Customer Reviews

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

"Uncommon Dissent" is a great read. The contributors to the volume provide critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis from a variety of angles. Accordingly, the best way to read the book is to look at the table of contents, flip to the back to read about the contributors, and then choose the chapter that seems the most compelling. This is the way I've read it and have found it entertaining and rewarding.

Besides the great look, feel, and organization of this volume from ISI, readers will get a bracing charge from the sheer controversy inside. Challenges to Darwin have long been stock material in religious bookstores, but since the publication of "Darwin on Trial" well over a decade ago, the critiques have become increasingly sophisticated. "Uncommon Dissent" captures much of the best critical material.

Although many of the chapters are worth special mention, the best is the last, which is a reprint of a famous Commentary essay by David Berlinski. His arguments are rhetorically devasting and come from a non-religious point of view. As much fun as his piece is to read, the letters written in response to it and his responses to them constitute a spectacular battle of the brainiacs with Berlinski returning fire magnificently.

If you are interested in the "evolving" controversy over biological origins, "Uncommon Dissent" is an indispensable addition to your collection.

This book is better than I could have hoped for. There are a variety of different topics relating to Intelligent Design (ID) covered here and the depth of thought is impressive. It is really impossible, in the space of a short review, to cover the richness and breadth of everything in this book.

Particularly enjoyable for me were the essays that don't deal with ID or Darwinism as such, but with the related issues, such as argumentation tactics and intellectual culture. Edward Sisson analyses the rhetoric and argumentation tactics of the anti-ID/pro-Darwin crowd and shows how they are often invalid and unfair. Frank Tippler takes on the peer review system (which is often used as club to beat on ID), and shows how it is both historically anomalous and is used to enforce ideological correctness. Dembski does a nice job of showing how, often, supposed scientific refutations of ID cited by its opponents amount to little more than intellectual bluffing. When the bluff is called there is nothing behind it. Rob Koons has an excellent essay on why the burden of proof should lie with those who wish to deny the basic human intuition towards accepting design. He also lays out nicely how the Darwinian crowd has actually done very little in terms of meeting this burden of proof, whatever their claims may be.

Also very interesting and encouraging is the fact that, contrary to the (bogus) claims regularly made by Darwinists, the contributors to this book do not display a uniformity concerning religious beliefs. They run the spectrum from evangelical Christians like William Dembski and Nancy Pearcey to completely irreligious folks like David Berlinski and Christopher Michael Lanagan, who proposes the idea of a non-supernatural, teleological universe. Also of particular interest in this regard is the section of the book in which Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and James Barham tell their personal stories regarding how they came to question the truth of Darwinism. Of these three, only Behe seems to hold to any kind of serious tradititional religious belief.This spectrum of varying beliefs gives the lie to claims often made by the anti-ID crowd that ID is nothing but religious creationism is disguise, and that IDers are nothing but rabid fundamentalists who wish to overthrow America and establish a theocracy. Such claims reveal more about the anti-religious fervor of many Darwinists than they do about intelligent design.

The interview with Marcel Schulzenberger, and Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" are both fun reads, and particularly fun are the critical responses to Berlinski's article by many in the mainstream scientific community and his responses to their criticisms. This part of the book also reveals Berlinski's sense of humour in contrast to the often humorless, mean spiritedness of many of the most prominent Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. In fact, for an excellent example of the difference in substance and tone between the output of IDers as opposed to that of Darwinists, I highly recommend reading this book alongside of Niall Shanks' "God, the Devil, and Darwin." The one is thoughtful, substantial, and well reasoned while the other amounts to little more than a mean spirited, often dishonest, polemic. Shanks' book also provides an excellent example of what Edward Sisson discusses in his chapter of the book.

I'm not overly hopeful about the ultimate success of ID, given our present cultural and intellectual climate, but books like this show that even if ID does fail in the end, it won't necessarily be because it's proponents have failed to make an impressive, well-reasoned presentation of their perspective. Highly recommended.

