Customer Reviews

Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I'm not a scientist, but Intelligent Design (ID) has caught my attention. There was the article in the Wall Street Journal about the tenured full professor at San Frans. State U. who was pulled mid-semester from teaching the biology intro. course because he spent a single session presenting views such as ID that challenged the reigning Neo-Darwinian dogma. There was the fury I heard on NPR over Phillip Johnson's *Darwin on Trial.* There was Dembski's dismissal from his post at Baylor U. for inviting non-Darwinian speakers to a academic forum on the origins of life.

Why were so many folks so emotionally opposed to a handful of scientists who are finding compelling eveidence for God's fingerprint in nature?

I've now read a few of these ID books now and am very impressed. This latest work is a very fine introduction. The contributors are all top-drawer thinkers (Dembksi has a Ph.D. from U. of Chicago in Math. and a 2nd Ph.D. from Univ. of Illinois in the philosophy of science, along with masters in hard sciences and theology; Michael Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Penn and is a full professor at Lehigh U; Phillip Johnson is a logician who is a chaired, full prof. at Berkeley and clerked for the chief justice of the US Supreme Court; Stephen Meyer has his Ph.D. from Cambridge; Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. from yale in history of science and another from Berkeley in biology, etc. etc.) These are extrememly well-trained, sharp folks, from a variety of backgrounds and fields. But the essays are, for the most part, very accessible to laypersons, like myself.

I enjoyed every one of the pieces in this book, but especially Jay W. Richards' (Ph.D. Princeton Seminary) and Dembskis'.

Whatever your views on this subject, I would urge you to read this book and see what all the fuss is about.

If you are a free thinker, this book is an outstanding introduction to ID. Most of the poor reviews are more of a reflection of the personal biases of the reviewers than the book they are reviewing.

In fact, at least two reviewers incorrectly assert that this book attempts to discredit modern molecular biology. This book does nothing of the sort. In fact, this book presents a number of well-reasoned arguments that neo-evolutionary theory is inconsistent with some contemporary observations of molecular biology, in no way do the authors assert to discredit molecular biology.

If you are open minded and willing to confront science honestly then you will find this book interesting and intelligent, even if in the final analysis you do not agree with its conclusions.

Signs of Intelligence is a collection of essays from various scholars of the intelligent design movement who are explaining the precise meaning of the scientific theory of intelligent design. When the NCSE reviewed this book, they called it "aimless." A more accurate description would have been "threatening a wide variety of disciplines behind the curtain of Darwinism."

Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski opens the book by clearing up a common misconception by explaining that intelligent design does not necessarily mean "optimal design" (Also, see The Privileged Planet for a discussion of the concept of constrained optimization). Law professor Phillip Johnson proposes that science has adopted an inherently "materialist" model where explanations can never be non-material causes. Alternatively, Johnson suggests that science adopt a strictly "empirical" model, which uses the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation but does not limit its answers to naturalistic causes.

Michael Behe proposes some novel examples of irreducible complexity. Namely, the cell's protein transport system contains a number of macromolecules, all of which are necessarily simply to get a protein to its correct destination in the cell. This irreducibly complex system reveals deeper levels of complexity in protein transport and assemblage, beyond mere proper irreducible complexity in protein functionality. Similarly, Stephen Meyer argues that the specified complexity in DNA, combined with the inability of natural explanation to explain the origin of life, imply that design is the best explanation. Meyer explains that this is not a "God-of-the-gaps" type argument because we have much observational experience that intelligent agents exclusively produce such forms of encoded specified complex information.

Other essays include Jonathan Wells' observations that more than simply the genetic code is required to account for life, a conclusion which is eschewed by the dogma of Neo-Darwinism; Paul Nelson's discussion of natural selection as a tautology with weak explanatory power; and Robert Dehaan and John Weister's arguments that the "top-down" pattern of the appearance of biological diversity implies that design took place during the Cambrian explosion and in the history of life as a whole.

Rather than being aimless, this book shows that design arguments are spreading into a variety disciplines and subdisciplines. This book provides plenty of essays by leading design scholars as to why empirical evidence should trump naturalistic philosophy in a diverse set of scientific fields.

A previous reviewer mused:

"this book makes no sense, and cannot answer the fundamental logical inconsistency of the creationist argument. if coherence in structure in design presupposes a creator, who then created the structure of this creator? there then must have been a higher upper creator, who in turn must have had a creator, ad infinitum. if you are a creationist you will love this book, otherwise it is a waste of time."

Evidently, the book was not read. Dr. Dembski (editor) and the contributing works detail and critique the logical and structrual evidence of design and information extant in the universe.

The response of the "reviewer" quoted above expresses [a] that the book was not read, else why not address at least *some* of its content (or essential thesis), and [b] he or she was simply expressing their ignorance of the issues and of basic theology.

Modern science is in essential agreement that the universe has not always existed--it had a *beginning*, even time itself is said to have come "into being" at some specific point in the past.

