Rating: 
Summary: A Very Well Reasoned Critique of Darwinism/Defense of ID
Review: Being impressed with the solid case that Dembski presented in Intelligent Design, I was a bit surprised to find such a low average rating. Of course, when I started to read some of the reviews, I realized why. These people are not reading the book carefully enough. How do I know this? Because the objections brought up in many of these reviews to Dembski's book receive clear answers in the book that are philosophically sound. Every objection brought forth in these reviews is already refuted by Dembski in the detailed arguments presented in this book. If you read actively, you will find it, and that is why this is an excellent book.Dembski begins by devoting a lot of time to the distinctions of science and naturalism, and the equivocation with intelligent design and creationism. Ironically, the majority of objections raised against intelligent design say that ID is not science and intelligent design is creationism in disguise! Dembski makes it clear that ID does not rely on any religious presuppositions (as creationism does), it is a theory of information and how to detect design, whether caused by a human or something else. It is basically the task of making an empirical observation that cannot be attributed to chance and law because it contains information. He points out that we make these inferences all the time. If I happen to come upon a romance novel with detailed information, I would naturally, and very reasonably, conclude that these words were designed by a writer. Similarly, Dembski argues, the rich information contained in DNA which is very complex and specified is more reasonably attributed to design. There are no religious presuppositions necessary for the conclusion that a romance novel was designed or that the information in DNA was designed! Let me make it clear I am not intending to argue this issue thoroughly here, I am just giving a brief description of some of the issues involved. Let me make clear that this is just one example of intelligent design theory and its uses. Dembski (along with other scholars) also attribute design to complex machines in nature that cease to function with any single part missing because they argue that the mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to gradually produce this kind of machine. Once again, this is not intended as a defense of these arguments, only a brief summary for those interested. A last distinction needs to be made between science and naturalism. Many people (including many who have reviewed) assume that science by definition excludes these intelligent causes because they may be unnatural. This is not science, this is methodological naturalism - the metaphysical *assumption* that all empirically observable phenomena must be naturally caused. This assumption rules out any explanation for origins except for atheistic ones as scientific. So it seems that rather than Dembski, many opponents of Intelligent Design instead are using circular reasoning. Even if Darwinism is insufficient to produce this information and these machines, it is considered the only "scientific" explanation thus it is still accepted, even if rationally insufficient. But this is "science" functioning as "naturalism" in disguise. Why should science be the handmaiden to naturalism? It needs to be clarified: this is a metaphysical assumption on the part of scientists that commits them to naturalism right away, whether they realize it or not. How is this justified? Dembski argues (and I agree) that this is inadequate for science because science is not supposed to presuppose a worldview, it is supposed to be as objective as possible. That means not presupposing naturalism or theism, and including natural causes and intelligent causes (both of which we infer all the time). Scientific theories are almost always inferences to the best explanation, which intelligent design is. Dembski responds in detail to god-of-the-gaps objections to intelligent design, as well as many other objections in this book. For an even further treatment of the objections, take a look at The Design Revolution. There is a lot of criticism towards Dembski's work as being unscientific and religiously motivated, but I think I have made it more clear that the reason for this is that the people making these accusations are committed to the notion of methodological naturalism within science, so they are the ones coming into science with a bias. Dembski's work is philosophically rigorous at times, and if one does not have training in philosophy at all then one will not understand his solutions to the objections being raised. If you do not completely understand the arguments Dembski is making, do not assume that he is religiously motivated and philosophically unsound. I am not trying to offend anyone by making this statement (and I'm sorry if I have), it is just clear to me that when one makes an accusation against his book that is clearly refuted in the book, that person may lack a bit of understanding in the reading and may need to examine the issue more carefully. Let the arguments speak for themselves, do not attack the arguer. I challenge anyone to give me one example of a religious presupposition that Intelligent Design relies upon to prove its case. You will not be able to find one. But feel free to email me if you do find an issue, or if you think I could help clarify something for you. burton00311@hotmail.com Lastly, I just want to say, apart from defending Dembski, his distinctions are excellent in this book, and that is why I gave it 5 stars. He makes his points very clear and takes care of any possible objections when they need to be taken care of. This book comes highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Well Reasoned Critique of Darwinism/Defense of ID