In any field marked by an endless proliferation of droning monographs and marred by polemical debates, a collection of honest and well-thought essays written by various authors is always refreshing. Each contributor has a unique perspective, and because the essay format allows each one only limited space in which to express his or her views, the writing tends to be clear and punchy. And if the collection is skilfully compiled, it can reveal a broad spectrum of viewpoints while baring the cutting edge of the field in full gleam. Uncommon Dissent realizes all of these advantages.

Uncommon Dissent is divided into four sections: (1) A Crisis of Confidence, (2) Darwinism's Cultural Inroads, (3) Leaving the Darwinian Fold, and (4) Auditing the Books. The oddly-numbered sections contain three essays each; the even ones contain four each. Section 1 deals with the question of why an increasing number of people question Darwinian premises and conclusions. Section 2 deals with the effect that these premises and conclusions have had and are having on society and culture, largely through the offices of public and higher education. Section 3 deals with the intellectual transformations of three contributors (Behe, Denton and Barham) who have embraced and rejected Darwinism at different times in their lives. Finally, Section 4 - in my opinion, the section of greatest scientific and philosophical interest - deals with the internal and external consistency of Darwinism, offering more detailed analyses of the profoundly circular relationship between Darwinian premises, models, and conclusions.

The highlights of the book will be different for everyone. For me, they are too numerous to list here. A few of my favorites: an interview with world-class mathematician Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, whose intelligence positively glitters off the page as he succinctly explains the mathematical failings of Darwinism vis-a-vis the critical dependence of biological science on various branches of applied mathematics (Section 1); an eye-opening expose on the failings and inequities of peer review by physicist Frank Tipler (Section 2); the wars fought between religious faith and scientific orthodoxy in the minds and careers of Michael "irreducible complexity" Behe and Michael Denton (Section 3); and every one of the essays in Section 4. Of particular interest to me in Section 4 were Roland Hirsch's evaluation of findings from the Human Genome Project, and an uncommonly penetrating discussion in Chapter 13 (Christopher Langan) of problems and potential solutions in the modeling of causal processes.

Finally, I think it appropriate to caution potential readers against overly pejorative, polemical or dismissive reviews. The kind of person who could write that kind of review regarding this kind of book is the kind least likely to have given it a fair reading, or having read it, to have fairly evaluated its contents. Accordingly, the complaints and motives of anyone impugning the contributors' intellectual honesty or denying the scientific relevance of their analyses should be viewed with suspicion. Not only do some of its authors write eloquently and with stunning honesty regarding their personal intellectual journeys, but the book also contains original and deeply-thought analyses of the models, methods and reasoning processes commonly employed by Darwinian scientists. Such analyses are both original and scientifically relevant; if they are not classified as "science" in the most restrictive sense of the word, then the word should be rethought, and in fact this point is one of many that the book convincingly makes.

As those familiar with the evolution controversy are already well aware, the Darwinism-versus-ID debate is politically supercharged. As in all politically-charged debates, those with the heaviest axes to grind are often the first to leap onto their own side of the balance in hopes of flinging the other side right off the beam. Obviously, this is not how scientific or public opinion should be shaped; meaningful opinions are formed not through the preemptive closing of minds by those whose minds are already closed, but only after close attention has been paid by all concerned to all sides of the debate. It would be well to remember this before giving much weight to the opinions of people who are plainly attempting to discourage a fair hearing for the opposition, especially when some of "the opposition" do not so clearly fit that description.

This book is worth every one of the five stars I'm giving it. If I had to choose one book from the entire library of books written on the "anti-Darwinian" side of the evolutionary debate - and after reading chapter 13, for example, I'm not so sure that "trans-Darwinian" wouldn't be a better descriptor - this would be it. It offers the clearest writing, the greatest variety of perspectives, some of the deepest insight, and holds the reader's attention like few others in the genre. Very highly recommended.

