how the four fundamental forces of physics and other parameters such as the expansion rate of the universe or the nuclear energy level in atoms must be precisely tuned to permit the existence of advanced life. While Denton acknowledges that many other authors have covered these themes, this lays the groundwork for some novel arguments Denton then makes.

Denton finds that the earth's atmosphere absorbs harmful radiation and is transparent to a narrow band of light radiation. This narrow band is optimized for the photochemistry of biological vision and the camera-type eyes in vertebrates. Moreover, the stable elements produced by supernova explosions, radiometric decay, and other processes are remarkably fit for the needs of carbon-based life.

None of this would matter if many forms of life were possible in our universe. But Denton's assessment of the periodic table finds that only Carbon fits the needs of life: it is capable of forming covalent bonds, and it forms appropriate organic compounds over the narrow range of temperatures where water, a solvent far superior to its closest rival, is liquid. Only silicon comes close to carbon in its utility for life, but it cannot form the same diversity of compounds as carbon.

Finally, Denton finds that complex organs such as the lobster's eye pose an insurmountable challenge to Neo-Darwinian evolution. The lobster's eye utilizes a precise array of reflectors which focus light on the retina. Evolution requires that all intermediate stages must be functional. Yet the alleged precursor to the lobster must have used a totally different system wherein it is "difficult to see how those halfway, intermediate eyes would have been selectively advantageous in an evolutionary sense." (pg. 356)

Denton concludes that there exists a "long chain of coincidence" where the laws of nature are specifically adapted for the only type of life which can exist in the universe. He concludes that the "anthropocentric presumption has not only stood the test of four centuries of scientific advance, but it increasingly makes more sense of the cosmos as a whole than does any competitor theory." (pg. 367)

Michael Denton's first book "Evolution A Theory in Crisis" was one of my favorite books of all time. I was very excited to learn that he had written a new book. This book was not what I expected. In it Mr. Denton appears to have changed his position re: evolution. In fact, I now have no idea where he stands on the issue. He does develop some excellent design arguments early in the book but then seems to lose the forest for the trees. I had to slug through the middle third but the end of the book improved again. In an attempt to be complete he included many less than fully convincing arguments. I have to disagree with two of his premises. One, that the universe is filled with earth-like planets-a contention that he throws out with no support and two, that life was programmed into the physical constants. This argument runs up against Yockey's argument that the information in the genome of even the simplest form of life could not be the result of physical consta! nts as it contains more information than all the constants put together. This book is definitely worth the read. It just isn't in the same league as his first book.

Now this is funny! Denton, author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," has accepted the reality of macroevolution, but now wants to jump on the Behe, Shapiro, et al, "fine-tuning" bandwagon! This is telling, considering that "A Theory inCrisis" was reprinted just two years ago. So, I suppose that in Denton's mind Evolution is no longer in crisis, as he totally presupposes it this time around! Perhaps two years from now, Denton will abandon the fine-tuning argument to pursue other "gaps"?

Just like every other creationist tract I've ever read, from Bishop Paley to Michael Behe, Denton makes the same old logical error and masquerades it as evidence that Gods or Goddesses have designed the universe to include us human beings. The error is simply this -- Denton, et al, assume that if the probability of, say, DNA (or eyes, or blood-clotting mechanisms, etc.) forming from naturally available precursors is below a certain level, than God must have created it. Although the argument is rarely stated in this way, this is the inference which Denton would clearly have us draw.

1. Either living things and biochemistry can be explained by known material processes, or living things were created by an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being.

2. Living things and biochemicals cannot be explained by known material processes.

3. Therefore, living things were created by an omniscient . . . being.

As much as theists like myself would like to believe this, it simply does not follow from any scientific or logical considerations. For one, the arguement is fallacious. As any freshman logic student could point out, premise one presents what is known as a "false dichotomy." The options of "known material processes" and "Omniscient beings" are not jointly exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive. Hence, insofar as this and similar arguments are derived from this unstated premise, the whole form of argument is invalid. The second premise is also dubious. For one, even if the formation of DNA, etc., is not currently well-understood, it is purely a statement of faith -not fact- to say that it cannot --in principle-- be explained in the future as our biochemical knowledge expands. Of course, if you look at the past, this is a trend of sorts. Creationsists or proto-Creationsts used to insist that various features of the physical and biological world cannot be explained as natural processes, and that therefore "God did it." When the storms and lightening came, when the flood waters rose, when the crops failed, when the baby was born, Denton's ancestors -those rain-makers and stick-shakers- jumped up and said "God did it!" As the centuries past, and as science accumulated its observations, these once mysterious processes were revealed to be simple, mindless, physical processes. Today, with the boundaries or knowledge having been pushed back a little further, the creationist must resort to more exotic realms than did his ancestors if he wants to have even a mild stab at credibility -- today we talk about the probability of forming photo-sensitive cells or of the universe beginning to exist because thats where time and continued observation have currently left the boundaries of knowledge. The specific subject matter is different, but the form of argument is the same. Whether Denton realizes it or not, he is promoting a "God of the Gaps" hypothesis which, an hundred years from now, will look as silly and naive as the hypothesis that God causes lightening as an expression of his anger, or that God makes rainbows as a promise that he will not kill everyone on Earth again (at least not with water).