Review: Being impressed with the solid case that Dembski presented in Intelligent Design, I was a bit surprised to find such a low average rating. Of course, when I started to read some of the reviews, I realized why. These people are not reading the book carefully enough. How do I know this? Because the objections brought up in many of these reviews to Dembski's book receive clear answers in the book that are philosophically sound. Every objection brought forth in these reviews is already refuted by Dembski in the detailed arguments presented in this book. If you read actively, you will find it, and that is why this is an excellent book. Dembski begins by devoting a lot of time to the distinctions of science and naturalism, and the equivocation with intelligent design and creationism. Ironically, the majority of objections raised against intelligent design say that ID is not science and intelligent design is creationism in disguise! Dembski makes it clear that ID does not rely on any religious presuppositions (as creationism does), it is a theory of information and how to detect design, whether caused by a human or something else. It is basically the task of making an empirical observation that cannot be attributed to chance and law because it contains information. He points out that we make these inferences all the time. If I happen to come upon a romance novel with detailed information, I would naturally, and very reasonably, conclude that these words were designed by a writer. Similarly, Dembski argues, the rich information contained in DNA which is very complex and specified is more reasonably attributed to design. There are no religious presuppositions necessary for the conclusion that a romance novel was designed or that the information in DNA was designed! Let me make it clear I am not intending to argue this issue thoroughly here, I am just giving a brief description of some of the issues involved. Let me make clear that this is just one example of intelligent design theory and its uses. Dembski (along with other scholars) also attribute design to complex machines in nature that cease to function with any single part missing because they argue that the mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to gradually produce this kind of machine. Once again, this is not intended as a defense of these arguments, only a brief summary for those interested. A last distinction needs to be made between science and naturalism. Many people (including many who have reviewed) assume that science by definition excludes these intelligent causes because they may be unnatural. This is not science, this is methodological naturalism - the metaphysical *assumption* that all empirically observable phenomena must be naturally caused. This assumption rules out any explanation for origins except for atheistic ones as scientific. So it seems that rather than Dembski, many opponents of Intelligent Design instead are using circular reasoning. Even if Darwinism is insufficient to produce this information and these machines, it is considered the only "scientific" explanation thus it is still accepted, even if rationally insufficient. But this is "science" functioning as "naturalism" in disguise. Why should science be the handmaiden to naturalism? It needs to be clarified: this is a metaphysical assumption on the part of scientists that commits them to naturalism right away, whether they realize it or not. How is this justified? Dembski argues (and I agree) that this is inadequate for science because science is not supposed to presuppose a worldview, it is supposed to be as objective as possible. That means not presupposing naturalism or theism, and including natural causes and intelligent causes (both of which we infer all the time). Scientific theories are almost always inferences to the best explanation, which intelligent design is. Dembski responds in detail to god-of-the-gaps objections to intelligent design, as well as many other objections in this book. For an even further treatment of the objections, take a look at The Design Revolution. There is a lot of criticism towards Dembski's work as being unscientific and religiously motivated, but I think I have made it more clear that the reason for this is that the people making these accusations are committed to the notion of methodological naturalism within science, so they are the ones coming into science with a bias. Dembski's work is philosophically rigorous at times, and if one does not have training in philosophy at all then one will not understand his solutions to the objections being raised. If you do not completely understand the arguments Dembski is making, do not assume that he is religiously motivated and philosophically unsound. I am not trying to offend anyone by making this statement (and I'm sorry if I have), it is just clear to me that when one makes an accusation against his book that is clearly refuted in the book, that person may lack a bit of understanding in the reading and may need to examine the issue more carefully. Let the arguments speak for themselves, do not attack the arguer. I challenge anyone to give me one example of a religious presupposition that Intelligent Design relies upon to prove its case. You will not be able to find one. But feel free to email me if you do find an issue, or if you think I could help clarify something for you. burton00311@hotmail.com Lastly, I just want to say, apart from defending Dembski, his distinctions are excellent in this book, and that is why I gave it 5 stars. He makes his points very clear and takes care of any possible objections when they need to be taken care of. This book comes highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but difficult for general public to digest easily
Review: Dembski has put his obvious intelligence to good use in explaining, in scientific terms, the theory of intelligent design. Two caveats: One, while this book fills an important niche by approaching the subject from a purely scientific point of view, the presentation makes it difficult for non-scientists to digest. Be prepared to re-read paragraphs that you don't comprehend fully at first. Two, Dembski frequently uses examples from Christianity in illustrating his points. As a non-Christian who nevertheless believes in God, I would have preferred less belief system-specific examples. Though, if you can accept that he is using convenient elements from the most common religion in the English-speaking world, and not prosletyzing, this shouldn't be much of a problem.