I recently picked this book up and was extremely impressed by it. As someone who has frequently been frustrated in getting supporters of naturalistic evolution to lay out their case and intelligently respond to the obstacles obstructing its path, this book did a fantastic job of getting to the crux of the matter and discussing not only the evidence that evolutionists conveniently ignore, but the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary theory and how it is gone from a valid explanation of the diversity of life to an indefensible theory stretched beyond reason to explain how life spontaneously generated itself and accidentally came to it's breath-takingly complex form.

One quick note that should give you an idea on how well-informed this book was - the two negative reviews of Uncommon Dissent on this site as of the date of this post are quite amusing because they are both jam-packed with arguments that fall in line with the tired rhetoric that is actually discussed in-depth several times in the book. This rhetoric includes such classics as "Creationists are stupid", "Most scientists believe, and so should you", and then the classic straw men that evolutionists love to build of anyone who questions their precious theory as an uninformed religious zealot. God forbid anyone ever question evolution, and if they do, you are well within your rights to dismiss them instead of actually listening to their arguments. This line of reasoning (namely that disagreement isn't allowed) and defending a position is simply stunning and has no place in the world of academia. One of the reviews even takes Johnson's quote about science studying the purpose of the universe completely out of context and deceptively changes the meaning of it to make his quote seem mindless when it clearly wasn't. I don't say any of that to be mean-spirited, but it should be very telling to anyone who is considering buying this book that the critics who come out of the woodwork on these sorts of things can't help but to use the same empty arguments, even when criticizing a book that predicts exactly what those empty arguments will be.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of intellectuals who are skeptical of evolutionary claims and aren't hampered by religious fanaticism, even though the Richard Dawkins' of the world don't want to believe it. Naturalists need evolution to be true much more than religioius zealots need for it to be untrue, and this book explains that and many other concepts in a very clear and concise manner. As someone who is unconvinced of evolution as a means of explaining the creation of life on this planet not because of pre-conceived religious ideas or wishful thinking, but because of the inability of the evolutionist camp to defend it's ideas and come out from behind the curtain, I would highly recommend Uncommon Dissent.

I don't know why some reviewers here would tag this book as stemming from a creationist source, especially when chapter 14 is a dead giveaway. That only tells you that some here have not really read the book. David Berlinski is a mathematician and philosopher with a Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is also an agnostisc. I just wonder how such a person would help the cause of creationism even in the shadow of some Christians ascribing the first chapters of Genesis to allegory. This makes this book that more interesting because it does not try to parlay a bias, which one could immediately sense from the outset.

Not holding steadfastly to the rudiments and rigid conventionalist doctrines of religion, Berlinski is aptly positioned to offer his critique without regard to, or an invested interest in, any theistic-based paradigm. This comes as a refreshing introduction of the now ever so growing controversy over biological origins. Berlinski decries the suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences (e.g., quantum electrodynamics). Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all. And this is just from one chapter alone.

Then you have the late Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (chapter 3), another agnostic and a former attendee of the 1967 Wistar Institute conference. He is by no means amenable to the creationist plot, for he is in the business of quantifying the probabilistic outcomes of empirical data, which is what he did to the Darwinian model. So why are we seeing some reviews here saying this is a creationist book? As if these were the only non-theistic objectors, then you have agnostic Michael John Denton contributing a masterful piece in chapter 9 detailing the inadequacy of explaining the origins of natural order in terms of mechanistic processes.

From what I have read so far, the book is packed with information that is not tied at all to any favorite religious propaganda, but with bonafide doubts and uncertainties borne out by strict scientific and philosophical thinking.

It is difficult, as is obvious from the reviews here, to give an objective evaluation of this book as either literature or science. Much like a political book- the reviews tend to be one star or five star with not much in between. I've chosen the five star route, not just because I think evolution is a tautology usually only defended by near grade-school level name calling of the critics, but also because I found several of the essays well written and enjoyable to read.

