Customer Reviews

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Congratulations to Dr. Monton for an intellectually honest and refreshingly objective analysis of the Intelligent Design (ID) argument! Though in the end he is not 'convinced' by the ID argument, some of the key arguments do make him 'doubt his atheism.' How delightful! Especially in contrast to the marginalization that one usually encounters from ID opponents in such debates. If an argument has merit, Dr. Monton concedes it...even supports it. I envy his students at the University of Colorado, and would bet that his philosophy classes are quite invigorating. I only hope that his university administration does him the courtesy of reading what he actually wrote, rather than accepting the characatures of this work certain to emerge by those 'religiously' and aggressively opposed to ID. The academic community is generally caustic to anyone giving credence to arguments that even hint of creationism. And although many proponents of ID have religious backgrounds (even religious motivations), ID is not creationism. (Note for philosophy students: genetic fallacy alert!)

Dr. Monton is especially qualified to discuss the ID arguments, and brings his academic training in philosophy and physics to the table in a fairly rigorous fashion, yet remaining accessible to a more general readership. There are some sections which are reminiscent of an academic philosophy paper (which may put off the more casual readers), but Dr. Monton is careful to stay on point, so the overall flow of his analysis is preserved.

Dr. Monton pulls no punches, objectively evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of several key notions in the debate. He critiques the standard definitions of ID, even offering definitions he finds more compelling. I disagree with his labeling of ID as a 'doctrine,' however, as even he concedes that one can legitimately and favorably consider many ID positions in the absence of any religious predispositions (eh, hem...the author is himself an atheist). Perhaps the 'doctrine' label is more practical than technical, as most ID proponents tend to come from religious persuasions. I would argue that labeling ID a 'doctrine' is somewhat marginalizing, however, which is not his style. His prose is fairly intimate and intellectually honest (giving insight into his personality), so I bet it would be fun take him to lunch sometime so we could argue about it...

Dr. Monton does not constrain his discussion to the academic/philosophical arena, but crosses the line into the practical by taking on the question of whether ID should be taught in school. This hot-potato issue is sure to bring attention to his book, and as I mentioned above, I only hope that he is treated fairly by the academy.

Because the Discovery Institute is one of the primary proponents of the ID argument they have naturally taken an interest in Dr. Monton, featuring some interviews of him in a series of podcasts ([....). These interviews provide useful insights into Dr. Monton's thinking and motivations, and I recommend them to the potential reader.

I heard Monton speak at an event in Fort Worth last year. The event was about intelligent design and it had a theist and atheist who were both pro-ID and a theist and atheist who were anti-ID. It was an intriguing formula that proved very insightful. Monton was of course the atheist who advocated ID. Most of the audience did not seem to understand his position because they were not very familiar with the philosophy of science. And frankly, most people I hear speaking strongly for or against ID don't really understand it that much either. Monton was very gratifying to my sensibilities because he saw the gaps in scientific theory that many of its players ignore. I can't stand the dogmatic dismissal of ID coming from typical atheists where they say, "ID is not science" but then they cannot define "science" except in ways that exclude much of contemporary science!!! They are tripping up on the Demarcation Problem--which to this day prevents a consensus definition of "Science" among its theorizers. Till questions like that can be answered without an ad hoc or reactionary tone, ID proponents will retain the privilege of calling it science. Monton's position is admittedly rare, but that is probably because he is doing the hard work of philosophy of science and when we really get down to brass tacks, the situation is much more nuanced and sophisticated than many naysayers and spectators think. A person can advocate both evolution and Intelligent Design--there is no theoretical exclusion there provided one is merely rejecting the "all-sufficiency" of evolution as a macro-explanation. And an atheist can grant merit to ID without having to sacrifice his atheistic scruples. It gets tiring to be in these debates and have people battling straw-man categories rather than the actual and substantive arguments and ideas at issue: "ID is glorified creationism," "God of the gaps is no worse than evolution-of-the-gaps," "Evolution is a religion." Yadda yadda yadda.

Reading Bradley Monton's book, Seeking God in Science; an Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, was a fascinating, thought-provoking experience. A professor of the philosophy of science, Monton's goal is to help people get past the usual objections that prevent them for considering the arguments and evidence for intelligent design, such as, "ID isn't science;" or "ID is just a God-of-the-gaps argument." Once he clears the path, Monton then considers some of the arguments for intelligent design. He concludes that they might have some strength, but not enough to persuade him that Atheism isn't more likely to be true. I recommend it highly for ID proponents and critics alike. There's much you'll like and dislike, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

Seeking God in Science is a refreshing and fair-minded exploration of intelligent design (ID) arguments. Unlike the many ideologically-driven detractors of intelligent design, Monton refuses to set up a straw man, poison the well, or dismiss ID as unscientific. In the noble tradition of William Rowe, Bradley Monton writes as "a friendly atheist"--one who seriously and honestly considers claims that challenge atheism. As such, this book is a welcome breakthrough.