Rating:
Summary: Dembski's "Intelligent Design"
Review: Dembski's treatment is less about the mechanism of a grand scale design by a supreme deity, and more abut the specification of signs that are discovered to hold intelligent causes. Described this way, intelligent design is an open scientific question. I was pleasantly surprises to see this controversial topic couched this way. Dembski presents his narrow definition of natural causation as something driven by necessity and contingency. That is, a natural cause is something that follows from determinism (cause and effect) or by a mindless random chance. Dembski argues that this view of nature is only self sufficient by assumption, and therefore deep reality holds out the possibility of intelligent causation that is both transcendental in its reach and unconflicted with natural causation. In fact, the evidences suggest that natural causation is not self sufficient, and this is plainly demonstrated in any effort were intelligent causation is discovered; be it in "... forensic science, artificial intelligence (cf. the Turning test), cryptography, archaeology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence." On page 106, Dembski writes, "... intelligent design properly formulated is a theory of information." On page 107, he continues, "... the world contains events, objects and structures that exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes and that can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." To look at the patterns of letters on a newspaper, and this much is clear. What Dembski calls an intelligent cause is far from a rigid formalism, as such causation can be as whimsical as any abstract painting. But on pages 109 and 110, Dembski oddly insist that intelligent design is not theistic evolution or teleological evolution. In fact, Dembski's intelligent design is every bit consistent with teleology and any creative process that derives itself from a final cause. Perhaps feeling this conflict Dembski admits on page 212 that: "... An act of creation is always a divine gift and cannot be reduced to purely naturalistic categories. To be sure, creative activity often involves the transformation of natural objects, like the transformation of a slab of marble into Michelangelo's David. But even confined to natural objects, creativity is never naturalistic without remainder." Dembski describes complex specified information (CSI) not merely as a complexity measure but also as a measure of intelligent specification/significaton. Therefore, the CSI content is a quality of a sign that tells of intelligence. Intelligent designs becomes compatible with semiotics and panpsychism. How we read CSI is a property of both the universe and ourselves. We perceive of design because we can conceive it in ourselves. CSI holds a self referential quality. Pages 160 to 170 contain the most important philosophical insight: that it is not possible to generate CSI from natural causes. Dembski "proof" comes in three parts: (1) natural laws by themselves cannot generate new CSI independent of prior signification; (2) random chance by itself cannot generate new CSI with any statistical confidence; and (3) the combination of law and chance cannot generate CSI. Step (3) is most intriguing, as Demisi is able to break the sequence of natural causes into a sequence of one-way interactions where findings (1) and (2) can be applied independently. This is reminiscent of C.S. Pierce's discovery of the irreducibility of a triadic sign (three-way semiotic relationship) in terms of the less dynamic dyadic (the two-way relationship). We cannot explain CSI by natural causes because we cannot remove ourselves and our powers of conception from the chain of events, no more that we can turn a triad into a dyad. Naturalism only allows for a forward moving chain of events, and nothing more is permitted for semiotic interaction. Chapter 7, "Science & Theology in Mutual Support", contains a very interesting discussion related to rational behavior (consistent with statistical decision theory) and the abductive logic of C.S. Pierce. Abductive logic is found to be the most useful approach to permit dialog among different schools as diverse as religion and science. Dembski's book is as much an interesting contribution to metaphysic as it is a bridge between science and religion.