Now before you push me off the edge of the flat earth, let me tell you more specifically why I liked the book. Even though I eventually became a high school teacher (Math- although I did teach a few Biology classes- poorly I will add) I have always resisted having theories or beliefs forced upon me at school, especially when they have such an Orwellian feel. I wasn't any more of a fan of the glories of capitalism, or patriotism, than I was of the wonders of evolution, particularly as I felt it was never the incontrovertible fact (note fossil gaps, irreducibly complex systems, etc) as it was always portrayed to us. And we were allowed no dissent, uncommon or otherwise. Frankly, I just avoided it altogether when I taught Biology, not really knowing anything about ID as science in 1982. This is where a book like this would've been useful, the anti-evolutionary viewpoint is voiced from multiple sources, so that the reader isn't left with the feeling that this is just one author's point of view. Although somewhat scholarly, the essays are not intended to be overly technical, and can be followed by anyone with interest on the subject. Most are well written and readable, whether one agrees with the observations or not, and are well argued, but the tone is not pedantic and there are few needless taunts of the Darwinian position. Again, I think it can be read by anyone, but anyone who isn't willing to at least consider the possibility that there is a difference between an unproven law of gravity and an unproven law of continuous linear development should probably not waste their time reading this book.

This compendium of articles from diverse individuals of towering intellect needs to be absorbed. The religious fervor of the Darwinists that write to my local paper astonishes me. If the issue were simply scientific in nature, I fail to see why they would have to continually knock down straw men and ridicule those of dissenting opinions. Instead, they are "evangelical" in their zeal to squelch and squash dissent. The authors in this book are hard to deride. Their arguments deserve a fair reading from open minded people. Closed minds who are content to be blinded by the prejudice of preconceived opinion need not bother with this book.

I see a trend. An ever growing body of scientific thought calls out for clarity. In the minds of certain scholars, aspects of Darwins theory of evolution are in need of an update.

Uncommon Dissent provides the reader with a collection of essays that outline different viewpoints from intellectuals specializing in several different fields of science and even some scholars from other fields (for instance; law) as well.

This book highlights the opposing viewpoint regarding the currently accepted position that Darwinian evolutionary theory is not only complete and total, but failsafe and that dissent thereof is a preposterous, blasphemous devaluation of scientific thought.

Outlined in the various pages of these papers are examples where it feels like Darwinian evolutionary theory is failing to evolve. Yet, the trend on the theology front is an entirely different story. Religion is becoming less and less institutionalized, more open to scrutiny and critique and more transparent, thanks in large part to modern scientific thought. Thanks also to scientists like Charles Darwin. However, many of the proponents of Darwin seem to be using his theory as grounds on which to establish a new form of institutionalized religion: atheism.

It is as if this community of abject materialists ironically corrupt the science of evolution, terminating its progressive evolution by adhering to the same precepts that sire its contempt for religion--belief.

It is extremely disheartening that so many intelligent individuals find solace in both the need for outside approval and the comfort of dogmatic and restrictive allegiance to set systems of tenet. The very systems to prohibit the introspection necessary for discovery/enlightenment. The belief I advert to is the belief that the accepted theory of evolution produces information necessary for science to discredit a theological/scientific cohabitation.

The debate rages on and progressively becomes more venomous more ruinous to the one component that bestows credibility--scrutiny.

A degradation ensues blunting the advancement of scientific inquisition assuming a position of resentful demeaning altercation so prevalent from the scientific community heaped upon the theological counterpart.

This argument has turned so vicious and so completely miscreant that it results in a thorough reprobate of the dissenters. My contention is that maybe a fresh perspective on the human condition is in order to illuminate the issue and provide grounds for pause.

I would like to reference a controversial past figure. However, my source is not biblical, since I do not assert that the Bible is sufficient. Allow me to first provide the content, then I will disclose the source.

"At Ramah Jesus had the memorable discussion with the aged Greek philosopher who taught that science and philosophy were sufficient to satisfy the needs of human experience. Jesus listened with patience and sympathy to this Greek teacher, allowing the truth of many things he said but pointing out that, when he was through, he had failed in his discussion of human existence to explain `whence, why, and whither,' and added: `Where you leave off, we begin...'

