Customer Reviews

Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (ConversantLife.comŪ)

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I highly recommend this book as a quick-read introduction to the intelligent design side of the origin of life debate. I was originally a bit skeptical of this book and only read it at the urging of a friend; so with low expectations I began reading, found it surprisingly illuminating, and finished it in two sittings. Despite several typos, I found it well-written, lucid, and engaging, and most importantly, to my relief it didn't seem to over-reach. I welcomed its brevity. As a shorter book its value is more to frame the argument than to definitively settle the debate.

In reviewing many of the other reviews, I was disappointed, not surprisingly, to find the response to this book so highly polarized: if one believes God created it all then one loves this book, but if one thinks that evolution explains the origin and development of life then one hates this book.

Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure: I'm an MIT-educated engineer that enjoyed attending lectures by the fabulous and late Stephen Jay Gould (the father of punctuated evolution) while in college. I am very well read in science (I am a huge fan of Alan Guth, Brian Greene, and Alan Lightman) and typically prefer to avoid science-related books written by openly avowed Christians.

I am also a Christian that believes in God our creator, but one that often disagrees with and occasionally is embarrassed by fellow Christians' understanding and analysis of science. Regarding my view on the origin of life, I would best be described as an old world creationist: I believe in the Big Bang, that the universe is 13-14 billion years old, the earth 4-5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs lived 230-65 million years ago (and I think that Jack Horner's theories on the evolutionary link between dinosaurs, specifically small therapods, and birds has a lot going for it).

I rated this book 5 stars less for settling the debate and more for well-framing the ID side of the argument. Intelligent design, at least as the authors present it, is less something to shake my head at and more a welcome facet to the discussion. Regardless of your personal views, I highly recommend this book as a constructive step toward a healthy debate.

This easy to follow 233 page book is one of the best summaries of the evidence and arguments for Intelligent Design (ID) in print. The authors answer most of the common objection against Intelligent Design in a very convincing manner that should convince anyone except diehard Darwin fundamentalists. As the controversy continues to heat up I expect more debates and books, but this book should become a classic. In an excellent section the authors review what can be done to help others understand what ID is and why it is important to science. The section on irreducible complexity was excellent as was the section on a fine tuned universe. All in all a superior well documented and well argued logically presented book.

Do you need a reason to avoid this book? Ask your self this why are all of the people who deny evolution religious? If there was any evidence that evolution was wrong wouldn't at least one person not believe in God? All this is a hands over the ears saying NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
There is no God, grow up and get over it.

It's easy to be a critic. You don't even have to buy the book. Just browse the TOC and spit out your rhetoric. You can go on for 10,000 words and make people think you actually held the book in your hand.

I bought it, I read it. I liked it. It was the easiest book I have found on Intelligent Design. I generally have a hard time reading Dembski. But this book was an easy read. And it addressed every aspect of ID that I have come across.

I was a little put-off by the first few pages that made the book sound like a creationist work because it talked about how naturalism/atheism is a dominating ideology (theology) in the media and in the education system that causes young people to lean towards atheism -- which is no doubt true. But after those first few pages it was all ID.

I liked the discussion of why critics continually call ID "creationism" even though they must know the difference, or else they have never actually read anything about ID. That reason being the presumption of materialism/naturalism -- if a conclusion suggests a possible non-materialist cause then it must be thrown out according to their "methodology." So when someone says "design" then these folks scream "creationism" (although it seems to me that if you insist on materialism, then you could use that "design" evidence to justify your belief that life on earth was created by space aliens, as we saw Francis Crick do many years ago, and also saw Dawkins admit in "Expelled"). Creationism, of course, is actually an evangelical biblical literalist belief system that says the bible is first and if science doesn't fit it, then science is wrong. This book is not that.

In my opinion this is the best ID book that I have seen for regular folk. Its a great book. Love it. Highly recommend it.

Although I find Intelligent-Design (ID) arguments inadequate (but not nearly as much as Darwinian ones), I would be unjustified in denying the book 5 stars, for its earnest pursuit of truth in the subjects, notwithstanding abusive attacks by opponents.

Let me first get off the chest my main dissatisfaction with the book. It needlessly mixes in Christian dogma while its other arguments may be persuasive to many non-Christians, and disturbing me most is (p.183) the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia that man "has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God...". Did the Holocaust victims transgress that law, or did their persecutors, following the law of Darwin?