Rating:
Summary: Best yet from Dembski
Review: Dembski, the intellectual leader of the Intelligent Design movement (which the British media, under, no doubt, the beady eye of Richard Dawkins, refuse even to mention) provides an accessible and fluent account of his main ideas. There is no technical or mathematical treatment herein which may have put people off buying his monograph 'The Design Inference'. Those who have followed Dembski's work over the past few years will recognise much that is familiar; there's nothing startlingly new here for them, but they will still welcome this masterly overview. For others this is the best introduction to Demsbki's work, as of this time. Because this book overtly links Science AND Theology, Dembski does address religious, and specifically Christian, questions such as the existence of miracles, the Biblical use of signs etc. I must respond to the previous reviewer,' a reader' in Nederland, who by referring to the books 'authors' (Behe simply provides the foreword), patently displays that he has not read the book, which is pretty typical. Many of the points he raises are dealt with and are shown not to meet the 'complex specified information' criterion. In closing, I might mention that the book is well produced and shouldn't literally fall apart like so many books nowadays!
Rating: 
Summary: I Can Do Better Than These Authors
Review: Here is what is wrong with the science vs religion debate. Science starts with the assumption that there is no God, that there is nothing except for the physical matter that we see and the laws that apply to them. It assumes that there is not and cannot be anything such as spirit (i.e. that our bodies house spirits) or God. Basically, science in this sense is a religion itself which is unfairly believing that physical laws are God, and are responsible for life on earth and the creation of planets, stars, and galaxies. Let me say that again. Science is a religion because it is a belief system, and it is a belief that there is no such thing as Spirit and no such thing as a Supreme Being or God (or Gods). Science then is not interested in discovering if the truth is that there really IS a God (or Gods) and Spirit. It is ONLY interested in trying to explain the Universe from a BIASED perspective that there is only physical matter and laws that we see around us with our physical eyes. It is as closed-minded as persons who adhere to a religion and assume it is correct without ever questioning the possibility that they could be incorrect. Open-minded persons are interested in the truth, and NEVER assume that something is or isn't true. Science is inherently flawed in that it only relies on physical evidence of things, and not Spiritual evidence. Writing about what exactly Spiritual evidence is would easily fill a book, but basically Spiritual evidence is revelation from God to man, as found in Holy Scripture. Scientists automatically reject that God exists and that therefore any person who claims to speak His words (a prophet) is a liar, or schizophrenic, or something. However, millions of people have discovered for themselves that there is a God and they are not a bunch of lying schizophrenic stupid people, as scientists would have us believe. They in fact have Spiritual evidence that He exists, which is revelation from God to them. Okay, I'll stop now but carefully consider what I said about Physical and Spiritual evidence of things, and the rejection by science of considering that anything other than that which is physical is possible.