[text omitted to summate]

The apostles were a bit disconcerted by the open manner of Jesus' assent to many of the Greek's propositions, but Jesus afterward privately said to them: `My children, marvel not that I was tolerant of the Greek's philosophy. True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals.' "

From paper 146 page 1641 of the Urantia Book.

Certain scientists and scholars are just not comfortable with the purely materialistic viewpoint. When it comes to evolutionary theory and the unity of newly discovered scientific facts, the materialistic viewpoint cannot impede the advancement of science regardless of whether or not the new found facts seemingly interfere with the atheistic posture.

This book is an excellent collection about professors and others who
have doubts about Darwin. One of the best chapters was the eye-opening
expose of the many failings and inequities of peer review by the well
known physicist Frank Tipler. He shows that peer review, as we know it
today, has become wide spread only since World War II. Before this the
editor often determined what was published (and even in this case the
review was designed to weed out only clearly "crack pot papers").
Tipler notes that pre World War II most papers sent to journals were
published, partly because not that many were submitted then and, those
that were, were often written by dedicated scholars. Few professors
published much until the early 1950s because only then did universities
begin to realize that their prestige depended less on the quality of
their teachers than the scholarly reputation of those professors. From
this insight developed the publish or parish mentality. As a result,
many journals were flooded with papers, some written largely to allow
professors to get tenure or promotions. Now, instead of teaching five to
six courses per semester, many professors teach two to three (this is
true of most universities where I have taught) to give them time to
write papers (most of which, even when published, are rarely, if ever,
read). As a result, many more bad papers are weeded out by peer review
but, Tipler explains, many very good papers are also rejected. He
documents numerous cases where papers that later won Noble prizes or
were major breakthroughs were rejected one or more times by the peer
review process. He documents the fact that, all too often, peer review
amounts to pygmies standing in judgment of giants (page 116). He also
documents the fact that ideas in science papers that openly support
Judaism or Christianity, such as Intelligent Design, are likely to be
rejected out of hand. Yet critiques that support intelligent design have
a much better chance of being published if ID concepts are called by
another name and even have been indorsed by the leading Darwinists. His
examples used to support this claim are excellent and, in my experience,
are common. In short, lack of peer review hardly proves an idea wrong
and those who reject ID because openly ID papers have not yet appeared
in the peer reviewed scientific literature are using a rhetorical ploy
to argue their mistaken point. Actually, many papers in support if ID
have been published (I have published several dozen) but they can not
openly support ID (otherwise they would not be published).

Composed of fifteen essays and edited by William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, raises a number of questions as to the validity of Darwin's Theory, it throws light on current scientific thinking as it relates to Darwin and the importance the "Theory" plays in an increasingly secular society even though after 150 years there is no conclusive evidence proving "Evolution". The book's intent is not to disprove Darwin so much as it is to illustrate the close mindedness and propping up of a theory by the scientific community and present evidence that Darwinism isn't the end all and be all.

The essays are written by "intellectuals"; a broad spectrum of authors, not all scientists-no priests, rabbis or ministers are included, in general the essays are very readable. The book cites the treatment of those who disagree with the evolutionists, and the scientific community's efforts to stifle criticism and alternative views, although some proponents admit the "theory" is on shaky ground. All the while the "Missing Link" is still missing. A recent example, was the outcry when President Bush was asked if Intelligent Design should be taught along side Evolution Theory and his response was basically "why not?" The "scientific community" dismissed the suggestion as ridiculous.

The book provokes thought. Advancements in molecular biology, the role of DNA, better understanding of cell structure and operation all point to the fact that life is far more complex than ever thought. It is foolish and the height of arrogance to think that we know all there is to know. In the year 1500, our ancestors knew electricity only by lightning strikes or static charge they couldn't conceive the role electricity would play in the lives of their descendents five hundred years later. What don't we know today that will be known five hundred years hence? I came away thinking it requires as much of a leap of faith to believe in the Theory of Evolution as it does to believe in Genesis.