Since speaking of Darwin, I might focus on a chief issue doubly discrediting him, the "slight modifications" he contends occur randomly in, and lead to survival of, organisms. Such slight modification compared to the lack of it hardly effects the survival of one group and not the other. There must obviously be a substantial enough difference to lead to that result. But more to the point is his allegation that an organism's form is functional in both stages of the modification. Often quoted (p.138) is his: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This is one instance where ID falls short. Its "irreducible complexity" (p.140) makes a strong case that such slight modification is insufficient for an organ to be functional in both stages. This is, however, not conclusively demonstrated, Darwinists continually arguing, though equally not demonstrating, that an organ can have a function in each stage. The trouble is concentration on an organ, like the eye, or other part of the whole, as if that part belonged at some stage to another whole. The slight modification is to occur to the organism considered as whole; so whereas it may be conceivable that before such modification the eye for one functioned appropriately in another organism, it evidently did not in the same one. It is clear without more research that absence of a functioning component of an organ in the same organism causes some disability.

ID's also introduced "specified complexity" (p.104) likewise lacks reliability. By it "Complexity...ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance", and "Specificity...ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern that could signal intelligence". "Pattern" is vague here. It is exemplified (p.106) by "ice crystals, but such a design would be embedded in the laws of nature". It may be asked whether ID would not belong to laws of nature as well; regardless, as an example of a qualifying pattern is given the combination that opens a lock and "is therefore both complex and specified, and thus exhibits design" (p.107). The combination, however, could be said to display a purpose rather than pattern.

Purpose, or goal, is indeed what ID looks for in the formation of organs spoken of above by Darwin, as noted by the authors regarding computer programs (p.109): "The specified complexity was there all along, having been inserted by the programmer to achieve the program's goal". Whether the formation of organisms is "directed", "guided", "purposeful", or not is what the great dispute is about. From purpose is then made something of a leap to intelligence, and God.

It has been my effort in reviews here and in other work (On Proof for the Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries) to show that the search for purpose in the organism's form overlooks a much simpler observation, of a phenomenon too familiar to be thought of, namely the behavior itself that distinguishes all live organisms: its "directedness" toward the "goal" of preservation. This purpose controls all of life, including the living's formation and adaptation, requiring no further searches in this respect.

"Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language" is a brief (sometimes too brief) review of the evidence for Intelligent Design (ID) written for general audiences. In this goal it succeeds marvelously. Easy to follow, well written and well documented, given the length limits of the book. Chapter 5, a response to arguments against ID, was especially helpful. The authors correctly point out that the claim ID is not science is irresponsible for many reasons. One was especially persasive, namely because almost every single scientist and naturalist from Aristotle, to Plato to the founders of modern science were all creationists or ID advocates. Actually, until Darwin most all scientists were some type of creationist and many were for some time after. This includes Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and the founders of just about every branch of modern science. It was actually only in the last century that this changed. Now, of the leading biological scientists, fully 98 percent are functional atheists, according to a study done by Gregory Graffin PhD completed when he was at Cornell University. What changed this? As Graffin makes clear, it was Darwinism who allowed scientists to be, in Richard Dawkin's words, "intellectually fulfilled atheists." Nigel Williams was even more blunt, writing that Darwin "destroyed the strongest evidence left in the nineteenth century for the existence of a deity." Dr. Ayala explains why evolution rules out theism, namely because they are incompatible, and that "Darwin's greatest contribution to science" is that he led the way to prove that natural law alone can create all that exists, and no need exists for an intelligent creator because "organisms could now be explained ... as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer." Is the evidence for Darwinism persuasive? This book at the least casts doubt on the theory that "destroyed the strongest evidence left in the nineteenth century for the existence of a deity."

This book is written as a quick introductory survey of issues involved in Intelligent Design movement and I think it accomplishes its goal. It is written primarily (it seems) for teenagers, but anyone interested in ID will benefit from reading this book.

The most memorable part, I personally liked is on pp. 108-109. It deals with Dawkins's highly praised evolutionary algorithm. When I first encountered Dawkins's example, I had similar thoughts: "Obviously, Dawkins cheated by specifying his target in advance. The computer program did not, without intelligence, produce specified complexity. The specified complexity was there all along, having been inserted by the programmer to achieve the program's goal. But Darwinian evolution is by definition blind, and therefore it cannot aim for any intended goal." [109]

Book covers key terms in ID: the explanatory filter, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity. Explains main misconceptions about ID and provides responses to most often heard criticisms.

This book was easy to read. It reads fast and worth reading for those interested in the topic.

This is unquestionably the best single volume to introduce ID to the general public. In 10 clearly written, concise, and to-the-point chapters, Dembski and McDowell distill the essential elements of modern ID theory. This book is of particular value because it not only explains the principle concepts of ID but it answers the critics as well. With a resource guide for further study and several other valuable appendices ("Quick Response Guide," "Ten Questions to Ask Your Science Teacher About Design," "Dealing with Difficult Critics of ID," and "Evolutionary Logic: A Parody of Darwinian Educational Philosophy"), this book is of great service to students and their parents. The subtitle tells it all, "Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language." Readers interested in pursuing ID further are directed to Dembski and Wells' The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems.