However, I take ID arguments in cosmology and biology to be, in fact, intellectually successful, not just worth considering seriously. That is, they establish the existence of a non-material designer. On this, see, for example, "The Design Revolution" by William Dembski and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

This book is more than a book about the debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design, this is a book that seeks truth while trying to ignore the culture war surrounding the issue. Well ignore might not be the word. Rather he is calling for a cease fire, calling for rational minds to cease treating this topic as if it were a foot ball game, and rather looking at the issues objectively. He says he doesn't care which side of the culture war he is on, he just wants to find truth, and he wants science to be about that too.
Interestingly he shows that today, many so called scientists are not interested in finding truth at all, their commitment to methodological naturalism, their own bias against belief in God, have made it so that they can't be about the pursuit of truth. I suppose that might be a knife that cuts both ways in this debate. However Bradley does a wonderful job analyzing all this. I found the book to be quite enlightening.
The book is short, but well written. In four chapters he discusses What intelligent design is, Why it is legitimate to treat it as science, What its best and worst arguments are, and why it should be taught in schools and why. In all this what he tries to do most is get science to return to being a pursuit of truth, and leaving the "culture" war alone.
Chapter 3 is the heavy hitting. In this chapter he says he doesn't so much care if intelligent design is science or not, what the real question is, is "Is it true?" He maintains this is the question we should all be asking. I agree. He then analyzes a few different intelligent design arguments, weighing the objections to them, and the objections to the objections. In the end he maintains that he finds some of them plausible, even if they haven't quite convinced him.
In the course of all this, he does an excellent job discussing what science is and isn't, and why it shouldn't draw up any barriers as to where it can lead. In doing so he calls sane, sober minds to prevail above the fray. I have to commend him in that.

A bravo book from a first-rate philosopher!

The first chapter on how Intelligent Design should be understood shows Monton's critical mind and academic honesty.
His clarification and refinement on ID is a good move, it makes ID's stance clearer and the discussion on ID more well focused. He has provided a "definition" of ID which best capture the idea in the mind of the ID proponents, an even better "definition" than the official one.

I also enjoy reading his treatment on the palusible arguments for ID, including the fine-tuning argument, which he thinks is a good argument, though not strong enough to turn him to be a theist; the kalam cosmological argument, the argument from DNA, from irreducible complexity and the argument from stimulation. I especially like his treatment on Craig's Kalam cosmological argument and I look forward to Craig's response.

The part on the scientific status of ID is also well written. It is suprising to see an atheist defending the scientific status on ID (more accurately, Monton's stance is that there are no good arguments showing that ID is not science, but not that ID is science. He thinks, and I agree, that whether ID is science is comparatively unimportant, the more important issue is whether ID is true.

This book has shown us a very good defense of ID, which I find even more convincing than William Dembski's. I strongly recommend this book to those who are interested in the Intelligent Design, no matter you are an ID proponent, or an opponent.

Length:: 1:29 Mins

An atheist philosopher defends Intelligent Design. I recommend "Seeking God In Science". -- Dan Marler

Dr. Monton does a very good job of splitting this touchy topic right down the middle. His warm and humorous,yet very intelligent style is an enjoyable read. It's a very tough topic to take on, but Dr. Monton does a great job applying the latest scientific and philosopical views. There are very few books that offer both sides of the intelligent design story.

I have greatly appreciated Monton's work on the philosophy of time and was quite intrigued to see him weigh in on the ID debate. The debate over ID is one that is wrought with ignorance and polemics, instead of careful arguments, making it incredibly difficult to figure out what on earth ID is actually all about. This state of affairs is the fault of people who will call someone like Monton a creationist because he defends ID, as well as the proponents of ID who--in my opinion--fail to adequately explain what ID is.

Monton does a good job at carefully defining ID and then examining the arguments for and against it. If you are looking for a good critical introduction to ID, Monton's book is a great place to start. Along the way you will also learn some of the basics for critical thinking.

The concept of an atheist providing an objective evaluation of the arguments for and against Intelligent Design is certainly intriguing. Monton, however, fails to deliver. Whether through naïveté or deliberate obtuseness, he gives ID the benefit of the doubt in every case, accepting it at face value. Even so, he finds the overall argument for ID ultimately to be unconvincing.

The following excerpt from Monton's argument (that "Intelligent Design is NOT Inherently Theistic") illustrates the depth of his credulity: "...the Discovery Institute definition simply says that : `The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection,' without specifying whether that intelligent cause is natural or supernatural."(p 57) So, the intelligent agent who is responsible for elements of our cosmos and for origin of life on earth isn't necessarily God, or even supernatural? Gimme a break!

Monton quotes Barbara Forrest as follows: "ID creationists continue their campaign to de-secularize public education and, ultimately, American culture and government, thereby undermining foundational elements of secular, constitutional democracy." He then says: "My personal opinion is that Forrest is making this into too much of a culture war," and that her evidence and that of people like her is tenuous (p 12). Either he didn't actually read Forrest's book, which he references, or he didn't grasp its import. Forrest is a philosopher who has followed ID as a cultural phenomenon for years: she knows whereof she speaks.

Additionally in footnote 4, he quotes from the Wedge document: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences." He again displays either ignorance or naïveté by saying: "...it doesn't sound like the Discovery Institute is on the level of the Taliban."

Here's what the Discovery Institute actually means: Human beings were created in the image of God by special creation in accordance with the literal Genesis creation account. The United States is the only real Western civilization. Our founding fathers were Christians who founded the US as a Christian nation with laws based on biblical moral values. Separation of church and state in the US is fraudulent. Everything positive in the West is the result of Fundamentalist religious influence. The Wedge goes on to say that a little over a century ago materialism set in and eventually took over, and "The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating." "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." That is, subsequently, all cultural practices, including science, must be based on Fundamentalist religious principles. Sounds Taliban-ish to me.

Monton says: "Even if the intelligent design movement is now focused on getting intelligent design taught in public schools, this isn't an essential component of the intelligent design movement" (p 15) He couldn't be more wrong. It's not the only element, but it is essential to the Wedge, and the Wedge IS doctrine for the intelligent design movement. Just Google "Jesus prayer opens Texas textbook meeting" to see that the Wedge is still active.

I could continue on with many more examples, but I'll close with two observations:

1) Monton's theistic arguments against atheism, such as fine tuning, are not, per se, arguments for Intelligent Design: they support theistic evolution as well

2) Those who still don't understand why Intelligent Design is not science should read Forrest's "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000)