Theology does not argue that God--the "Intelligent Designer"--merely preceded the universe, but that the Intelligent Designer is transcendent to it and is eternal. As such, his question is a non sequitor; it is illogical and pointless to ask, "who made this eternal uncreated intelligent being?"

An eternal, uncreated designer does not have a beginning or a creator. The "reviewer" is confused and confusing the categories of a infinite necessary being and a finite contigent being. This is a very low level, hack objection, but, sadly, we do still hear it from time to time.

Now, if the argument of theism were that the Intelligent Designer merely preceeded the universe, then there would be legitimate complaint--but no such thesis is postulated by theism.

So, we do have, by concensus of empirical science, a universe that did not always exist and came into existence sometime in the finite past. Theism postulates a transcendent, eternal intelligent Being that has always existed--indeed, that even created time itself and exists outside of the space-time universe.

Read the book for yourself. And if you want to understand basic issues of theism, get a good systematic theology.

Have you ever noticed that when evolutionists comment on ID books they are almost always hatefull, angry, and rude? (No, not always. I know.) ID proponents rarely sugar-coat a responce to the evolutionists, but I have rarely ever (if at all) read a mean, vengeful review by an ID proponent. I'm sure they exist so don't bother pulling out your quotes. Just notice how vicious the anti-ID people can be and ask yourself, if one person has to resort to name calling, sarcasm, and insults to put down another person's position, what does that say about the strength of the one person's argument?

I'm not a professional scientist but I've just finished reading these essay series. And despite the book's frequent venture into scholastic jargon, it left me thirsting for more of the implications of this theory that was once only taken for granted before Darwin introduced his Idea. I will read more on this. We truly live in interesting times. But I'm not so sure about the inclusion of Dr. Reynold's "Getting God a Pass" (chapter VI) in this otherwise eclectic but rigorous primer for Intelligent Design theory: I propose that statements about the popular understanding of the soul and the Athanasian perception of the historical Jesus be subjected, too, under the scrutiny of Occam's Razor, at least, with the Scriptures, not with Tradition, in mind. After all, ID passes the Razor with flying colors. I fancy myself a theistic naturalist, but in a different sense than defined by Dr. Reynolds: I believe in the Bible's divine inspiration but demand for basis of ritualistic systems and beliefs seemingly derived from it.

Anyways, I digress: I sincerely recommend Dr. Bradley's "The 'Just So' Universe" (chapter XII) in conjunction with Dr. Gordon's illuminating of the absurd Cosmological Natural Selection (chapter XIV). I aim to read Dr. Dembski's "The Design Inference" to grasp his "explanatory filter" of answering if a thing is designed or not. With the advent of our understanding of the cell's complex information system as presented by Dr. Meyer (chapter VIII), I say with Philip Gold: "God plays scrabble." Read the book twice and join in challenging Darwin without blushing.

Signs of Intelligence edited by Dembski and Kushiner is a collection of essays sympathetic to the notion of `Intelligent Design'. The essays are of an introductory nature and would seem to be aimed at readers new to this issue.

Traditionally, the design, or teleological, argument has contended that the universe and its constituents are the product of an intelligent creator, i.e. God. While appearing to share this classic theistic view, Intelligent Design (ID) is largely concerned with the narrower question of contemporary evolutionary theory. That is, the veracity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). For some participants the stakes of this debate appear to be high - threatening the very foundations of their worldviews. Unfortunately, as a result this issue is often characterized by angry ad hominem attacks, allegations of hidden agendas and overstatement. Following are brief comments on the text for potential purchasers.

First, with regard to shortcomings. Though the individual contributions are of a generally high standard there is too much overlap amongst some of the essays. Second, partially as a result of this overlap, the pieces by Percy and Richards add little value. Third, while he makes some interesting points, I do not find Dembski's approach appealing. On the one hand, he seems to be trying too hard to avoid the theistic implications of ID. While on the other hand, his mathematical modelling seems of the mark, attempting to quantify what seems to be an inherently subjective or intuitive process - inferring design. Fourth and finally, it is unclear what is the difference between ID and theistic evolution. In many ways the latter strikes me as more compelling for the theist.

On the positive side, several of the essays are helpful in identifying and discussing aspects of ID. Johnson is particularly effective in laying out what he perceives to be the underlying disagreement between the two camps -namely, their opposing metaphysical presuppositions - a commitment to physicalism on the part of Darwinists and a rejection of this view by proponents of ID. Johnson seems to be concerned with challenging what he perceives as unwarranted atheistic dogmatism in the academy - 'Darwin on Trial' provides excellent overview of his position. Indeed, for many, this latter charge of academic intolerance is the most interesting and disquieting aspect of the ID issue.

Bradley contribution is also interesting. He takes a broader tact highlighting evidence of the universe's fine-tuning that has come to light through modern science. Although the vast part of the contemporary ID debate is focused on the biological sciences, from my vantage point, theoretical physics offers the more compelling argument for design. Why is there anything? And how are we able to make sense of it? Difficult questions from any perspective, but, particularly so for the non-theist.