This book is such a piece of crap. In the forward it explains that there is insurmountable, scientific evidence explaining the proof behind Intelligent Design. The only proof given is that the world is so complex that, well... there must be a God!

Golly Jeepers! Must have been one heck of a scientific study to come up with that gold.

Here is a short list of what really pisses me off about this book:

*It says that everything besides Intelligent Design (ID) is idolatry and that without a designer, the world is moral-less and humanity has no purpose. Great job scaring the readers, boys!

* It uses a fringe philosophy known as naturalism to explain every belief that isn't ID. And in doing so, it demonizes everyone else but their own kind.

* Lacks scientific evidence, which ironically it claims it has.

* This book was really created to reaffirm Christians beliefs, not bring about a real debate.

If you really want to buy this book, go right ahead. But please read it on the toilet. You'll need something to wipe with.

As one who was looking forward to some refreshing new insights in contrast to the usual ID rhetoric, I admit I am disappointed in this book. Even their use of the term "Darwinism" is seldom encountered outside ID literature.

When I read near the beginning of the book "Natural selection is Darwin's substitute for God", I immediately thought, "What a terrible choice to foist on a truth-seeker!" This statement is followed immediately by the examples of Michael Shermer and E.O. Wilson as people who faced such a choice and had sadly chosen "Natural selection". This false dichotomy continues to hobble the Intelligent Design movement as they insist on conflating evolution with materialism. If only Shermer and Wilson had been more aware of the real choices available to them, different decisions might have been reached. Even Judge Jones of the Dover court case in 2005 concluded "many leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false, that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general".

The book's presentation of evolution suffers from a lack of awareness or deliberate denial of much of what has been learned in recent years. This does not bode well for their commingling of evolution with materialism. For example on page 19, we find that "our environment shapes us to be competitive, selfish, and cruel". This ignores countless examples of collaborative and cooperative developments such as the social insects such as ants and bees, or the symbiotic relationships we find such as the bacteria in our gut that aids in digestion. On page 25 we read "The hard empirical evidence for Darwinism is in fact quite limited". "Darwinism" needs to be defined very narrowly for this to be true.

Then there are the audacious claims as on page 41: "Intelligent design does not have to prove that it is a science - it already is a science". The courts of America as well as the court of public opinion have already clearly rejected this claim. The book itself confirms this. On page 45 it reports the results of studies that showed that 40-45 percent of the public holds to a recent-creation view, 40-45 percent hold that God used evolution as His means to create, and 10 percent hold to strict Darwinism (in this case that means materialism). Where does that leave Intelligent Design?

Many other claims in the book are sadly mistaken. To cite one, on page 178: "Evolutionary theory is essentially a relic of failed nineteenth-century economic theories about competition for scarce resources". Or again on page 196: "It's one thing for evolution to explain similarity by common descent-the same structure is then just carried along in different lineages. It's another to explain it as the result of blind tinkering that happened to hit on the same structure multiple times". Christian paleontologist Simon Conway Morris explains how evolution does just this repeatedly as he describes convergence in his 2003 book Life's Solutions. I could go on, but you get my drift.

The key point of the first chapter, we are told, is: "Intelligent design is so important because the evidence is so compelling, but Darwinists suppress that evidence to promote a naturalistic worldview". We are promised that the following chapters will show an exciting scientific alternative to "Darwinism", but instead we are treated to chapter after chapter of tedious negative evidence attempting to show that evolution could never result in the diversity and complexity of life as we know it. Some positive conclusive evidence and well established facts in support of Intelligent Design would generate some respect; however, for a Christian, a naturalistic explanation of life, even one that lacks a complete description, takes nothing away from the grandeur, creativity, majesty and subtlety of a loving Creator God.

I question the scholarship of this book when Richard Milton is cited as an authority on the lack of evidence for ape-to-human evolution (as if this is what evolutionists think). Richard Milton is the same pseudo-scientific gadfly who promoted the now debunked cold fusion phenomenon and continues to promote the luminiferous ether idea.

The book concludes in a literary pity party appealing to those (especially young people) willing to sacrifice careers and possibly lives for the sake of promoting the inevitable collapse of Darwinism. If God is God, I have to wonder what the point is of pushing the idea of Intelligent Design as science, as if we need this crutch before we can see God in nature? Alvin Plantinga, quoted as an authority in the book, said recently that evolution and naturalism are as different as oil and water (Christianity Today, July, 2008). The Intelligent Design movement would gain traction and credibility if they could get past the point where they confuse the two. I fear the more likely result will be more Shermers and Wilsons. One would be much better enlightened by reading 'Creation or Evolution' by Denis Alexander.