Denton's new crisis is as laughable as his last one.

This book has over 400 pages with hundreds of references from refereed scientific journals, and EACH PAGE contains one or more (usually several) facts disputing Darwinism. I recently heard an interview by a scientist who said (to paraphrase) "Dawkins is a good writer but he is somewhat stupid and totally ignorant of the complexities of living organisms". I would challenge Dawkins to debate Denton (a molecular biologist with MD and PhD degrees) and to dispute a single fact on ANY page in this book.
Denton carefully avoids referring to God but constatly refers to 'intelligent design'. He also implies that we have barely scratched the surface of biocomplexity (but already the case for intelligent design is overwhelming).

Denton's work (Nature's Destiny) is an interesting compendium of scientific data. It could serve as a reference work in a basic science course. His premise, however, is tautological. Humans observe nature; they quantify these observations and compile them into data and produce paradigms that become scientific laws; they conclude that they can exist as a result of these laws. Of course they do, they could not observe nature without existing. The obvious is hardly profound. That the descriptors of nature are `just so' is not a good premise on which to base such a conclusion. Denton's presuppositions are purely theoretical as witnessed by the profusion of `could', `perhaps', `if' and other words of possibility. Speculation is fine when guessing what will happen but not really enlightening when discussing what has happened. Denton appears to be balancing on a teeter-totter. At one moment he leans to the natural, at the next toward the supernatural (although he assiduously avoids the later term). His frequent quotations smack of an ad populum argument while a host of contrary opinions could be cited. The terms that Denton frequently uses, such as design, purpose, plan, etc., certainly imply that intelligence must be invoked. Our understanding of intelligence further implies a personality; we know of no intelligence apart from a mind. Denton needs to pursue the more difficult, primal question, `whence the purpose?' On page 293, in regard to the origin of life, Denton comments, "...it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred, and the event remains as enigmatic as ever." Nonsense, there are a profusion of ideas from science and at least one from theology. Overall I found the book to be informative and easy to read; it is a welcome addition to my library. However, I was not impressed with the thrust, evidence or conclusion of the argument.

It is a sad fact about Western civilization that so many individuals choose either Creationism or neo-Darwinianism as an explanation for life. Denton's excellent book demonstrates in great scientific detail why there is a rational, evidence-based third alternative to these "isms."

In the 1930's the work of Charles Darwin was combined with the discovery of genes, and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution was created. In a nutshell, random genetic mutations are thought to occur within an organism's genetic code. Most mutations are harmful, but beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival - a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

It is this assertion - that the variation is entirely random, purely a matter of chance - that sticks in the craw of so many people. The Catholic Church accepts evolution as a historical fact, but believes that evolution is guided by the mind of God. Evolution as a biological fact was accepted before Darwin, but the modern theory of evolution has two main planks: random mutation leading to variety of form, and natural selection operating on this variety in order to perpetuate those mutations that favor survival and reproduction.

Evolution as a fact of nature can hardly be disputed - the evidence for it comes from the geological record; from vestiges of now-useless parts, such as our own tailbones and appendixes; and from phenomena such as strains of bacteria that develop growing resistance to antibiotics. Nor can it be denied that natural selection operates in favor of certain inherited characteristics.

The legitimate source of controversy concerns the first tenet - that is, whether or not all mutation is purely random. In the orthodox view it has come to be believed that the natural variation found in the off-spring of plants and animals arises through chance and natural selection alone, but Darwin himself was in doubt of this. Unlike many modern neo-Darwinians, Darwin was modest and undogmatic in his claims. In correspondence with Asa Gray of Harvard on divine design Darwin wrote to Gray, one year after the Origin of Species: "...about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design." A year later Darwin wrote to Gray: "With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show a white flag than to fire ... [a] shot...You say that you are in a haze; I am in thick mud; ... yet I cannot keep out of the question."

Science suggests to us a picture of a universe that is creative; but is this creativity the result of blind chance, or of the action of mind? If minds can produce blisters on skin under hypnosis, influence radioactive decay and possibly collapse state vectors in the brain in a desired direction, then it could conceivably direct mutation by affecting the nucleotides in DNA.

Chance may very well play a large role in evolution, but the hypothesis of directed mutation and the Darwinian interpretations of evolution are not mutually exclusive. The completely random nature of genetic mutation is an assumption, and evidence to the contrary has been found (see bibliography below). Since mutation occurs at the atomic and molecular level, it may possibly be influenced by the psychokinetic powers of human or non-human minds. The direction of evolution may also have been "built in" to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology from the beginning, and geneticist Michael Denton provides a compelling argument for this.

Denton refers to the idea of random, undirected mutation as "the fundamental assumption upon which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based", and as "an unquestioned article of faith."