Rating:
Summary: Unintelligent design
Review: I really wanted to like this book, and there are large parts of it with which I agree at least in principle. But in the end I can't give it more than three stars. There are two main reasons for this, both having to do with what William Dembski believes himself to be arguing. First: The news in this book is supposed to be Dembski's notion of "specified complexity." This is made to sound much more innovative than it is, and few mathematicians are likely to be impressed by Dembski's alleged originality here. The idea is just that when we see patterns rather than apparent chaos, and we find that we can describe the pattern independently, we don't attribute the phenomenon in question to chance; we know there must be something more to it. But as an argument for "intelligent design," this is an _ignoratio elenchi_. There's no evolutionist in the world who thinks complex biological structures developed by sheer chance, just as there's no cosmologist in the world who would propose _randomness_ as the sole alternative to divine intervention as the origin of the cosmos. Every one of Dembski's ideological opponents would argue that "specified complexity" is _exactly_ what evolution-by-natural-selection produces, and Dembski hasn't even begun to show this to be false. So if there were anything new in Dembski's argument, it would have to be, not his notion of "specified complexity," but his claim that order and information can't arise from chaos. But you'll look in vain for any argument to this effect. You'll also look in vain for any admission that scientists _always_ look for order and almost _never_ attribute it to "design." Dembski's examples are chosen to suggest the opposite: we know that watches were made by watchmakers; we know (or would know) that patterned signals from outer space come from alien intelligences rather than from random bursts of cosmic rays. But we also know that, say, the circumference of a circle is _always_ precisely pi times its diameter, and no scientist in the world would take this as conclusive evidence of "design" -- just of "intelligibility," which even Dembski himself is (properly) careful to _distinguish_ from "design." So when all is said and done, we still haven't got a way to distinguish the "specified complexity" that results from intelligent design from the "specified complexity" that results from simple intelligibility. (There _is_ a cosmological argument that intelligibility itself implies an underlying intelligence, but Dembski doesn't give it. See Hugo Meynell's _The Intelligible Universe_, which I favorably reviewed a long time ago.) Maybe _The Design Inference_ covers this stuff better than this book does; at any rate Dembski keeps referring us to that book for all the arguments he isn't going to bother offering in this one, making sure to let us know that it's all very technical. But I find this sort of thing tiresome and full of handwaving. Which brings us to the second problem, where Dembski's handwaving gets a whole lot worse. It's pretty disingenuous to claim that "intelligient design" isn't specifically Christian, and then write an entire book on the presumption that atheism and Christianity are the only two alternatives. Hasn't Dembski heard of any other theistic religions? (Hint: One of them starts with J, and Jesus himself was raised in it. And it believes the universe to be the product of intelligent design just as surely as Dembski's religion does.) But somehow, when Dembski wants to indulge in tub-thumping Christian triumphalism, all those other versions of theism never bother making an appearance. This probably won't bother any Christian triumphalists among his readership, but it should bother anybody who takes seriously his claim that belief in "intelligent design" doesn't commit anyone to Christianity. And boy, do the hands start waving when we learn that Christ is the completion of science! First we receive a fairly good exposition of the way the set of real numbers completes the set of rational numbers. (But even for this, the lay reader is referred in a footnote, not to a helpful introductory book, but to Walter Rudin's excellent but hardly elementary _Principles of Mathematical Analysis_. Really. How many lay readers are going to go look this one up? If Dembski had wanted to be helpful and enlightening rather than impressive and technically forbidding, wasn't there some other more elementary source to which he could have referred?) And this is offered as an analogy for the way Christ completes science. The analogy is never explained, so Dembski's target audience will presumably just nod their heads. Readers with mathematical backgrounds, however, may have a different reaction. So may philosophers, who will probably recognize that one can perfectly well believe in the _logos_ without identifying it with "Christ." In general, Dembski's philosophical sophistication is not great (yes, yes, I know he has a Ph.D. in the field). Here again, I think we're supposed to be impressed rather than enlightened, as when he makes a brief and general remark about naturalistic philosophers "like" John Searle and David Malet Armstrong, and then refers us in a footnote (in the _same_ footnote) to _The Construction of Social Reality_ and _Universals: An Opinionated Introduction_ without bothering to explain what _either_ philosopher argues in _either_ of these books. Good thing I'd already read them; I'd never have learned anything about them from Dembski. His scientific sophistication isn't exactly on display either. For a book that's supposed to provide a "bridge between science and theology," there sure isn't much science in it. And if Dembski wants to show us how to distinguish design from simple order, he really, _really_ needs to get down to cases. He's also very dismissive of what he likes to call "enlightenment rationalism," as distinguished, one presumes, from his own Christian rationalism. This sometimes lead to odd results, as when he remarks in a footnote (regarding those silly rationalists and their desire for "neat, self-contained explanations") that "Christ always destroys our neat categories." Really? Like "Christian" vs. "non-Christian"? Or like "design" vs. "accident"? Yawn. I'm a theist myself, I'm generally very favorable to critiques of Darwinism, and I do think the cosmos is the product of a Divine intelligence. But based on the quality of argumentation and exposition I found here, I don't think I'll be reading _The Design Inference_ any time soon.oon.
