20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not groundbreaking, but a good resource, February 2, 2006
So as not to rehash the better reviews by others, let me list a couple of things I liked about this book:
1. As a person who is skeptical of outlandish claims on both sides of this debate, I was pleasantly surprised at the restrained nature of this book. The opening chapter, written by one of the editors, sets the stage by going to great pains to admit that ID is not intriniscally forbidden from the scientific forum (p. 17), and that it is at least theoretically possible that future research could validate some form of ID (p. 18). This in constrast to many scientists would bar ID from the table forever. Of course, this point is only theoretical at present, since the book is all about how ID fails as science (and mathematics).
2. Unlike many anthologies, this book, especially in the first half, is quite self-conscious about not being repetitive; the chapter authors frequently refer the reader to other chapters that look at other aspects of their assigned topic.
3. While most of the chapters are informative and useful, two are particularly so, perhaps because they are not as focused on refuting Behe and Dembski. Chapter 3 is an excellent discussion of why common descent cannot be limited to the certain classification levels. This chapter addresses ID proponents who allow for a great deal of common descent and those who allow for very little. While the former are getting more press these days, the latter are still active in large numbers.
4. Chapter 7 is a fascinating look at how nature can, and demonstrably does, produce complexity and apparent design. This is probably the most approachable chapter in the book.
5. Chapters 9-11, although a bit repetitive and overly technical, provide a good introduction to some important statistical issues, including a nice discussion of random chance versus natural selection.
Overall, this is a good resource for various arguments to counter Behe and Dembski, as well as more general arguments. Some chapters, however, are not as approachable to the lay reader and may not be as useful in that regard.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
139 of 174 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Critics are missing the point, and critique by duckbite, June 30, 2005
First, I will observe that many of the critical (i.e., negative) reviews of this book are surprisingly similar in style, diction, format, and content. While this is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that they are all the product of one author under various pseudonyms, it is sufficient to raise the suspicion. Now, if I were a proponent of ID, I would say that this situation could not have arisen by chance, and would suspect that an intelligent -- if unscrupulous, and not particularly articulate -- designer was behind this apparent coincidence.
Now to the point, which the critics seem to miss.
The burden of proof is not on Darwinian evolution, but on alternative theories: Darwinian evolution has been, and continues to be, predominant, and if ID wants to be considered as a serious contender it needs to show that (a) it has at least equivalent explanatory power and (b) satisfies all of the usual criteria for scientific theories. Foremost among the latter is *disprovability* -- it must be possible to disprove the theory, or at least to challenge it such that its proponents must provide a (disprovable) alternative theory that has the same explanatory power.
ID is not disprovable, by definition: no "theory" that has a magic escape clause ("and then a miracle happens") is disprovable, because a miracle (extra-scientific event) can always be (and always is) invoked.
If (for example) human remains were found in strata corresonding to the Cretaceous -- not just once, but in many locations -- this would be a blow to the prevailing theory. This has not, to my knowledge, happened -- nor has any other piece of concrete evidence arisen to challenge evolution. All of the arguments advanced by ID proponents are "gap" arguments, or -- in the case of Behe and Dembski -- arguments based on misapplications or misrepresentations of scientific principles (such as the second law of theormodynamics).
The second half of my title -- "critique by duckbite" -- refers to the tendency for the (negative) critics to fixate on one small aspect of one of the 13 chapters in WIDF. Another way to put this is that they are missing the forest by focusing on one twig on one particular branch of one particular tree. For example, to claim that an author is a sloppy scholar on the basis of one slightly incorrect citation (of a web site, no less) is simply fatuous, and smacks of ad hominem argument. If you critics are so desperate to find flaws in this book that you are fixated on trivia like this, your very desperation speaks volumes about the actual (high) quality of the book.
You can't dissect this book: you have to take all of the arguments collectively, as a whole. And as a whole, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can fail to find it convincing.
BTW, unlike many -- I said "many", not "most" or "all", so don't get your knickers in a twist if you happen to have read it -- of the negative critics, I actually read and understood the entire book, and am also sufficiently conversant with all of the disciplines involved that I understand all of the issues and arguments. I know the molecular biology, I know the physics, I know the biochemistry, and I am a professional AI researcher with over 20 years of practice, so I understand the philosophical and computational issues as well.
The bottom line is that the only thing that distinguishes ID from creationism of any other stripe are the fact that its proponents are disingenuous about their religious bias, and its claim to scientific legitimacy: absent the legitimate scientific underpinnings, it's just another attempt to push religion into the science curriculum. And WIDF demolishes all of the supposed scientific underpinnings of ID. Demolishes.
The burden of proof is on you, (negative) critics, and on Behe and Dembski and their ilk: you have not demonstrated that ID is science in even the remotest sense of the term, and until that day you have no business claiming that it's a plausible alternative to Darwinian evolution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
36 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is one of the best books, October 2, 2004
This is one of the best books about the newest attack on science by adherents of intelligent design (mostly affiliated with the Discovery Institute of Seattle). It is a very fine addition to the books by Niall Shanks, Mark Perakh, and Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, which all have appeared recently and have already caused a lot of discussion. Unlike the three other books, this is not a creation of a single author (or two co-authors) but an anthology with 13 contributors. This format allowed for presenting a rainbow of views from different vantage points. All chapters, however, are united in the overall thesis according to which the new form of creationism, dubbed intelligent design, differs from the earlier versions of creationism in its seemingly larger sophistication, but essentially is as fallacious as its more primitive predecessors. While some of the arguments advanced in this book were heard before, in this or that form, the book contains plenty of fresh material as well, and when a previously known argument is reproduced it is usually done in a somehow novel fashion. A reader will find in this book many interesting points specifically addressing various fallacious assertions by intelligent design proponents. I was dismayed reading the numerous dismissive reviews of this book which blatantly distort the contents of this book and reflect the visceral rejection of its arguments by reviewers who more often than not do not at all talk about what the book actually says, indulging instead in unsubstantiated assaults.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