In his remarkable book Nature's Destiny Denton describes in detail how advances in physics, chemistry, and biology since the beginning of the twentieth century support the growing opinion within the scientific community that the universe gives every appearance of being specially designed for life. He eventually concludes:

"Water, the carbon atom, oxygen, the double helix, and many of the other constituents of life possess unique properties which seem so perfectly adapted to the biological ends they serve that the impression of design is irresistible. Many of these adaptations not only serve the end of microscopic life but also give every appearance of having been adjusted to serve the end of macroscopic terrestrial life forms such as ourselves. This raises the very natural but heretical idea that if the cosmos is fit for the being of higher life forms, then surely it is not inconceivable that an evolutionary mechanism for their actualization could also have been written into the order of things and that perhaps the entire process of biological evolution, from the origin of life to the emergence of man, was somehow directed from the beginning. I believe that our current model of molecular genetics sanctions such possibilities."

If you have an open mind - that is, you are open to new ideas, no matter how stunning - then read this book.

Chris Carter
author of Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death

Bibliography

Firsoff, V.A. 1975. "Life and Quantum Physics". In L. Oteri (Editor), Quantum physics and parapsychology, pages 109-120. New York: Parapsychology Foundation.

Nash, C. B.: 1984. "Test of psychokinetic control of bacterial mutation," Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 78, p. 145-152.

Symonds, Neville. 1991 "A fitter theory of evolution?: Biologists have always denied that organisms can adapt their genes to suit a new environment. But some startling discoveries about bacteria are making them think again." New Scientist, Sept. 21. Issue 1787. [...]

It's an odd book, not at all what i expected. I only finished it the 3rd time i tried. The reason i bought it was that recommendations had it being an important contribution to the Creation-Evolution-Design debate, being an account of purposefulness in the universe encoded in the very physical and biological laws of natural science. The first part, on physical constants and how little they can vary and still have a human being friendly universe, was tedious and boring. The reason i found it so was my expectations, i thought it was polemical, fast moving, directed at enemies near and far, in general combative. It's not, it is working through the details, especially the first half. So the reason i finished it is not the same reason as i bought it.

Secondly, it is a misused, misconstrued, misread book in the CEd debate. It is a testimony to the strength of the young earth creationists and their desire to completely polarize the conversation that this book is recommended as ID or even creationist. Simply NOT TRUE, the author is non-darwinian materialist evolutionist with several pages in the preface directed at this confusion.

This out of the way, what is the book about?
The first part, roughly half the book is an extended, detailed account of physical things and how important their exact characteristics are to the presence of life on earth. This is really introduction to the second half, which are the particular characteristics of biological life are generative of the forms of life we see around us. Essentially the book is an argument about S.J.Gould's statement that if you replayed the video tape of life on earth it would be substantially different than it is because the driving forces are undirectional particularly the spontaneity of mutation.
To this argument the 12th chapter, "the tree of life" is, imho, the key point of the book. It is certainly possible to read it by itself and i would recommend this to anyone, the central themes of the chapter are not dependent upon the earlier chapters. The following chapters are the details of some pieces of the puzzle started in chapter 12, fleshed out.
So i've reduced a 400+ page book to a careful reading of one chapter. So what is the point of "the tree of life"?

Taking the very old image of the tree of life, setting next to it the modern genetic idea of the investigation of DNA sequence space through time via evolution by creatures existing in morphological or phenotypic space. It is his idea that evolution 'fills' 'investigates' 'explores' the tree of life in a directed, purposeful way. The chapter is a speculative look at the potential forces that could constraint, prune, force into channels this evolutionary force to literally build a tree where the main branches, the general form was implicit before hand in those laws and constraints.

It's speculative, often i wrote-argument from ignorance- in the margin, as if he believed 'A' rather than 'B' because there was no 'C' on the horizon, and 'A' looked better than 'B'. The only example i really appreciated was the idea that Australia with it's extraordinary marsupial convergence towards placential animals elsewhere in the world, shows that Gould's tape has run and produced much the same creatures.

It's an interesting book, i would, if i could do the time over again, read chapter 12 to the end, then just skim the 1st half skipping the mass of uninteresting detail. It is an important contribution to the CED debate but i am afraid from what i see written about it that people are not really reading it before they recommend it. One problem is that it will be attacked from both major sides in the debate. From the naturalistic darwinian evolutionists because not-teleology not-designed is a crucial element of their high level metaphysics and from the creationist side who can not conceive of a design without a designer or purpose without consciousness. The second problem is that it is not polemical, not convincing because it is so speculative and daring, more a putting out of new ideas to see how they fly then a fully mature consistent position.

I can't really state anything that hasn't been said already, but I did feel compelled to write this after seeing a few rather poor reviews. I find it rather silly to claim that Denton "demonstrates a poor understanding of chemistry" when he holds a Ph.D. in developmental biology. I would venture to guess that the majority of the negative reviews had made up their mind what he was arguing before reading the book, and thus based their opinion off of that and not what was contained within. I went to hear him speak shortly after this book was released (which is why I bought it) at a college and the auditorium was packed with students and faculty alike and not one raised any claims to the chemistry or biology presented. Albeit there were quite a number of questions more along the theology line, which he had to state numerous times he was not arguing for or against "God".