Rating:
Summary: I Can Do Better Than These Authors
Review: I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but anyone who thinks that this book is a sucessful exercise in expressing the intelligent design theory in scientific terms has been woefully mislead. Dembski uses scientific terms to ATTEMPT to explain the creationist point of view, but intelligent design is simply NOT SCIENCE. This is not a matter for discussion, any more than one could discuss using mathematics to define religion. The two fields simply do not work together. If you don't believe me, then you haven't read enough about science to really understand what it is. In terms of philosphy and science, ID has been shown to be fallacious, and since Dembski clearly has a religious agenda (i.e. Christian agenda), he should not be allowed to call ID any kind of science, and you people should certaintly not believe him when he says that it is.
Rating:
Summary: Dembski's revolutionary defense of design made easy
Review: In Intelligent Design, William Dembski makes his revolutionary insights on detecting design, first articulated in The Design Inference (Cambridge, 1998), accessible to the general reader. (He even opens with Homer Simpson!) But he also develops his ideas more broadly, perhaps most importantly by connecting his notion of specified complexity with a robust form of information. By doing so, he refutes the shallow claim that laws of self-organization can generate the relevant kind of complexity needed to explain biology. Since he spends his entire chapter six on the subject, only a reviewer who didn't bother to read the book could complain that he ignores the work of complexity theorists such as Stuart Kauffman and others. Dembski is intimately conversant with these works, and offers the best refutation to date of the aspirations of complexity and self-organizational theory. Periodic order, easily explained by self-organizational scenarios, isn't the aperiodic, information-rich complexity we have before us in DNA and biological systems. Self-organization explains what doesn't need explaining. When a critical reviewer fails to engage Dembski's concept of "specified complexity" and deal with his actual arguments, one should assume that the putative "reviewer" is either unacqainted with, or unwilling to confront the devastating case Dembski makes against materialism. In future years, his work will be recorded in the intellectual history of the late 20th century. Let's hope there's also some mention of the snide and ineffectual responses it initially received.
Rating: 
Summary: Same old, long ago refuted arguments
Review: Intelligent Design generally, and Dembski's arguments in
particular amount to nothing more than Paley's argument
of design which is a logically falacious argument from ignorance.
In sum, it says "The world seems complex. I'm ignorant of any way
this complexity could arise without a purposeful designer, so
God must exist." Such an argument can never be valid, because it
hinges upon the untenable assumption that the current state of ignorance will always and forever remain as such. No one can
rationally make this assumption.
But it is even worse, because Dembski's ignorance of any current explaination for complexity reveals nothing more than his own personal ignorance.
Many other's can and have explained how every one of Dembski's examples can arise via evolutionary forces, thus they are only "irreducable" to Dembski and others ignorant of the details of nature.
None of the ID movements arguments have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals because it is quackery that cannot stand up to reason.
Outside of a handful of biologist, most employed or paid by religious foundations, the arguments of Dembski and the ID movement have been assessed and roundly rejected by the whole scientific communtity.
If you want to believe in God, you must rely on faith.
Buying into Dembski's idea that God is a defensible rational conclusion is self-deception and a mockery to both reason and theology.
| 