Finally, although I am not especially sympathetic to his thesis, Behe is also worth a look. His assertion of irreducible biological complexity has been a catalyst for much recent popular discussion of NDT. Behe argues that certain sub-cellular components are sufficiently complex that they cannot be explained by random mutation and natural selection. While he is effective in pointing out the incompleteness of NDT I do not find this approach compelling. Perhaps, I misunderstand his point; however, this strikes me as a `God of the gaps' argument- that is, NDT couldn't have created these entities so God must have intervened at these points. Though arguably the gaps have gotten larger since Darwin's day, this tactic has several weaknesses. First, it conflicts with traditional views of God as omniscient and omnipotent - reducing him to a type of repairman having to intervene to compensate for earlier oversights. And, second, negative assertions that something could not have occurred are difficult to defend. It is too easy for one's opponents to devise ad hoc stories to bridge the gaps.

Overall, this is a solid introduction to ID. For those interested in this issue a look at the opposing view is worthwhile. Although he is not an atheist, Ken Miller is among the best at defending NDT. Some of Dawkins' early work is also solid in this regard, e.g. the Blind Watchmaker. While with regard to the broader philosophical issues, Pennock's Tower of Babel deals touches on some of them, but is too much of a polemic for a starting point. I would be interested in hearing recommendations in this latter area.

Great book! I would recommend this book for ANYONE interested in IDT. For the beginner, it gives a GREAT collection of essays on the major topics forming the Intelligent Design movement. For the experienced Intelligent Design Theorist, it's a great handbook to reference, as well catches you up on some aspects of IDT you may not have run across yet. As a collection of essays, it's very diverse in it's approach to IDT.

The only person this book would not be good for is someone who doesn't want to learn a lot about IDT. =)

This book is well written in clear, concise language. I recognized only three names, but they are big ones in the intelligent design world, Michael Behe, Steven Meyer and William Dembski.

The book is a series of ID (intelligent design) essays, each addressing points of ID. Why it is a science, why evolution doesn't explain XYZ or why God should be allowed to play in the biology field.

Dembski's intro ended up being one of the more interesting pieces. He successfully (I think) dismissed the argument "But the design is really bad, what kind of designer would do that?" It is a theological argument, and not a scientific argument. Besides, bad design doesn't mean it wasn't designed. He has written himself into a corner though, since the statement "there is a designer" is almost certainly a theological argument and not a scientific one.

I most looked forward to Dembski's "A Primer on the Discernment of intelligent design", since I haven't heard him talk or read anything by him. I thought he had the best chance of making an impact with his design inference, a mathematical formulation that is supposed to be able to tell design from non-design. I was genuinely interested to hear his thinking on that. As it turns out, I am still wondering, as he did nothing to explain it beyond some definitions and hand waving. He just defined a bunch of terms, all of which I understood, but with conclusions that were not demonstrated at all.

While he compares his design inference to forensics, SETI's detection of intelligence and cryptography, what he missed is that all of those things compare a known to another known. eg/ Signals from space versus known numeric patterns, crime scenes versus known blood splatter patterns. What exactly does a intelligently designed biological structure look like? How can you compare a known biological structure to an unknown like a designed biological structure? I think his analogy fails here. I suppose he could use the SETI criteria and check for known numerical patterns in DNA, but I don't think anyone expects that to work.

Michael Behe gave a primer on "irreducible complexity", which is perfectly logical, but makes an assumption that any biological structure has been used for exactly the same purpose throughout its history. There is no reason why natural selection can't use whatever is around for whatever it might be good for. So, there are bird feathers which were never evolved for flying, but serve the purpose. Similarly, various pieces of the bacterial flagellum are found in other bacteria, exactly in their current protein structure, used for completely different things than propulsion.

Steven Meyer essay, "Word Games: DNA, design and intelligence" is all about the language in DNA, how the base pairs are like letters, genes are like words etc.. etc... I agree with him. DNA is very much like a language. I would say that you can just call it a language. The problem here is that Meyer assumes that "languages only come about by intelligence", which is a false assumption. We can't point to a language designer. Who created language? No one did. It evolved naturally.

One of the essays "Is Intelligent Design Science?" by Bruce Gordon discusses "creation science", a precursor to ID and why it actually fits the definition of science (at least according to some definitions). He basically dismissed it as "bad science", but couldn't call it NOT science. I believe that the same can be said of ID overall, at least as far as the current formulation by the people in this book.

I can't believe the amount of information that is packed into this book. Every chapter is a mine of diamonds. For instance, Jonathan Wells amazes me with his breadth of knowledge, logic and intuition. In chapter nine, "Making Sense of Biology: The Evidence for Development by Design," he makes a compelling case for why DNA is not solely responsible for the control of development. Each cell type, Wells writes, utilizes only a portion of its genetic repertoire, with factors outside of the DNA turning on the appropriate genes. But, he goes on, if development requires that DNA be controlled by factors outside of itself, then DNA does not control development.

Well can't give you more information. That is just a taste of a bountiful pot. All the chapters are filled with thought provoking questions and information. A book worth reading.